.
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
.
Dear Steven N. Karels,
If the temperature of the E-Cat HT surface is 1000°C, then how will the energy be transferred to the fluidum that is used in the Carnot cycle ? How many degrees will the fluidum have ? How many Watts does this extract from the surface ? This has to be exactly the same amount of power that is added by the reaction. This has to be the case for every square mm of the surface.
If we suppose heating using radiation of infrared waves that do come from the E-Cat HT, then the better is the use of CO2 or H2O because of their good absorbing of infrared spectrum.
If convection is used, e.g. with fins, then other media can be used.
This is very complicated, and needs a lot of experimenting and/or computer simulation.
This heat-transfer has to be integrated in the concept or design of E-Cat HT, and must not be done afterwards.
Kind Regards,
Koen.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Given your statement that the surface tempaerature of the eCat can reach 1,000C, the Carnot efficiency should be around 70+% assuming a lower temperature around 100C. With a turbine efficiency in the 60 – 60% should yield a heat-to-electricity efficiency of around 40%, as you stated. Given a dc converter efficiency of 80+% and battery storage, the effective COP needs to be 3.1 or better. Since you also stated a 4:1 ratio of Cat to Mouse operation with the Mouse COP >1.0, you should be able to achieve self-sufficiency after start-up. Comments? Are there aother factors not considered in this brief analysis?
Giuliano Bettini:
Yes, the work is promising, but let’s wait the publication to read the consolidated results. So far I must repeat that the output could be negative, the validation work is not completed: never assume you won until the whistle of end game has not been blown. Anyway: now we will estabilish the limits of the allowable excitation with series of destructive tests, then the control engineers will design the final version of the control system for the new limits of the temperature of the high temperature E-Cats ( Hot Cats).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
you said:
1 “…the COP raises exponentially with the operation temperature.”
(…)
2 “..if the Mouse excites the cat too much, the cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk to reach this level. We have seen explode hundreds of reactors now, this way.”
I consider these as two very interesting news that put the word “end” on the issue of Cold Fusion.
It exists. It would be reduced to a problem of Control Engineering.
(No offense to the Controls Engineers …. whose work is foundamental).
What I’m not understanding? Che cosa non sto capendo?
Grazie
Giuliano Bettini.
lunardom,
I thank you for posting the response by bperet.
My reply:
1. If 3d time, and clock space, are part of our reality, why are they alien to our senses, and invisible to our instruments? (The various forces are very well known and have never necessitated an alternate view of their dimensions. And antimatter has the same dimension as matter; only some of the signs of their properties differ.)
2. The imaginary number, i=(-1)^0.5, has no dimension, so why implicate it with any type of time? (What is worse, i is an absurdity.)
3. Science is not any less science just because some of its laws fail to scale up (or down) appropriately. Science is an activity after all, and not a pre-established goal.
4. Is there a reference in standard physics that shows to us the dimension time/space as belonging to energy? (Likewise, time^3/space^3 as belonging to mass?)
All the best,
Joe
John L:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Herb Gillis:
Useful comment.
The explosions, or destructive tests, are made in controlled modes, in proper lab, with due control of the radiations made by proper instrumentation. I cannot give further information about these data, but we need destructive tests to find the safety limits within which the E-Cats can work in a stabilized operation. Obviously,no ionizing radiations are released outside the safety box in which the reactor is destructed: by the way, just behind the walls of the box there are my Team and ME.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
Can you elaborate on how serious an explosion you are talking about? When you say you have seen hundreds of reactors explode I am sure you must appreciate that word (“explode”) does not sound very good out of appropriate context. Do these explosions involve release of radiation outside the reactor housing?
Kind Regards; HRG.
Andrea,
Controllability and optimal COP are regulated by temperature, perhaps you should consider a long cylinder Ecat being driven mechanically into and out of a molten salt or Haloglass bath reservoir. If Ecat is too hot, you drive it most of its length into the bath, too cold you then remove it out and anything in between for optimal operation. The Haloglass is circulated through the heat exchanger continuously. Feedback stepmotor sensing control systems with PLC are readily available on the market. Regards John L ps. There are some advantages of output power regulation over the electric power inputs regulation.
Hank Mills:
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. The apparatus is made by two well separated components, the activator ( “mouse”) and the energy catalyzar ( “Cat”). Now we have a mouse with a COP above 1 and a Cat with a COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse excites the cat too much, the cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk to reach this level. We have seen explode hunderds of reactors now, this way.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
John L:
The test is on a reactor, not a cascaded reactors system.
Other issues: you are right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Is the third indipendent party testing a cascaded E-cat system? You said “We work 18 hours per day in self sustaining mod and 6 hours per day in driven mode, but also during this period the COP is more than 1, so the energy consumed is totally paid back during the not self sustained period…” This is COP of infinite – No Net energy consumption overall.
Best wishes for 2014
Dear Andrea,
What happens if you do not apply power again once you put the reactor in to self sustained mode? Do the reactions try to run away or will they fade over time? With at least some of your previous reactors, if you did not apply power every so often the reactors would run away. However, in one test the data showed when the input power was cut off the reactions gradually faded over time.
Curiosone:
1- yes ( reasonable hope, not promise)
2- because I owe to the USA all I did
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you,
Likewise!
A.R.
Dave K.:
Thank you, likewise!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hank Mills:
We work 18 hours per day in self sustaining mode and 6 hours per day in driven mode, but also during this period the COP is more than 1, so the energy consumed is totally paid back during the not self sustained period…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Jed Rothwell:
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 of their shareholders to indagate our work. But, please, consider that we have no connection at all with Elforsk, so I am not sure about my answer. I am sure of the fact that the long term test is made by the third indipendent party and the publication will be made on a peer reviewed magazine hopefully around March.
By the way: I made you a promise, you know which, and I don’t forget my promises.
I wish you a 2014 successful also for your informatic profession: they told me you are a strong-force informatic.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Herb Gillis:
We are making tests regarding the electric power generation. The policy here is to talk about results when they are consolidated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
It is encouraging indeed to hear the latest report regarding the development of the Ecat. You mention you can maintain a temperature at the heat exchange surface that will allow for about 40% efficiency in conversion to electricity. I am curious if you have actually demonstrated electricity production with an Ecat as the heat source and what range of heat conversion efficiencies you have observed in pilot plants? Could you tell us this much?
Kind regards; HRG.
Hi. You wrote:
“1- within March 2014 I think will be completed the first part of the long term validation and the results will be published positive or negative as they might be.”
Do you mean the long-term validation performed by ELFORSK? They announced this after they published the first study. I look forward to reading it.
Dear Andrea,
From your comments, it seems like operating continually in self sustain mode is still a significant challenge. By self sustain, I mean a situation in which the output power is holding steady, but the input is minimal. I really think that when the time is right, if you could give a bit more information about the dynamics of what is happening and why the reactor wants to run away that the readers of this blog could provide possible solutions. Now it is difficult for us to help, because we know so little.
I am delighted by the debate between Joe and bperet from forum RS2.
So bperet responds to Joe:
False premises
i) If 3d time, and clock space, are beyond our reality, no technology could ever be created to detect them.
The premise is false; they are not “beyond our realty,” they comprise our reality and manifest as force fields (electric, magnetic and gravitational) and antimatter. There are not “two realities”; the material and cosmic sectors are two ways to express the SAME reality: one based on speed (s/t) and acceleration (s/t2, speed per unit clock time) and the other based on energy (t/s) and force (t/s2, energy per unit clock space). Conventional science does exactly the same thing, and in many cases, has resorted to the use of “imaginary numbers” to express temporal relationships (impedance, reactance) without understanding why they work. Time (as an aspect of motion, not clock time) is that “imaginary” aspect in mathematics, with the quaternion representing 3D time.
The same situation exists with the plethora of “physical constants,” which become unnecessary in the RS because 3D time provides the missing information that is lumped together in those constants, and those “constants” reduce to common values, such as unity or PI (in natural units).
The RS simply provides a conceptual framework to understand why these invisible fields and imaginary values exist, and is able to use mathematics and projective geometry to describe and predict their behaviors. And the RS is excellent at prediction; Larson predicted the existence of quasars as a “natural consequence” of his theoretical system, 4 years before astronomers actually found one. Also, the RS is unified across all of science; the same relations that hold atoms together in a molecule, hold stars together in a globular cluster. The same set of rules, regardless of the scale of application. Can conventional science make that claim?
Therefore, it would be odd to call s/t speed, and t/s energy. (Or conversely, matter and antimatter, respectively.) All the best, Joe
E = mc2. In natural units, E (t/s) = m (t3/s3) c2 (s2/t2) … so why does conventional science call s/t, “speed” (c, the speed of light) and t/s, “energy” (E)? Isn’t that rather “odd,” if they are the same thing? 🙂
I would suggest reading Larson’s paper on The Dimensions of Motion, available on http://reciprocalsystem.org, for a detailed description of how units of space and time relate to each other and how they associate with conventional units.
http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/510#comment-1690
Congratulations on such a productive year! Wishing you the best in 2014!
Sincerely,
Dave
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for your heartwarming information.
I thought you meant the tops of the pyramids, as you mentioned before.
If the results are somehow negative, that would only mean that you, or your team have to work:
1: harder,
2: faster,
3: longer,
4: more intelligent,
5: all above.
6: any other way I can’t imagine.
7: 5 & 6
Because, E-Cat and the Rossi-Effect do consist of facts. It is only the controls that can still improve.
All this in a competitive world can make one nervous.
BTW, the vegetables go very well.
Happy 2014
Koen
Dr Rossi:
Will we have in 2014 energy made for some industry for industrial use by the Rossi Effect? You promise? Last question: why did you decide to do all this in the USA?
Riccardo:
Remember that until the results are published I do not know if the final results will be positive or negative. All I can say is that we are working hard and that if I work, it is not to sharpen the tops of the skyscrapers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Andrea, I’m very happy to read your last answer to Mr. Karels, a plenty of very good news and detailed information. It Look like you are now very well on the road to complete your “homework” and that you are close to be ready to present in the next future (within 2014 I guess) the results, that, i’m sure will not be less that astoundish. I’m eager to read all the world’s newspaper about. Carry On, Best Regards and Happy (working) New year Holidays
Riccardo
Silvio,
I thank bperet and detrix for their response.
A follow-up:
i) If 3d time, and clock space, are beyond our reality, no technology could ever be created to detect them. And if that were so, these two propositions could never be falsified. And being unfalsifiable, they could never form a valid scientific argument. They would just be fantastical speculation.
On the other hand, if a technology could be created to detect these two other realities, it should already exist amongst our present technologies, and should have already given sign of these two alternate realities. But such is not the case.
ii) The RS Universe seems to be a bicameral one, with one sector being space/time, and the other sector being time/space. The problem here is that these two ratios are neither qualitatively nor quantitatively different from each other, and therefore have no need to distinguish themselves by way of two separate universes. For example,
the same object can be described as moving with a speed of 2 m/s, or with a speed of 1s/2m (0.5 s/m). Both are equally valid within the same universe.
Therefore, it would be odd to call s/t speed, and t/s energy. (Or conversely, matter and antimatter, respectively.)
All the best,
Joe
Steven N. Karels:
Your comment has been erroneously spammed ( my fault, I am very tired and stressed, and I pushed the wrong botton) but here are the answers to your questions, which I remember:
1- within March 2014 I think will be completed the first part of the long term validation and the results will be published positive or negative as they might be.
2- we are aiming to obtain at least 3/4 of the time of operation in self sustained mode and the remaining 1/4 with a COP>1, so that the energy produced will be more than the energy consumed also during the periods with the drive on.
3- we are working now permanently at temperature (on the surface of the heat exchanging surface) that will allow an efficiency of 40% with the Carnot cycle. In these very days ( also during Christmas) the Hot Cat is working in our USA factory with a temperature upon the external surface, before cooling, around 1 000 °C. Enormous progress has been made in these months working with the Team of our US Partner. Here I found materials, expertise, professonality and, mainly, a moving trust in me that makes me feel extremely indebted. These factors are generating a strong force, with interesting results.
4- the publication of the theory behind the so called Rossi Effect I think will be published in 2014, but this is not a guarantee, because many are the factors this decision will depend from
5- the industrial plants are already for sale, because they have already obtained the safety certification, being operated by certified operators, while the domestic appliances, which will be operated by anybody, will need time to obtain the necessary safety certifications.
Please say hello to my beloved New Hampshire, where my US work has been started in 1996….
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
You suggested, in a comment that you sent by email to our mailbox, to use the “Slingshot technology” in combination with the E-Cat: as far as I know the S.T. is a tech for the purification of water; as a matter of fact, the E-Cat makes heat that can be used for any purpose compatible with the temperature reached, but I do not see any special reason regarding this particular application. Can you explain better ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe,
User lunardom has asked your questions in RS2 forum and got technical answers from RS2 experts. Go to read them: forum.rs2theory.org/node/510#comment-1695
Regards
Dr Joseph Fine:
Interesting. From keeping something happening in the E-Cat Kingdom, we need that something to be a mature product, commercially competitive.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
Of course, one can choose fluids other than water/steam in this type of low-temperature system, different materials, dimensions, revolutions per minute or per second etc.
Some additional work can be done here.
But “time is nature’s way of keeping everything from happening at once.” 🙂
Joseph Fine
Dear Joe,
Sorry, I am not skilled on RS2 theory to answer to your questions.
You should start from falsificable predictions that come from the theory… (See confirmation slides) Check if they are the same or different that in other theories… (e.g.: Sarg atlas?)
Starting from weirdest corollaries of a theory is only usefull to laugh at it… 🙂
Perhaps we will never be able to feel a 3D time… But what if it could be a better interpretation of puzzling cosmic phenomena?
My point is that new theorists seem not to know between them, so they can’t benefit from collaboration and cooperation as mainstream theorists do.
I am afraid that they count heroically only on themselves…
Regards
Giovanni Guerrini:
Likewise to you from me, my family and the team I have the honour to collaborate with,
Warm Regards
Andrea Rossi
Dear Andrea Rossi,
my best wishes to you,to your dears and to everybody who works for this project.
Giovanni Guerrini
Dr Joseph Fine:
Useful, as usual,
New Year’s regards to you,
A.R.
Silvio,
In the Reciprocal System of physical theory created by Dewey B. Larson, there exists
i) 3-dimensional time (in contradistinction to 1-dimensional time)
ii) clock space (in contradistinction to clock time).
My question is
i) How can we feel a 3d time since we only sense time as a linear course of events?
ii) Since a clock has a physical motion to indicate the passage of time, what kind of clock has a physical motion to indicate the passage of space?
All the best,
Joe
Andrea Rossi,
Here is some information about Ener-G-Rotors. Ener-G-Rotors.
http://www.ener-g-rotors.com
http://energy.gov/articles/turning-waste-heat-power-ener-g-rotors-and-entrepreneurial-mentorship-program
http://www.sunycnse.com/download/Ener_G_Rotors.pdf
Ener-G-Rotors could be used with low temperature heat sources or with other technologies* in a lower-temperature/pressure section of a high temperature/pressure system to improve electrical generating efficiency.
* (Some of which have been discussed in the JONP.)
Further improvements might be made, but that’s “progress”, and “progress” comes before “work” only in the dictionary,
Whenever I think there’s nothing new under the sun, the sun rises on a new day.
New Years Regards,
Joseph Fine
@Stoyan Sarg
@Wladimir Guglinski
I am very glad that you have known each other, I am sure both of you will enrich your theory from this experience!
I dare to suggest you also to have a look to a third theory, an old one, from which to get some inspirating ideas…
forum.rs2theory.org/forum/4
orsobubu:
Thank you and wishes for a great 2014 also to you.
About my work: recognition comes from working reactors. Our validation tests in course will give consolidate results, positive or negative as they might be.
My opinion about Fukushima: very difficult to answer, because I usually avoid to talk of things I have not a throughly knowledge about. The opinions I got from other scientists are mixed. Nobody can exclude that there will be heavy consequences for a long time from the Fukushima catastrophe, but the collection of evidence of this will be made critical from the different possible hypotesis. It will be foundamental the collection of statistic data regarding the insurgence of anomalies of any kind, but the consolidation of data emerging from statistics takes time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Martyn Aubrey:
Thank you for your insight, I will analyse it.
I wish yourself too the best possible Christmas and 2014.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Hank Mills had the very interesting idea of using individual nickel islands to reduce potential thermal runaway inside the e-cat reactors. They would form an array of miniature “Hot-Spots” across the inner surfaces of the reactors.
Hank – “2 – Instead of coating the walls of the reactor with nickel powder, why not have hundreds or thousands of individual nickel islands surrounded by barriers that could prevent the islands from over stimulating each other?”
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=2#comment-887586
I have been thinking along very similar lines, but with some differences in the e-cat configuration.
Here are some diagrams showing my take on the concept put forward by Hank. I hope they are helpful.
Dropbox link https://www.dropbox.com/s/r77lmoup8cl5hbp/A%20Suggestion%20To%20Reduce%20Unwanted%20Excessive%20Positive%20Feedback%20Of%20Heat%20Inside%20An%20E-Cat%20Reactor%20By%20Controlling%20The%20Distribution%20Of%20Treated%20Nickel%20Powder%20Within%20The%20Reactor.pdf
This variation on Hank’s concept uses a “Two Plate Reactor System”, which was also the basis of the e-cat Stove-Heater concept.
Please note the way that when the two plates are brought together, that the opposing nickel powder cells individually align and form a greater feedback link than that with their adjacent cells on the same plate.
This alignment maintains the wanted feedback between the opposing cells (as well as reducing the unwanted feedback between the adjacent islands as suggested by Hank).
For each of the reactors, the sheet of cells or pockets could be produced either by machine stamping the cells into a sheet of thin steel or by 3D printing the metal shape. A second thin flat metal sheet would form the backing, or top cover, whilst maintaining sufficient distance between the cover and the cells to allow the hydrogen to access the nickel powder.
The overall cell feedback linkage, and therefore the e-cat heat output, would still be controlled by moving the plates closer together to increase the wanted feedback, or moved further apart to reduce the wanted feedback, (as suggested in the e-cat Heater-Stove Concept design).
Andrea,
I wish yourself and our fellow readers of The Journal Of Nuclear Physics a very Joyful Christmas and a Happy New Year for 2014 – The Year that the E-Cat leaps onto The World Stage!!
Martyn Aubrey
Dear Andrea, I hope that 2014 will be the year in which you will be recognized as one of the greatest scientists and technologists of our time, and our country. In the meantime, I have a question for you about an issue that concerns me a lot. Staying in the context of nuclear energy, and counting on your habit to analyze controversial topics, I would like to know what you think of radiation leakage from the plant of Fukushima, which continues unabated for nearly three years. Some think that the danger of a global contamination of the environment has been exaggerated, others – myself included – believe that it is the most serious problem that humanity should face today. I am very interested to know your opinion, and I’d also like to know if you have ever talked about it with scientists, engineers and well-informed people in general with whom you have close relations in America, since it seems that also US’ west coast start to suffer, in some extent. Thank you!
Dr Joseph Fine:
Interesting, thanks and Best Wishes to you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
I found some more information on Haloglass (TM) technology on the web.
Here is a recent presentation on the subject.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/pdfs/csp_review_meeting_042513_raade.pdf
Hope this will be helpful.
Best wishes for a Merry Christmas a Happy and Healthy 2014.
Joseph Fine
Frank Acland:
Both.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Luca Salvarani:
Thank you: I wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a successful 2014.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Caro Andrea,
Auguro a lei e ai suoi cari un buon Natale e delle felici feste.