Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM-Supergravitation unified theory

.
by
Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
York University, Toronto, Canada
E-mails: stoyans@cse.yorku.ca – sarg137@yahoo.com


.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Abstract

Advances in the field of cold fusion and the recent success of the nickel and hydrogen exothermal reaction, in which the energy release cannot be explained by a chemical process, need a deeper understanding of the nuclear reactions and, more particularly, the possibility for modification of the Coulomb barrier.

The current theoretical understanding based on high temperature fusion does not offer an explanation for the cold fusion or LENR.

The treatise “Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory”, based on an alternative concept of the physical vacuum, provides an explanation from a new point of view by using derived three-dimensional structures of the atomic nuclei.

For explanation of the nuclear energy, a hypothesis of a field micro-curvature around the superdense nucleus is suggested.

The new theoretical approach in the analysis of some successful cold fusion experiments resulted in practical considerations for modification of the Coulomb barrier.

A possibility of another cold fusion reaction is predicted due to some similarity between the nuclear structures of Ni and Cr.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.

262 comments to Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM-Supergravitation unified theory

  • David Roberson

    Dear Andrea,

    I have been following your progress for a long time and wish to congratulate you for the hard work and amazing accompolishments. I wish that there were some way that your ECAT could be introduced to the world quickly since it will open many doors that are currently nearly shut by the high cost of energy.

    As you may know, I have constructed a computer model of the ECAT type system which offers insight into the operation of your device and demonstrates many of the difficult problems which you must overcome in order to make your design practical. You continue to state that the COP will be at a minimum of 6 which is consistent with my model. To achieve a significantly higher COP and maintain stability, it will be necessary to push the internal temperature closer to the point at which the device undergoes thermal run away and that of course would offer difficult challenges.

    The model strongly supports your operation statements where input power is applied for 1/4 of the time while the device runs in self sustaining mode for the other 3/4 of the time. This duty cycle should be adequate for operation within the region of thermal positve feedback, with a loop gain of greater than unity, provided the internal temperature is allowed to approach the run away point. The closer you operate to this temperature, the higher the net COP will be.

    The control system must be able to enact a turn around to the direction that the internal temperature is moving at the correct times. The positive feedback takes over once the direction is changed and the ECAT internal temperature continues along that path until the next input power change is enacted. Operation of this type is not easy to visualize and I am confident that that is why so many can not grasp how heat can be used to control a greater amount of internally generated heat. There have been many posts on Vortex-l where I have attempted to explain this behavior and it still remains a mystery to most.

    Several readers have asked what happens if you cut off the controlling heat source. They fear that thermal run away must begin at that point, but this is not the case. The model suggests that the device will immediately begin to cycle downwards in temperature until it cools down completely. The positive feedback will ensure that this occurs. Although it may seem strange, the fact that the drive power is applied at its full level is an important component to this behavior.

    Your mention that the internal temperature must be in the vicinity of 1000 C in order to deliver heat into a coolant at 500 C or so makes perfect sense. That is one of the variables that you must control in order to set the internal thermal run away trip point at the ideal location. The input temperature and the flow rate of the coolant are other handles at your disposal.

    So, I find it particularly interesting to follow your recent statements on this journal as you slowly reveal how the ECAT funcions. All of them have been supported by my computer model and I hope that you will continue to offer more insight to us. The wait for your product to be perfected may not be long now.

    Thank you for your fine efforts,

    David Roberson

  • Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    What do you mean exactly with “cradle to cradle”?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Silvio Caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Can you say e-cat will be a “from cradle to cradle” product?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    We aim to make steam at 500 °C. To make steam at a temperature you need a wall at a superior temperature. The highest the temperature of the wall, the highest the flow rate: we all agree that the temperature of the secondary fluid is function of the flow rate and of the temperature of the primary.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Steven N Karels,
    I apologize for my comment that sounded somewhat offending, but was absolutely not written with such an intention. Even with translation software it is not possible to translate the atmosphere.

    What I meant to say, and what seemed relevant towards your comment on COP, is that with a wall-temperature of 1000°C it is only possible to heat steam to 1000°C if the contact time is long enough, and there is no instream of new, cold steam, and no outflow of the hottest steam.
    But… no flow means no power.
    For the Carnot-efficiency, it is the average maximum temperature of the steam in pressurized condition and minimum temperature in expanded condition that count, which are not necessary identical to the wall temperatures of the heater and the condenser.
    In his later post, Andrea Rossi mentions a steam temperature of 500-600°C. This may be a very convenient temperature for the current technology of steam turbines and also very convenient as an operating mode of the E-Cat HT.

    If we consider al the parts of this amazing puzzle and how smooth they fit, E-Cat -Rossi’s work- cannot be less than a gift from God.
    Although it seems undecided if God mostly prefers either the “Share” division or the “Sales” division.

    And now he has the help of an ultra competent US team of scientists and experts, for which I am grateful. These are not hollow words. Their achievements can be compared to building a high performance F1 race-car that is as robust as a tank, while a year ago it was mostly a proof-of-concept engine on four wheels. If they can blow up and melt the entire E-Cat in 10 seconds, and not only the weakest part of it in 0,1 seconds, this means that the entire device is equilibrated on many levels.

    One possible negative outcome, which cannot be predicted yet by us, is the longevity of the device vs its production and operational cost. But since harmony -see all the above – is a good guidance in truth, I remain confident.

    So, I whish to you a nice transition towards 2014, and maybe in some future we meet on a happy occasion !

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Yes, is a good assumption. We are working with mock ups which do monkey the E-Cats, with the same resistances: to do what you suggest we must put much higher power in the resistances, but we can do it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jackie:
    Our technology will be employed everywhere.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Vincenzo Bonomo:
    I cannot give information, in positive or in negative, regarding what happens inside the E-Cat. Thank you for your intelligent insight and your kind attention to our work; please let me suggest you to write also in English, to be understood from the 90% of our Readers who do not speak Italian.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Vincenzo Bonomo

    Egregio Dr. Rossi
    Sono da sempre un suo sostenitore e da attivista del Movimento 5 Stelle ho fatto tutto il possibile affinché il Parlamento prendesse una posizione favorevole allo sviluppo delle LENR nel nostro Paese.
    Nell’agosto del 2012 ho pubblicato sul blog 22passi una ipotesi sul funzionamento dell’e-cat che copioincollo:

    Questa è una semplice ipotesi di teoria che da più di un anno non divulgavo nel timore di danneggiare in qualche modo Andrea Rossi favorendo i suoi concorrenti ma ora dopo il parere favorevole di una persona del suo entourage ho deciso di renderla pubblica, ad ogni modo per aiutare a comprendere quello che potrebbe verificarsi nell’E-cat riporto alcuni trafiletti da una pagina Wikipedia:

    “Ashcroft propose la teoria che l’idrogeno metallico potesse avere caratteristiche di superconduttore persino a temperature ordinarie (290 K), +23 °C, le più elevate per qualsiasi altro materiale candidato a essere superconduttore. Questa caratteristica è dovuta al contrasto fra la sua estremamente alta velocità del suono e il forte accoppiamento previsto tra gli elettroni di conduzione e la vibrazione del reticolo cristallino.[9]”
    ” Nel 2008 M.I. Eremets e altri riuscirono a metallizzare una lega di idrogeno, silicio e idrogeno 4, che si scoprì essere anche superconduttore, confermando le previsioni teoriche di N.W. Ashcroft.[18] In questa lega di idrogeno, anche a modeste pressioni l’idrogeno forma un reticolo cristallino con una densità corrispondente all’idrogeno metallico.”
    I superconduttori, i superfluidi liquidi e gassosi e supersolidi sono attualmente conosciuti come “super” stati della materia. Egor Babaev ipotizzò che, se l’idrogeno e il deuterio posseggono stati liquidi, potrebbero possedere stati ordinati nel dominio quantico e non possono essere pertanto classificabili come superconduttori o superfluidi ordinari, rappresentando in realtà due possibili nuovi fluidi quantici : “superfluidi superconduttori” e “superflui metallici”. Questi materiali mostrano possedere comportamenti estremamente insoliti, se sottoposti a campi magnetici e rappresentano una via per verifiche sperimentali di questi nuovi stati della materia. Si è suggerito inoltre, che, sotto l’influenza di campi magnetici, l’idrogeno potrebbe esibire transazioni di fase, da superconduttive a superfluide e viceversa.[10][11][12]

    La mia ipotesi consiste nella possibilità che Rossi sia riuscito a metallizzare l’idrogeno rendendolo quindi superconduttore, questa caratteristica particolare ha permesso di energizzare a tal punto i suoi protoni, fornendogli la sezione d’urto sufficiente, da essere in grado di superare la barriera coulombiana e alle opportune temperature e pressioni fondersi con il nickel.
    Si potrebbe anche supporre che per triggerare la polvere di nickel sottoposta ai campi magnetici abbia usato polvere di ferro o di silicio o di una qualche perovskite tanto care al buon Sandro 75k.

    Nel post che ho sopra riportato ipotizzo in sostanza che l’e-cat non è altro che un acceleratore atipico di particelle e sono convinto che per il suo sviluppo siano valide anche (con gli opportuni adattamenti) le ricerche fatte a suo tempo nel campo degli acceleratori di particelle “classici”.
    In attesa di un suo giudizio su queste ipotesi le auguro un felice anno nuovo e le invio i miei più cordiali saluti.

  • jackie

    Dear Mr Rossi, may I ask, do you believe that the course you are taking will lead to the poor nations of the World being able to benefit strongly from Cold Fusion technology.
    Or will it become the private cash cow of the rich nations like so many other things.
    Best Wishes to you and all for the New Year.
    jackie

  • Dear Andrea Rossi,
    It is indeed curious how the temperature went above nickel melting point in the destructive experiment. Maybe the Rossi effect increased the temperature up to nickel melting point, but the subsequent increase to 2000 C was caused by some chemical reaction, perhaps caused by entry of oxygen into the core resulting from melting and breaching of the steel wall (AISI 310 has slightly lower melting point than nickel). A 10 MJ energy release (1 MW lasting for 10 seconds, if I understood right) corresponds to burning 3 dl of gasoline or 1.35 kg of iron.

    One could test such hypothesis by making a mockup HotCat which is otherwise identical to the real one, but instead of active charge contains more powerful heating resistors which are enough to raise the temperature to the melting point of nickel. And then see what kind of explosion results, if any. In this way one might be able to learn which part of the reaction is nuclear and which is chemical.
    regards, /pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Mike Phalen:
    We already have licensed our technology to our USA Partner. If they can be interested or not, in future, to sell sub licenses is not my task to understand. I am the chief scientist and have not commercial duties.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Yes, you can say that.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ecco Liberation:
    You are right: also a hammer can be a dangerous weapon, if used as a head crusher. The domestic E-Cat will need time to make up strong statistics by means of the industrial plants: after thousands of industrial plants will be in operation safely, the safety certification og the domestic E-Cat will be viable, I suppose.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Ecco Liberation

    Dr.Rossi, Italo R…

    Just an example: despite built-in safety measures, pressure cookers can be very dangerous if tampered with and potentially used for terrorist activities too (as events in recent history showed), but that’s not preventing the cooking industry from manufacturing them for the general public as they are useful devices, not weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

    The hard reality is that given enough skill and determination, pretty much anything from small home appliances to food (peach or apple seeds contain cyanide, for example) can become a deadly weapon. There’s no such a thing as a 100% safety and attempts by officials to curb or delay market introduction of devices implementing the “Rossi effect” on the basis of failure to comply to this unattainable goal should ring a bell or two about their true motives.

    Regards,
    Ecco

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    You stated that when the mouse is turned on the temperature of the cat drops and when it is turned off the temperature of the cat increases. This makes me think the mouse must have two functions, both to stimulate the cat and to stabilize the cat. I’m trying to think of how the mouse can serve both purposes. Is the heat from the mouse stimulating when the cat is at a certain temperature, and stabilizing when the cat at another much higher temperature? If you could clarify, I would appreciate it.

  • James Bowery

    Erratum:

    The heat of vaporization of zinc is 123.6kJ/mol not 23.5kJ/mol as I stated in my prior comment. I left off the preceding ‘1’ when I copied and pasted the calculation.

    I did use the correct value of 123.6kJ/mol in the calculated mass flow of zinc vapor so the ½ gram/sec/kW result remains valid.

  • Dear Mr. Rossi,

    We are all very excited about your work and look forward to the day that you are able to freely talk about it.

    We would be very interested in licensing your technology to build R&D reactors to allow researchers around the world to be able to expand on your work and possibly take it to levels that no one has thought of yet.

    Can you give any kind of time frame regarding when it might be possible to license the eCat technology?

    Thank You, Mike Phalen

  • Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    You are right, the E-Cat, if voluntarily improperly managed, mainly by expert enemies,can be dangerous. This is the reason why the safety certification for a domestic E-Cat, usable from anybody, is very difficult to obtain. This is also the reason why we can sell the plants only to industries that can give us all the guarantees of safety. Our Customers have to make our plants operated only by operators certified by us, after a specific education through the manuals and after a period of instructions whose main part is aimed to safety. Our Customers must have already a culture and an organization aimed to safety and they will be liable for the respect of all the safety instructions supplied by us. This is also the reason for which we sell our plants only to industries that have a consolidated history of energy utilization at least in the amounts produced by our plants, so that we deal with persons already expert of the field, even if not of the E-Cat. We also need Customers with a financial structure enough solid to guarantee us they can sustain properly all the safety and security issues implied and to guarantee a security able to make sure that the technology does not go in wrong hands.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    Interesting idea for the future.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    The reaction stops intrinsecally id the temperature raises above the safety level. Again, the E-Cat is intrinsecally safe AND regulated by a control system that does not allow the reactor to go destructive. Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Italo R.

    Dear Mr. Rossi, if you are able to make explode hot-cats during hard tests with sure damages near them, there could be people doing voluntarily the same in the future in other places (terrorists in example). They could be clever and become expert enough to do this.
    I mean, these tests show clearly that the cats, in some conditions, could be very dangerous… Or not?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Herb Gillis:
    I cannot give this information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    1- no
    2- confidential
    3- no
    4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers when the Mouse is turned on
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Pietro F.:
    Your comment, for obvious reasons, is not publicable, but I wish you a great 2014.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jemes Bowery,
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • James Bowery

    Dr. Rossi,

    Thank you for your description of the heat excursion event in the linked photograph.

    Something that occurs to me that perhaps has already occurred to your engineers:

    Zinc has a boiling point of 907C and a heat of vaporization of 23.6 kJ/mol. Submerging the HotCat in a molten zinc bath kept near its boiling point would produce a stream of zinc vapor conducting about 1kW thermal for ½ gram/sec of zinc vapor mass flow. The zinc vapor could be reflux-condensed by a CO2 heat exchanger.

    23.6 kJ/mol;65.38g/mol;1kW?g/s
    ([{123.6 * (kilo*joule)} / mole]^-1 * [{65.38 * gramm} / mole]) * (1 * [kilo*watt]) ? gramm / second
    = 0.5289644 g/s

  • Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full reports, it gives us something to think upon.

    1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?

    2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?

    3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt plant in self sustain mode.

    4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?

  • Herb Gillis

    Dr. Rossi:
    I have long been puzzled by your use of active heating to both start and to control (ie. prevent run-away) reaction in the Ecat. IMHO it has something to do with the CLTE of the fuel material. If that is correct then it stands to reason pressure could be used instead of heating, at least for the prevention of run-away reaction. Either by starting with the fuel material under pressure and reducing it, or by applying pressure to the material, control might be achieved without expending as much energy as required for heating. Perhaps you can tell us if this approach might be viable, or not? I appreciate you cannot go into great detail.
    Kind regards; HRG.

  • Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    thanks for your responses.

    About this one…
    “2- The E-Cats are intrinsecally safe. To bring them to destructive levels is necessary to make operations that can only be made voluntarily and by experts.”
    … I really hope that the control system cannot drive, by SW mistake or hacking, the core to destruction. That’s why I would think of a controller independent, mechanical configuration that stops the reaction if everything else fails. Clearly could be triggered by the temperature (over)rise.
    As you told us many times, it’s better to be on the safe side especially it the early days and with snakes around.

    With apreciation, Gherardo

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    My comment about Tungsten and space travel may have been unclear.

    If you developed a heat source technology with a sustained and controllable temperature around 1,900C, you could employ the ZnO and Water reation to produce H2 and O2. These products could be separated and burned in a rocket’s reaction chamber to provide thrust while storing the fuel source (water) in a dense and storage friendly environment. The H2 + O2 rocket propellant has a high specific impulse while the water is easier to store.

    I know you have “enough on your plate” but thoughts for the future.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    1- I cannot publish this information, while I can confirm that the destructive tests are performed respecting all the safety issues: we know perfectly what can happen and behave consequently. The reason we make these destructive tests is aimed to make industrial E-Cats totally safe and perfectly stable at the highest possible temperature
    2- The E-Cats are intrinsecally safe. To bring them to destructive levels is necessary to make operations that can only be made voluntarily and by experts.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N Karels:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- moreless yes
    About the temperature: during the destructive tests the temperature raises for some second well above the melting point of Ni. This is why the “Mouse” cannot excite over a certain limit the E-Cat to maintain well stabilized operation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Andreas Moraitis:
    I cannot give information about this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Dr. Guenter Krieg has stated in a recently published interview that strong
    electric currents could be the main source of heat in the E-Cat, rather than the
    mass-to-energy conversion in the course of nickel-to-copper transmutations. I
    remember that you made a similar statement some time ago.

    What about embedding the nickel grains into an insulating material, or using
    thin, separated layers of nickel powder? The insulator would have to be
    permeable for hydrogen, of course, and should be able to conduct heat as good as
    possible.

    This could limit the currents, and therefore heat production, to a safe amount.
    (The cores of transformers, for instance, are composed of multiple layers which
    are insulated against each other in order to reduce eddy currents.)

    Best regards,
    A.M.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You had previously posted about small (1kW), regular (10kW) and large (100kW) eCat modules being considered. Can you discuss anything on these variants?

    1. Have the small and large eCat modules been built?
    2. Have they been tested?
    3. Do they have the same performance characteristics as the 10kW nominal units?

    As an engineer, I recognize the necessity of testing equipment beyond their specified operating limits. I am surprised that temperatures beyond the melting point of Nickel were observed.

    How do you reconcile the 2,000C temperature observed with the melting point limitation of Nickel (1,455C)?

    There have been some LENR theories that suggest Tungsten could be used in place of Nickel. Tungsten has a higher melting point (3,422C). Perhaps a Tungsten-based eCat module could be implementated for special applications (e.g., space travel)?

  • Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    many thanks for your Christmas present :-)

    After so many Q&A I’m left with 2 questions:
    1) when a reactor explodes, besides mechanic/termic effects, are there any radiations leftover? Long term? Short term? Dangerous?
    2) I really do hope that your electronic control sistem has an indipendent backup “dead man” failover where mother nature will prevent any runaway.

    Fruitfull 2014, Gherardo

  • Andrea Rossi

    Elena:
    The registration of these experiments, in particular of the explosions, contains information we deem restricted, so far. I gave a description that filtered the confidential data. Besides: remember that the R&D work is still in course, and the complete results will be published after the end of this work, positive or negative as they might be. If positive, what really will matter are not the destructive tests, but the stable operation at high temperature, which allows to exchange heat with water making steam at 500-600°C, with an efficiency around 40%. The distructive tests are important to determine the safety limits of operation
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Elena

    Hi andrea
    A photo of this white blue glowing cat would be “mind blowing”
    Elena

  • Steven N. Karels

    Koen,

    While your posting brought up some interesting information and concerns, it has little to do with my preliminary analysis. The analysis dealt with the Carnot efficiency, the effective COP, electricity conversion to charge batteries and the use of batteries to meet the high electrical demand durin the Mouse portion of the operational cycle.

    The surface temperature is irrelevant once the Carnot efficiency is stated. It is strictly Power output versus Power input.

  • Andrea Rossi

    James Bowery:
    Very sorry, I cannot answer to this question exhaustively, but I can say something. Obviously, the experiments are made with total respect of the safety of my team and myself. During the destructive tests we arrived to reach temperatures in the range of 2,000 Celsius degrees, when the “mouse” excited too much the E-Cat, and it is gone out of control, in the sense that we have not been able to stop the raise of the temperature ( we arrived on purpose to that level, because we wanted to study this kind of situation). A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to 2,000 Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of, and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot, where is placed the charge, you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant powder made of small stones, like rubys. When we opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 SS steel was not molten, but sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Felize:
    “something”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Felize

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I think you are getting close to a final solution for producing energy.
    Which variables do you measure for controlling the reaction? Just temperatures and pressures or “something” of more directly related to the reaction rate of the fuel? IMHO, temperatures and pressures may be too “indirect” :)

    Thank you for your patience in answering to my questions.

    Have a nice day.

    Felize

  • James Bowery

    Dr. Rossi,

    When you say that reactors “explode” when out of control, do you mean they actually produce a loud noise? Or do they merely destructively over-heat? (As apparently happened to a HotCat in this photograph during the prior validation test:)

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/AAAAAAAAJYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1600/hot-cat.JPG

  • Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    Sorry, I cannot give this kind of information, so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Martyn Aubrey:
    Thank you for your insight. We are engineering the control systems quite well, basing our work on the math models and formulas derived from the tests.
    Presently our E-Cat is working ( also right now, while I am writing this comment) at a temp of 1,100 Celsius, very stable.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Jed Rothwell:
    The team of Prof. has been increased.
    I cannot give more information about this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • You wrote:

    “I mean the third indipendent party validation. I think they are financed by Elforsk, and I am honoured of the fact that Elforsk is investing the money . . .”

    So it is the same group who came earlier this year? They published this paper: “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device.” Authors: Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913v1

    ELFORSK published this statement, in Swedish:

    http://www.elforsk.se/Aktuellt/Svenska-forskare-har-testat-Rossis-energikatalysator–E-cat/

    Here is a partial translation: “The measurements show that the catalyst gives substantially more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. . . . The measurements have been funded by Elforsk.”

    “But, please, consider that we have no connection at all with Elforsk, so I am not sure about my answer.”

    If you had a connection, it would not be independent!

  • Martyn Aubrey

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    In your recent answers to Steven N. Karels and Hank Mills, you said that you have achieved a working temperature for the Hot Cat of “around 1000 °C”, but that “If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the controllability limits and the reactor explodes. We must maintain the drive below this limit, and it is what we are learning to do, trying to reach a controllability level at the highest temperature possible, because the COP raises exponentially with the operation temperature.”.

    I was wondering if some of the problem may be due to the Hysteresis or Latency in the system – the time taken for a change at the input to a system to take effect and then be seen at the output of the system.

    Is it possible that the e-cat is “getting ahead of itself”? i.e. Control changes to limit the excessive output do not have sufficient time to process all the way through the system or take full effect, before the e-cat overheats itself and runs out of control.

    If this is correct, a possible simple partial remedy could be to “Aim Off” or “Aim Low”, and let the rising temperature in the system bring your aiming point gradually and naturally up onto the target temperature point.

    By anticipating the rise in temperature and reducing the drive level well before getting to that point, the temperature is limited from moving beyond the desired working level.

    An analogy could be that when you drive a car into a tight bend, you would ease off on the accelerator well before the turn, and yet drive through the bend at a good speed without losing control of the vehicle.

    You also said to Hank, “We work 18 hours per day in self sustaining mode and 6 hours per day in driven mode”.

    Are these the average figures, and is the switch between sustaining mode and driven mode actually done on a much shorter and regular basis in a similar manor to the HT2 Hot Cat in the March 2013 Independent Report?

    With this in mind, please remember my earlier suggestion to use Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) to tightly control the average electrical power level, and therefore the heat, applied to the Mouse reactor. It is possible that this control method may still be useful to you now.
    ( http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=806&cpage=7#comment-703217 )

    Thank you for giving us your update on the recent developments of the e-cat.
    Your news is excellent and well appreciated by myself and, I am sure, all the other followers of the JoNP.

    Many congratulations, and good luck for the coming months.

    Kind Regards,
    Martyn Aubrey

  • Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    Sorry for this possible nonsense, but something keeps coming back into my mind:

    Andrea Rossi
    June 3rd, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    Herb Gillis:
    Thank you.
    Yes, will be good surprises.
    Other nuclear reactions need millions Celsius ( fusion) and emit radiations in the order of MeVs, we emit 50-100 keVs ( inside the reactor).

    It can be a matter-antimatter annihilation of an electron with something in the nucleus that self-repairs (because of the self repairing properties of particles) afterward without needing (all the) energy as we know it.
    In that case you do not produce neutrons and there is no degradation of the E-Cat by transmutation.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>