.
by
Tadej Bajda a.k.a.Tamal Krishna
das Krsko, Slovenia
.
.
Abstract
Description of a fictional device, cylindrical in shape, for starting a low energy nuclear reaction. Using an environment of hydrogen and nickel charecteristics, similiar to one in an E-Cat. Imagining hydrogen molecul as a spring resonant system and simply using frequency and power of electricity as a catalyst.
.
.
Dear Mr. Rossi
Congratulations on your very important validation.
It has now been 3 weeks since your reactor was shipped from Italy. Can you tell us if it arrived safely at your partner’s site yet.
Thanks
Larry
dear Andrea. have you thought about the use of piezoceramic materials (oxides sintered)
to increase the reaction? But I think that the Curie temperature of these materials does not allow the occurrence of pyroelectricity above a certain temperature
Thanks for answering
And to all those readers of these multiple postings by so many members of the public. May I remind you all. Science is based on EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. Andrea Rossi has given us that EVIDENCE. But even now – our media are reluctant to report on this. You may well ask yourselves why?
I would urgently request that those who support this evidence take the trouble to advise their friends and neighbours, their colleagues and their acquaintances – that there is now an energy supply source that has the potential to rid them of their ‘grid locked’ dependency on their conventional utility suppliers. This is WONDERFUL news. And it needs to go viral. Why then is it that EVEN NOW – our media – to man – are reluctant to report on this? Are they embarrassed? They should be. Their lack of comment on this subject has been ‘noisy’ not withstanding. And they have reneged on their duties to keep the public informed on the progress of a science that kicks our standard model into the dark ages. Sadly. I doubt that anyone will ever again find confidence in their usual ‘rags’. I personally, am now reasonably satisfied that there is no such thing as ‘unbiased’ journalism.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Dear Andrea,
Cold fusion was brutally scarred when it first became public – I think in the early 90’s. And Fleischmann and Pons were both ridiculed – and discredited. Foremost in that campaign was the need to advise the public that the results were FLAWED. I think it was MIT that led the so called ‘replications’ and that attack. And they also then first advanced the term ‘a pathological science’. Which is precisely how they very efficiently managed to ‘snuff out’ all public interest in cold fusion and put it out of reach of any respectable research efforts.
Thankfully there were other experts in the field who ‘checked’ that experiment – notwithstanding those vociferous disclaimers. And this is precisely where your own experimental genius has come to the fore. Not only did you expose those ‘denials’ which were clearly driven by undisclosed ‘agendas’ but you forged ahead with the required prototypes for application. Which was brave. You were taking on the entire academic world as well as a very affluent energy market with its competing agendas.
But now that there are a veritable TEAM of internationally acknowledged academic EXPERTS that have validated your results – then ANY residual murmurings and mutterings about errors or anything else is simply INAPPROPRIATE. Bravo Andrea. This vindication of your work is SWEET. Very well done. We needed a giant to confront the army of vested interests that have been trying to ‘kill off’ this much needed and relatively inexpensive and very clean – ENERGY SOURCE. All those utility suppliers – oil producers – and on and on… In my book cold fusion ROCKS. And so do you.
With the very best and kindest of regards
Rosemary Ainslie
Dear Andrea Rossi:
Could you please elaborate on your response to Steven Karels’ question no. 2, regarding actively removing heat from the reactor? I have been following your work for well over two years and still don’t understand the concept of external heating as a method of reactor stabilization, after the reaction has been initiated. I have heard the argument that heating is necessary for safety, to prevent run-away reaction and melting. That seems counter intuitive. In addition; heat must be removed at some point if the reactor is to be put to use (as a space heater, or for making electricity). Could you please explain how this is accomplished (aside from the SSM issue) so as to obtain the benefits of the excess heat that the reactor produces? Can one use a working fluid, such as water or another volatile chemical? Is this not a form of “active” cooling? Appreciate your effort in clarification of this point.
Regards; HRG.
Dear Ville Kanninen:
Yes.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dead Andrea Rossi,
Congratulations, this must be really euphoric happy time for you.
Are you applying or have you tested to apply vacuum to your nickel powder charge, before pressurising it with hydrogen ?
Kind regards,
Ville Kanninen
Dear Mr Rossi,
I am looking into the idea of using the newer type of thermovoltaic chips which can be applied directly to the body of the Ecat reactor and then wrapping the the entire body of the Ecat and Thermovoltaic chips in a water jacket. This would provide power and hot water. The thermovoltaics need a temperature difference to function correctly, The Ecat on one side providing 700 degree heat and the other side with the water jacket providing 60 degree temp which will create the temperature difference. I know that the Thermovoltaics (17-20% efficient) are not as efficient as a steam turbine but for smaller Ecat units of 10kw to 100kw it would provide a maintance free electricial and water heating unit. I would like to hear your thoughts and how do we progress from this point as I would like to obtain grant funding from the Australian government to pursue this line of design. I am an engineer and want to start building systems with the Ecat
Thank you for all your hard work
Dear Paolo,
I read the article on Repubblica, is sincere and honest, but contains some imprecision:
1- the peer reviewing has been done. Read more carefully the report . Arxiv has anyway a peer reviewing ( a publication must be examined by at least one of the competent of the art that is well known by the Arxiv commettee: try to publish a bad article on Arxiv and you will understand that I am right); secondly, to be published in a cartaceous peer reviewed magazine takes many months, so the Examiners decided to anticipate the publication on Arxiv, pending a publication on another peer reviewed magazine. By the way, the report has been peer reviewed by the list of Professors you find in the acknowledgements, not to mention the fact that when a paper is signed by many Professors of international Universities, there is also an automatic peer reviewing made among the same Authors of the same report. It is more difficult that 7 Authors make mistakes than 1 Author , isn’t it? Also: the Report is 30 pages, and is impossible to publish 30 pages in a normal magazine, therefore by necessity the report will have to be reduced to be published in a normal magazine: for this reason Arxiv has been chosen by the examiners for the first publication.
2- the description of the process has been described uncorrectly, but I understand that for a non expert is difficult to write in few lines an abstract of 30 pages of report.
In conclusion, the journalist of Repubblica has made honestly and sincerely the job.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Chris Beall:
Thank you for your intelligent introduction. Now the answer to the “detail person”: the photo in Fig. #10 shows a monophase reactor, double coil. The “delta” configuration is for the three-phase alimentation. Please read carefully the paragraph after the fig. 10 ( first three lines).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Marvin:
With that money make charity!
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Dear Steven N. Karels:
1- I cannot give this information
2- this way it does not work
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Congratulations! Where can I send the champagne? 🙂
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1. Have you considered fabricating the Hot eCat out of Ultra-High Temperature Ceramics? An example would be ZrB or TiB with melting temperatures of over 3,000 degC and with good thermal conductivity (~60 – 120 W/mK).
2. What about actively removing heat (instead of just not applying heat from the Activator) to support the Hot eCat SSM operation? It seems to me that the Activator can quickly apply additional termal energy but you lack to the means to quickly extract heat from the Reactor to maintain it in SSM.
Some thoughts…
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I realize that the purpose of the independent test was to demonstrate via massive excess heat that prior detailed objections regarding measurement techniques are not relevant to an evaluation of the E-Cat process.
But I am a detail person and I feel that it is fair to continue to try to understand, without attempting to expose your trade secrets, how the parts of the device are connected.
I am pleased that the investigators chose to include photographs in their report, but frustrated by their low resolution. In looking at Figure 10, showing the electrical connections at the flange end of the HT2 device, I can readily see 4 post-type terminals, jumpered into pairs by brown wires. One terminal of each such pair is fed by a yellow wire. I interpret this as 2/3 of the expected connections for three heaters connected in delta configuration, as described in the text. There is a third wire, white. Unlike the others, it appears to be connected to a single (fuzzy in the photo) point, rather than the expected pair of points (one each from the end of adjacent heaters). In addition, the first 4 posts seem to form a rectangle, whereas I would expect to see three pairs of connector posts arranged at 120-degree angles.
Could you, without revealing anything proprietary, describe the physical arrangement of the electrical connections to the HT2 device?
Regards,
Chris Beall
Dear Paolo:
Thank you for the important information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Robert Curto:
Thank you for the insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi, in the June magazine of Popular Science there is a 25 page story about:
Anerican Energy Independence.
They write about 5 sources of energy, and the plus and minus of each one:
Solar, Waste, Water, Wind, Oil and Gas.
However because E-Cat is not ready for Prime Time,
not a word about it.
For those of us lucky enough to know Dr. Rossi,
we know E-Cat will be the first choice.
Lowest cost.
Zero emissions.
No other choice can say that.
A Dam may say that, but they have to flood half the State to build it.
What year was the last Dam built in the USA ?
Don’t even think about Nukes.
We already have 70,000 Tons of Radioactive Waste
we have to keep an eye on
for 250,000 Years !
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Andrea, I would inform you and your readers about the article on the Third Party report just published in Italy by “Repubblica”, which as you know is the most important national newspaper together with “Il corriere della Sera”, and had been traditionally skeptic on the cold fusion. The article is well written and balanced. Here is the link: http://www.repubblica.it/scienze/2013/05/22/news/forbes_la_fusione_fredda_italiana_funziona_da_test_indipendenti_ok_all_e-cat-59379551/
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
Thank you, I am honoured of your discussions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: Last week my discussion group laughed at me when I started talking about your E-Cat. This week the third party report is going to be seriously discussed. Thank you for your persistence, a Nobel Prize for you cannot be far away.
Segnalo questo articolo ai lettori
http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/49127/20130521/fusione-fredda-e-cat-andrea-rossi.htm
Dear Gian Luca:
Work hard in the USA: we are working to make a mass production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Argon:
1- sorry, I do not understand exactly the question
2- may be faster
3- I am not able to answer for lack of specific experience
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear YOna:
I really don’t know, but I do not see a link between the two different issues.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Frank Acland:
Thank you very much,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
IMPORTANT
Dear Enrico:
We will produce different sizes, but after the Intellectual Property issues will have been resolved. I thank you very much for your question, because you give me the chance to clear one important issue that emerged from the comments: the Third Party that has done the tests and written the report did NOT have the will of analyzing and probe the internal details of the reactors and the composition of the charges, because these issues are, obviously, industrial secrets; the will of the examiners was to make a calorimetric measurement to estabilish beyond any reasonable doubt the existance of the phenomenon. For this reason it is ridiculous to complain that the E-Cat and its charge has been made by me, since only Andrea Rossi and his Partners, at the moment, are able to make the E-Cats and their charges. Every person can understand, if not biased, that to make a measurement of the energy consumed versus the energy produced does not depend from the knowledge of how the reactor is made and how is made the charge: as a matter of fact, the charge has been weighted ( read carefully the report) and the weight of the charge is by orders of magnitude lower than the weight that would have been necessary of any known fuel to produce the amount of energy that has been produced during the 120 hours of test. See the Ragone diagram published in the Report.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
which will be the size of the next “standard” HotCat ?
Will you still focus on the 10 KW or maybe higher sizes (100 KW) ?
Best wishes of good work
Enrico
Dear Andrea,
Your report is being discussed in a number of places on the web. For anyone who is interested here is a summary of some of the articles out there: http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat-test-coverage-roundup/
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea Rossi
Congradulation on the report! i am so happy!
Do you think that now the certifications to the domestic ecat will come faster?
Warm Regards and god bless you
Dear Andrea,
Continuing my previoius question:
You confirmed that you have tried to push ‘stable range’ to higher temperatures by pumping coolant through the reactor and adjusting pump power to control the runaway.
1) Did that help any on controlling e-Cat in higher reaction activity level (thus allowing higher COP still stable)?
2) Lets imagine that you would be able to automatically and safely control the coolant flow between 1…100% and have small thermal capacity (mass) in rection chamber. Question: is this 2 hour still minimum time to get initial reaction ignited, or could it be faster if coolant (or pressure) control would be very fast and accurate (enabling use of good heat distribution from heaters to powder and using bit more effective heaters).
3) Related to previous question: Earlier you said that chamber pressure control doesn’t work when trying to control the reaction. Is that still true if you become aware that pressure can be effectively adjusted hundreds even thousands times/sec? Technology is in everyday use in modern sportscar shock absorbers (wheel dampers).
Thanks for answering,
Argon
Dear Andrea,
is it possible to know what will be your work programs for the next 4/5 months?
What can we expect?
Grazie ancora per la Sua cortesia e disponibilità
Dear Andrea Rossi,
After reading the report, it appears to me that a Management decision was made to reduce temperature and lower COP to enhance the probability of a successful independent test. If this is true, it was a wise decision on your part. The COP was high enough that critics cannot challenge the excess power, the test accuracy, etc. You “knocked it out of the park”, to use an American phrase. Running at a higher COP (than 3 – 6) would have added nothing to the test and only increased the possibility of a failure.
Dear Gherardo:
1- safety
2- “standard” hot Cats do not exist yet, they are not yet in the market. They will be soon, though, at that point we will have the “standards”.
3- there was a technician of us only for assistance
4- no
5- confidential
6- confidential
Thanks for your dream, we will try to fulfill it!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dott.Rossi,
let’s move forward beyond the “Is that true?” question.
The tests certified a COP of 3 with a stable temperature and this is a milestone result, none achieved before or even hinted such a COP. Anyway, you always said a COP of 6 (and some complained !!!) is the assured number for e-cats so my questions:
1) why you did set the e-cat so the temperature had to be lower? for safety? stability?
2) is that different from a “standard” e-cat?
3) did you instruct them to manage the cat themselves or thay had a Leonardo operator available or there was no need or was there only for emergencies?
4) a working e-cah at lower temperatures / COP should last longer?
We have been told that there are electrical resistances inside.
4) With the gas-cat how does it work?
5) You just heat the whole vessel?
6) With combustion precise heating is much more difficult and modeling is needed. Is that what you need for the gas-cat?
My dream cat should:
– be started with either electricity or combustion
– provide both heating and electricity
– have about 30-50 Kw
– need a recharge after 1-2 years (even if at lower cop, kind of emergency mode)
– be apartment compatible (on the balcony)
Let the dream come through 🙂
Gherardo
Dear Brian:
Yes, it is. In the second test a lower temperature has been worked with.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Matteo N.:
Very good,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Matteo N.:
Very good,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Matteo N.:
Very good,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Bruno Angius:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Herb Gillis:
No, I do not.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Monti:
Certification, certification, certification… thjat’s my dream for the domestic!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Argon:
1- yes
2- confidential
Warm Regards and thanks for the info,
A.R.
Dear Renato Estri:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Emilio Icaza:
1- yes
2- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Silvio Caggia:
Yes, our “resistance” will produce good plants and good plants will produce more stamina.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
For the patents: our attorneys are working.
About hostile reactions: we never have taken them in big account, all we care of are products that work well.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Claud:
I totally agree with you regarding Prof. Sergio Focardi.
About the funds: my opinion is that if a technology works, the funds come from the Customers. Most of time funding pulls carts with square wheels with the taxpayers in the role of the horses. With all respect for the Eater.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.