.
by
Gamal A. Nasser
Faculty of science, Mansoura University, Egypt
E-mail: chem.gamal@hotmail.com
.
.
Abstract
This model is development of solid nuclear models. Like FCC model, this model can account for nuclear properties that have been explained by different models. This model gives more accurate explanation for some nuclear properties which are Asymmetric fission, Nuclear binding energy and the most bound nuclei, Natural radioactivity and Number of neutrons in nuclei depending on the structures of these nuclei. The structures of nuclei in this model have special advantage, as there is separation between lattice positions of similar nucleons giving new concept for nuclear force.
.
.
Gian Luca:
Thank you for the info. About the talking: I take notice of the fact that our opponents are again trying to use my past to assassinate my character
( http://www.ingandrearossi.com)
This gives evidence of the validity of my work, if after 5 years they still need to use that as an argument.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
First I’m am a big supporter of you and the eCat and often defend you both against skeptics/trolls on various blogs. I also accept the results of the test as true and accurate.
The last test was an opportunity to for the test team to answer many of the criticisms that were leveled at the first test. Two majors issues were that the first test took place on your premises and in your presence. This time the tests were wisely moved to an independent facility and the expectation is that you would not be present either.
Then we find out that you “intervened” (page 7) at several important points in the process. Why was this necessary when all must have known that this would just be ammunition for your critics to cry foul and fraud. I do not understand why you were even there to feed this narrative. I think it would have been much wiser to not even have set foot in the facility and allowed these courageous professors to claim complete independence. Now you cast an unnecessary shadow over the event.
Best wishes going forward. I hope that the demonstration of the commercial plant comes soon.
Dear A.R.
while we are talking about the discovery of the millennium (after the wheel) oilprice.com publish this article, but does not mention or LENR E-CAT. Meanwhile, oil continues its descent toward $ 80 a barrel
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Is-Fusion-Power-Closer-Than-We-Thought.html
Ad Majora…..
Gian Luca
Felix Rends:
I thank you very much for your comment, that I think is important for the following reasons:
1- Brian Josephson is a Nobel Prize laureate ( one of the youngest Nobel Prize awarded of the History)
2- Because his article has been written on Nature, even if its blog
Well, this is a very beautiful moment.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
FYI
Brian Josephson (awarded for the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973) comment at Nature.com
—————————————
The most important news of the year, perhaps, not just the last seven days? The results of a new investigation into the Rossi reactor (allegedly a high-power cold fusion reactor), involving running the reactor over a 32-day period, are now out. The report not only confirms output power far in excess of anything possible by chemical reaction, but also gives a clear indication that a nuclear reaction is occurring, on the basis of a substantial change in the isotopic proportions of Li and Ni over the period of the run. The report, entitled Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel may be seen at http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe….
As before, I predict that pigs will fly before Nature makes any mention of the report, which has also been put on hold by the physics preprint archive arxiv.org (with an earlier report, a leaked email disclosed that the moderators were trying hard to find a reason to block the report but eventually gave in).
Brian Josephson
—————————————
http://www.nature.com/news/seven-days-3-9-october-2014-1.16087#comment-1626001865
Best Regards
Felix Rends
Germany
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The ITPR says that your e-cat was able to produce 1 gram of Nickel 62 isotope with a purity of 99,3%. Do you have any idea of the commercial value of such high refined material?
You have not to recycle e-cat ashes, you have to sell them! 🙂
Henry Ethancourt:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
You might or might not have read the following:
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2824558/infrastructure-management/could-ultra-cheap-clean-energy-be-just-around-the-corner-the-return-of-rossi-and-the-e-cat.html
Cheers,
HE
Alex:
What I answered to Daniel G. Zavela means that I will not accept any engagement of any sort until the 1 MW plant supplied to the Customer will be totally and definitely running in a regular, easy operation, without trouble making of any sort.
About the domestic application, I already explained.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Neri B.:
Thermal
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you for your opinion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Overnight re-reading of the report makes me consider the following:
This does not need publiciation in a scientific journal. The output/input measurement is plain vanilla up-to-date thermodynamics analysis, executed on a very professional way with perfect scientific approach.
This document fits in courses and professional litterature -and why not in advertising for industrial measurement technics- that should be studied by every technical university student and technical professional involved with heat-related issues.
These are the guys that will offer, sell, install and service the final devices. If they “buy it”, their employers will buy it.
Sorry for posting and commenting too much. But this excellent, well written report, full of facts and proof deserves better than “opinion-by-reference-authority”-approach.
Koen
Dear eernie1,
thank you for answering me directly. I feel honored by your attention.
I agree with the need for something out of the box. It depends how far out.
Let alone my theoretical rumbling speeches, the “theory” I am proposing fortunately arrives at some falsifiable statements.
Here a few of them:
Physics (the electron coupling and the collapse):
Some electromagnetic frequencies in the [kHz] range should be able to change the reaction rate. This because they should stimulate/interfere in the coupling between the p/d/t and the electron. Specifically I estimate (but this a very rough estimation) that one frequency should be equal to the p/e mass ratio 1,836. … [Hz].
The irradiation of the charge with gamma rays of frequencies just above 141 [keV] and 4.17[MeV] should activate the production of neutrons. If my estimation of the mass of the beta decaying H4 is wrong these frequencies should be changed accordingly.
The d-e attraction should be less intense than the t-e attraction. Together with reaction 4, this means that any tritium added to an hydrogen loaded charge should gradually be consumed by the LENR. The E-Cat and the Hot-Cat in fact seem not to accumulate tritium, despite hydrogen loading (see Edmund Storms’ comments …).
The presence of a strong magnetic field should enhance the reaction rate. The radiation that escapes the charge should have an angular distribution that follows the magnetic field. In particular there should be two different sets of frequencies coming out parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field. Those parallel are due to the approaching phase of the nucleons to the electron and are “dipolar”. Those perpendicular should be due to the “cyclotron” emission of the nuclei once captured “inside” the electron Zitterbewegung (if any).
Chemistry (before the coupling):
Stimulating the charge with photons that enhance the movement of vacancies, the reaction rate should raise.
The size of the active metal clusters should be in the 3-12 nanometer range. Outside the reaction rate should be very low.
There should be a correlation between the number of hydrogen (p/d/t 2) molecules formed and the amount of energy produced (some of the approaches do not lead to the electron coupling and to the collapse, but to the formation of molecules inside newly formed vacancies).
Best regards
Andrea Calaon
Dear dr. Rossi,
this is the link of the article on the strategic impacts of breakthrough energy technologies that I mentioned to you by email a couple of months ago.
http://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/sisr.nsf/approfondimenti/strategic-impacts-of-breakthrough-energy-technologies.html
All the best
D.R.
Dear Andrea,
Congratulations your results are really stunning…I think I have been staring at the table of isotopic change for some hours having no words …
I have one question if you can answer: when you say 1 MW plant you still refer to THERMAL power or ELECTRIC power?
Thank you on behalf of mankind
Neri B.
I finally got my video up from my interview on Coast to Coast AM about the E-Cat test results.
Sterling Allan on Coast to Coast AM about E-Cat breakthrough – On October 9, George Noory interviewed me about Andrea Rossi’s third-party test.
Dear Ing. Rossi,
In your reply to Daniel G.Zavela you wrote:
“..it is the milestone that signals the first commercial product based on LENR ..in the free market. The success of this plant goes beyond anything else, and nothing will take a single hour of my work but it from now through the end of 2015”. Does this mean that you are targeting roll out of commercial e-car or hot-cat, or domestic e-cat, for early 2016?
God be with you.
Dear Andrea Calaon,
In my experience,when a situation or result lies out of the box of standard theory you must look for an out of the box solution. At this stage of the game with an incomplete ash analysis,your theory is as good as anyone else can come up with within reasonable boundaries. I think we require more information but the last report of ash content if correct, may point us in the right direction
Daniel G.Zavela:
As a matter of fact, we already have a plant of 1 MW made for a Customer. For all the next 12-14 months my only and sole focus will be on it: it is the milestone that signals the first commercial product based on LENR ( or QUAR, as my friend Renato Estri likes to say) in the free market.
The success of this plant goes beyond anything else, and nothing will take a single hour of my work but it from now through the end of 2015. Also my activity of R&D will be focused on it. All my great team is focused on it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
With apologies to Christopher Columbus, please remind your critics that the Earth is indeed flat and that if you travel far enough, you will fall off the edge.
I know the truth of what you have achieved as Dr. Patterson had success in 1995 producing 400% excess power using a corrugated nickel base and when he substituted a smooth nickel base, the reaction would not work. Dr. George Miley analyzed and found transmutation of elements in the Patterson Power Cells(tm). I have a copy of an independent laboratory report proving transmutations from a cell that vaporized at 3000 degrees C.
Sterling Allan feels it will take 5 years more time to commercialize your ECat. Do you believe production might happen sooner?
Wishing you the best of luck.
Best Regards,
Daniel G. Zavela
Dave K:
Selected visitors will be allowed to the 1 MW plant, in future.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Curiosone:
No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse vanishes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
In mercatu veritas! There seems no longer a reason for your customer (or IH) to not allow the E-cat to be put on display, if not to the public, then at least to some group of business, government, or scientific leaders. Even if there remain some technical difficulties, the customer would be seen for its business acumen, technical savvy, and environmental awareness, and it would surely improve a beleaguered stock price. If the customer is not willing to allow this, IH should put it on display themselves, or they should establish a second customer who will! Do you not think so?
Dear Hank Mills:
Thank you. This report is very deep. The more you read it, the more you get from it. It comes from the experience of Professors that have dedicated all their life to Nuclear Physics and that accepted not to be biased against the possibility of LENR, albeit these could pose gaps of reconciliation with the classic models. They also had the courage to be honest and sincere: it would have much more easy for them to follow the wave and dismiss LENR as impossible and so be it.
This Report a mine also for me, like the book of Norman Cook.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I want to admit that I just discovered that I asked you a needless, redundant question earlier today. After reading the report yet again I found the answer. I aoologize, and I now know why you spammed my comment.
I deserved it. I’ll re-read the report again.
Thank you.
Hank
Herb Gills:
We are studying the results. It will take time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
According to the most recent 3rd party report a number of elements that were in the fuel material seem to have disappeared from the ash, or were radically lower in concentration in the ash. These were Al, Fe, C, Ca, Cl, Mg, and Mn. Apparently no data given on isotopic composition (changes) in these elements. Do you find any of these changes surprising? Do you think these changes were due to simple chemical segregation within the fuel during burning- – or perhaps something else?
Kind regards; HRG.
Curiosone:
The site where the Report of the Independent Third Party has been put and where the Professors will make all the updatings is:
http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-matrapport-publicerad
Some minor corrections already have been made.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Eernie1:
The Prof did not use the ssm mode. We did in our factory, but the data of our R&D are restricted, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
We are studying.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Since The Report shows a dramatic isotopic RATIO shift, I believe there are two possibilities:
1. That the isotopes showing a decrease were “consumed” in the exothermic reaction.
2. That the isotope with the large increase was somehow created during the reaction.
3. both of the above occurred.
For lithium – I do not know of a way to shift 7Li to 6Li, so I assume this was a reduction in the 7Li population that caused the 6Li relative population to dramatically increase. So this might be a case of the 7Li being converted to helium?
For the nickel – I would assume the lower numbered nickel isotopes were altered and eventually became the dominant nickel isotope. But we did not see a production of copper. Somehow, the reaction stopped at 62Ni isotope.
Comments?
Dear Andrea,
I know that the professors did not run the device in self sustained mode(no activating input)because they feared a runaway mode may occur. After they finished their testing regime did they try to run it in self sustaining configuration? In the self sustaining mode, COP is meaningless because dividing by 0 gives you infinity. My other question is, have you or are you running your tests in self sustaining mode and if you are, can the device be controlled?
Successful regards.
H-G Branzell:
Please find my answers inside the text of your comment, to make easy the reading. My answers are in capital letters, to make clear the distinction between what they wrote and what I answered.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andreas Moraitis:
For the next year we will be exclusively focused on the operation of the 1 MW plant supplied to our Customer and on the R&D applied to it. This commercial breakthrough is the sole logic next step and we want not to be distracted from this purpose.
Obviously I will personally continue to study on the results of the Report, because at this point I ned to reconcile the theoretical bases. Theoretical discussions will go ahead for years, though.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
After the release of the test – which will hopefully be followed by a publication in a peer reviewed journal – scientists around the world might wish to reproduce the “Rossi effect” in their laboratories. Do you see a possibility that you, without disclosing any critical information, propose some of them an experiment that would allow a reliable replication? I’m thinking of a setup that produces a COP that is greater than 1, but anyway not high enough for commercial applications.
From the viewpoint of an entrepreneur there would be no reason for you to do that, but as a scientist you might be open for this idea. By the way, don’t forget that well-known city in Sweden…
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Dr Rossi,
I do not know if you can answer to this question, if not please spam it.
Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ?
W.G.
Dear Dr Rossi:
Which is the official site where the report is deposited?
Thank you,
W.G.
Dear Andrea,
The more I read and re-think all that has been said and written, the more I get convinced that this “test” is no more than the warming-up, the preparation, the stabilisation of the reactor.
This is really a miracle device. A gift of God.
I understand your modest and humble attitude, many of our great inventors in history had that, but I am not sure it is in place. The world is in big trouble, and this invention gives a possible outcome.
Thank You very much Andrea Rossi,
Best Regards,
Koen
Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory, notes, “I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP were accurate. Aside from the fact that this could not have been produced from any known chemical reaction, the most significant finding to me is the evidence of isotopic shifts in lithium and nickel. Understanding this could possibly be the beginning of a whole new era in both material transmutations and energy for the planet and for space exploration. This is an exciting time to live in and this is an exciting technology to witness come about.”
IS IT NOT REMARKABLE ? THIS IS NASA !
“The sample was taken by us at random from the fuel and ash,
observing utmost care to avoid any contamination.”
So was written by the Autors of the report.
The accuses of some colleagues of Upsala that fuel and ash were
manipulated or replaced by other substances by Rossi are unfounded,
Dear JoNP Readers,
dear Wladimir Guglinski, dear eernie1, dear Steven N. Karels, dear Dan C., dear H-G Branzell, dear Rodney Nicholson (question 2 ;)), …
Please consider this simple suggestion for the solution for the “mystery” of LENR.
The LENR are simply nuclear fusion reactions mediated by the electron.
This so far uncharted type of reaction follows always this scheme:
Nu(N) + electron + p/d/t -> Nu(N+1) + photons
where:
Nu(N) is any nucleus with neutron number N and
the expression p/d/t meas: either a proton, a deuteron or a triton.
If Nu(N+1) is not stable other corresponding nuclear “pieces” appear.
It is a ternuclear reaction in the sense that the three particles on the left react at the same time because they meet in the same place. The means by which this otherwise very unlikely meeting event happens is the coupling of the electron.
A necessary condition for this reactions to take place is that the two reacting nuclei must have at least a magnetic quadrupole moment (a magnetic dipole moment is even better …) because the attractive potential is magnetic. Is is essentially Dallacasa’s nuclear attractive potential (1983).
These reactions are triggered only when the two nuclei and the electron find themselves within a radius of “some” picometers, and have kinetic energies that are not too high.
If you want I can detail on the collapse mechanism.
It is possible to enhance the coupling through some electromagnetic frequencies.
The many metal structures that have been proven to host LENR actually succeed in squeezing the two nuclei and the electron inside picometric distances. They do it in a special way, through the dynamic of vacancy movement with some additional requirements: energy localization that comes with non linear modes in particles between 3 and 12 nanometers … this is the physical-chemistry of LENR.
The essential is that the electron acts like an extension of what is called nuclear force (nothing to do with the strong force). The Zitterbewegung of the electron has a diameter of 386 [fm]: much larger than any nuclear range. And it can reach even further.
Hence there is actually no particle kinetics that overcomes the Coulomb barrier, as in common plasma fusion.
There is no need for a special mechanism for energy fractionation because the nuclei accelerate while accelerating towards the electron and during the final collapse that happens “inside” the Zitterbewegung trajectory (like a spiralling rail) of the electron. They therefore emit soft gamma rays, well before the real nuclear reaction eventually takes place: exchange of W+ and emission of a neutrino. In this way part of the binding energy turns into photos instead of kinetic energy of the daughter particles.
The “classical” LENR are:
1 : p+e+p ->d + neutrino + (max) 1.442MeV
2 : d+e+p ->t + neutrino + (aver) 4.9 MeV(max 5.475)
3a: d+e+d ->H4+ neutrino + (max) 6.82 MeV
non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV
3b: d+e+d+141[keV] ->H4 + neutrino +(max) > 0.00 MeV
excited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV
4a: t+e+p ->H4 + neutrino + (max) 2.79 MeV
non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV
4b: t+e+p+4.17[MeV]->H4 + neutrino + (max)> 0.00 MeV (very unlikely)
exited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV
5 : t+e+d ->H5 + neutrino + ?
H5 ->H4 + neutrino+n+e-+(max) 18.1 MeV
excited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV
non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV
By the way, in the nuclide charts H4 is described having a mass of 4.027806424 [u] and decaying 100% by neutron emission. That is however a excited nuclear isomer. There exists another H4 that has a lower mass (approx. 4.020334 [u]) and that decays beta, as indicated in the _a reactions.
When one of the two nuclei “captured by the electron” is not a p/d/t, but a heavier nucleus, an isotope shift (possibly followed by a transmutation) occurs.
For example in the case of Lithium:
10: Li7+e+p ->He4+ H4(non-excited)+ 0.83 [MeV]
non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 [MeV]
11:Li6+e+p ->He4+t+neutrino+ (max) 4.51 [MeV]
and the produced tritium is rapidly consumed by reaction 4a.
Li7 has a magnetic dipole moment (3.256424 [muN]) that is larger than that of Li6 (0.8220467 [muN]). This is the reason for which it reacts more quickly. This causes the isotopic ratio of Lithium to progressively change.
In the case of Nickel:
12: Ni58+e+p ->Ni59+neutrino+ (max) 8.22 [MeV]
13: Ni59+e+p ->Ni60+neutrino+ (max) 10.60 [MeV]
14: Ni60+e+p ->Ni61+neutrino+ (max) 2.63 [MeV]
15: Ni61+e+p ->Ni62+neutrino+ (max) 14.22 [MeV]
Ni61 is the only stable Ni isotope with a magnetic dipole moment. The other isotopes, since they react, must have a magnetic quadrupole moment. Unfortunately no data are available to me about the actual quadrupole magnetic moments of Ni58, Ni59, Ni60.
The nuclear (fcc) structure of Ni62 is sort of “perfectly symmetric”, in fact it possesses the highest binding energy per nucleon. That makes all its magnetic moments exactly equal to 0. This is the reason why it does not couple with the electron, and stops the isotope shift progression.
About the Hot-Cat:
I think that in the “production” mode (long term runs), the Hot-Cat reactions that provide most of the power, as in all other less powerful LENR devices, are number 1, 2, 3a and 4a. Occasionally if reactions 3b and 4b are activated by the gamma radiation of the very same LENR, some lone neutrons can be actually produced. Reaction 5 happens only during some runaway bursts, during which tritium and deuterium accumulate.
The “heavy” isotopes that can undergo isotope shifts (like Ni58) are completely “depleted” in the priming of the Hot-Cat charge. This phase lasts a time span measurable in months of continuous work.
When the charge has no more “heavy and shiftable” isotopes, reactions 1-4 can become the primary energy source. And it could be that the optimum electromagnetic stimulus has to be changed accordingly as well.
A comment on the COP for electricity production:
To me it makes no sense to evaluate the industrial interest of the COP of a system that can transfer heat only “passively” through radiation to a non-absorbing medium. The COP for electrical energy production should instead be proven for systems that control their temperature at least partly by varying the cooling load.
The alumina rod of the experiment seems to have been developed specifically for pure radiation heat exchange, like the performed test, because it is brittle, but with excellent endurance at the highest temperatures.
I think that with:
– Primed Fuel (no more isotope shifts in Ni and Li) +
– Discontinuous Cat and Mouse Heating Cascade +
– Higher Temperature +
– “Cooling-fluid Thermal Control”
the COP can raise towards 20. This is the range that I guess Andrea Rossi and his Team have in their hands and are testing right now.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
H-G BRANZELL:
PLEASE FIND MY ANSWERS ALONG THE TEXT: MY ANSWERS ARE RECOGNIZABLE BECAUSE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, INSERTED IN THE TEXT TO MAKE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO ANY SINGLE POINT MADE BY THESE SCIENTISTS. I RESPECT THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT AN AGENDA, BUT FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY ARE SINCERELY CONVINCED OF.
Not very positive for the Dogbone Cat —
IT IS NORMAL AND EXPECTED
http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854985.ece, google Translate:
Elforsk AB is the Swedish electricity company research and development company. Thus, Elforsk a heavy role and a responsibility to conduct the important research on the current and future energy supply in a way that is both responsible and relying on good science and critical thinking.
MOST OF ALL, I WOULD SAY, ON EXPERIMENTS THAT REALLY MAKE PRODUCTS THAT WORK: ELFORSK DOES NOT PRODUCE THEORIES, BUT ENERGY.
On NyTekniks debate page on 9/10 states now Magnus Olofsson, CEO of Elforsk, it’s time for Elforsk to proceed with research on so-called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), and this is largely because of the “amazing results” that is now being published in a report written by researchers from Uppsala University. We find it surprising that just hours after the report is released, without waiting or asking for more critical comments on the reported material, is prepared to launch an entirely new area of research.
We note that the new measurements have been carried out in southern Switzerland and that funding for the report comes from Elforsk, and that three of the authors are retired, formerly employed at Uppsala University. But as far as we know, this report has otherwise no connection to Uppsala University, financially or operationally.
LET’S BE PRECISE:
THE FUNDS DID NOT ARRIVE ONLY FROM ELFORSK; THE LIST OF FUNDINGS IS REPORTED AT THE END OF THE REPORT; AND NOWHERE HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT ANY FUNDING CAME FROM THE UPPSALA UNIVERSITY
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the E-Cat deal, which now has rolled in blogs and the media since 2011, it is perhaps that it is still “alive” and question why anyone still believes in it. Periodically test new variants of the E-Caterpillar and criticisms of tests of previous E-Cat variants are never to be and answered. Instead investigated now even a new variant of “energy catalyst” and even more amazing results presented.
ALL THE QUESTIONS, TO WHICH WAS POSSIBLE TO ANSWER, THAT HAVE BEEN PUT AFTER THE FORMER TESTS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED TO; NEW TESTS HAVE FOLLOWED SUIT THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORK
We agree that what is reported is amazing. But we believe that it is surprising is that the authors and Elforsk are so naive that they uncritically swallow something that would set the entire nuclear physics on its head; in a gram of “fuel”, consisting mainly of nickel, the proportion of the isotope Ni-62 in the “fuel” through some type of nuclear processes have increased from 4 percent to 99 percent. And this without any radiation emitted, either during operation or in the resulting “ash”. An equally spectacular nuclear transformation must have been of a proportion of lithium in the fuel powder. This goes against all the accumulated nuclear physics knowledge collected over the last 100 years. But rather than rewrite the textbooks, we believe that you first have to thoroughly investigate if there are other, simpler explanations.
I AGREE ON THE FACT THAT THE RESULTS ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE, AND WE ARE STUDYING ON THIS. IF WHAT HAPPENED WITH LITHIUM SUITES IN PART OUR EXPECTATIONS, FOR NICKEL WE HAVE DIFFICULTIES TO RECONCILE. CLEARLY, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
THESE SCIENTISTS FORGET THAT IT HAS BEEN MEASURED AN EXCESS OF ENERGY NOT RECONCILIABLE WITH ANY CHEMICAL REACTION. THIS TOO CONTRASTS WITH 100 YEARS OF FORMER EXPERIENCE. RELATIVITY CONTRASTED WITH 500 YEARS OF FORMER EXPERIENCE. GALILEO RISKED TO BE BURNT ALIVE BECAUSE CONTRASTED 3 000 YEARS (OR MORE) OF FORMER CONSOLIDATED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
SUCH AN EXCESS OF ENERGY, MEASURED IN A LONG PERIOD ( MORE THAN 1 000 HOURS STRAIGHT) NEEDS AN EXPLICATION TOO, THAT DOES NOT RECONCILE WITH ANY CHEMICAL REACTION.
For apparently thinking Elforsk not seriously if researchers simply may have been deceived by an inventor proposals. The drastic isotope enrichments that should have been accomplished during the operation of the E-Cat can be quickly purchased from several different companies. The inventor Rossi has what we can understand of the report dealt with the fuel itself both in terms of replenishment and withdrawal.
THIS IS REALLY FUNNY: SHOULD I HAVE TEMPERED THE SAMPLES, I WOULD HAVE MADE IT TO MAKE RECONCILING POSSIBLE, OR AT LEAST CLOSE TO LIKELY ! THESE SCIENTISTS ASSUME THAT I SUICIDE MYSELF MAKING ARTIFICIALLY A NOT RECONCULABLE CHARGE!
BESIDES: IN THE REPORT IS WRITTEN THAT THE SAMPLES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE COMMETTEE.
Already in 2011 there were two very professionally conducted fuel analyzes at the Natural History Museum.
THIS IS MORE FUNNY: THESE SCIENTISTS DEFINE VERY PROFESSIONALLY CONDUCTED AN ANALYSIS MADE UPON A SAMPLE SUPPLIED BY ME, AND DO NOT, BY LOGICAL DEDUCTION, CONSIDER PROFESSIONALLY CONDUCTED ANALYSIS MADE UPON SAMPLES INSERTED AND EXTRACTED BY A THIRD PARTY
The result of this time showed that the nickel contained in both the “fuel” and “ash” had the natural distribution of isotopes of nickel, that is, no isotope change of nickel which could be observed. It then alleged reaction product of copper occurred additionally in separate flakes of “ashes”, not mixed in nickel flakes which should have been the case if nuclear transformations occurred. Therefore, one can suspect that Rossi did not hesitate to provide the testing with researchers manipulated the material. Without a rigorous and documented inspection, one can not draw any conclusions regarding Ecatens function based on the fuel analyzes presented.
AS THESE SCIENTISTS CORRECTLY SAY, I SUPPLIED THOSE SAMPLES, IN 2011 (TO PROF. SVEN KULLANDER), AND I GAVE A SAMPLE FROM WHICH THE COMPONENTS, THAT AT THOSE TIMES WERE NOT DISCLOSABLE, HAD BEEN EXTRACTED, BECAUSE NOT YET PATENTED. I CLEARLY WARNED PROF. KULLANDER OF THAT. SO WE ALL KNEW THAT THOSE ANALYSIS COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS COMPLETE, BUT JUST AS A FIRST APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. THE COPPER FOUND WAS PROBABLY AN IMPURITY AND I MADE CLEAR THIS SUSPECT OF MINE . IN THAT CASE THE SAMPLE HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM A REACTOR BY A THIRD PARTY AND I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY TO SAY, AS I DID WHEN I DELIVERED IT, THAT I HAD TAKEN OFF FROM IT THE PARTS THAT I WANTED NOT TO DISCLOSE.
ANDREA ROSSI
Stephan Pomp, Professor, Uppsala University
Göran Ericsson, Professor, Uppsala University
Peter Ekström, Professor Emeritus, University of Lund
Ane Håkansson, Professor, Uppsala University
Curiosone:
The Professors told me so. But told me it takes a long time. Besides, it is a 54 pages report, not easy for a magazine. Usually magazines limit the pages around 15-20 pages and this report is not easy to cut, because every page has a precise function.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Curiosone: No, I do not know which one is it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Analysis of the eCat Mass and Interior Volume based on The Report
The report showed a mass after the test of 452 grams, with one gram attributed to the Fuel.
Is the mass consistent with the Alumina material and published dimensions?
Alumina density = 3.95 grams per cubic centimeter
Volume model: Two Caps plus one cylinder
Cap is 4 cm in length and has a diameter of 4 cm (radius = 2 cm)
The cylinder has a length of 20 cm and a diameter of 2 cm (radius = 1 cm)
If they were solid Alumina, the Alumina volume would be V = pi * r * r * L
Alumina volume = 2 * pi * (2cm * 2cm * 4cm) + pi * (1cm * 1cm * 20cm) = 52 * pi cc = 163.4 cc
The corresponding mass would be 3.95 grams per cc * 163.4 cc or 645 grams
The difference (645 – 452) is due to the hollow volume = 193.3 grams or 49 cc of hollow space
This does not account for the mass of the resistance heating wires so the space (for the hydrogen gas) is probably 50 cc or slightly larger.
If the hollow volume were cylindrical with a length of 20 cm, then the hollow cylinder radius would be 6.3 mm or a diameter of 12.6 mm (about ½”).
Fuel Mass Analysis of the eCat from The Report
Mass Content:
The eCat reactor is described as cylindrical with a diameter of 2 cm and a length of 20cm. The material was stated to be Alumina with a triangular surface, 0.23cm deep by 0.32cm wide, purportedly for heat transfer purposes.
Inside was an electrical heater subsystem. Mass after the test was 452 grams. Fuel mass was 1 gram.
Assumption: Wall thickness was 0.4 cm (based on a thermocouple hole diameter of 0.4cm).
Inside Radius = 1.0 cm – 0.23 cm – 0.4 cm = 0.27 cm
Total Internal Volume of the cylinder = V = pi * r^2 * h = 3.14 * 0.27 * 0.27 * 20 cm = 4.6 cc
Assumptions: Assign ½ of volume to resistance heaters. Gas pressure is 10 atm.
Working Volume = 2.3 cc. = 0.0023 liters
How much hydrogen is needed to support a pressure of 10 atm at 1200K?
Using the ideal gas law P * V = n * R * T, where R = 0.082 liter * atm / ( K * moles)
n = P * V / ( T * R) = 10.0 atm * 0.0023 liters / (1200 K * 0.082 atm * liters / (mole * K)
n = 2.34 * 10 ^-4 moles
2 grams of hydrogen in one mole, therefore hydrogen mass = about 0.47 milligrams
Assumption: LiH was used to supply both the hydrogen and the lithium to the eCat.
What was the mass of the LiH supplied?
LiH can yield about 25% of its hydrogen when heated above 700C. So the hydrogen portion of the LiH must be 1.88 milligrams. Lithium has an atomic mass of about 7 while hydrogen is about 1. So the amount of LiH is 8 * 1.88 milligrams or about 0.015 grams (or more).
Total amount of lithium is about 0.013 grams.
What was the mass of the nickel?
Total fuel mass was 1 gram. So the nickel mass was about 0.985 grams (could be less)
FINALLY GOT YESTERDAY’S MATS LEWAN INTERVIEW POSTED
Author of An Impossible Invention
TWIFE™ Featuring Mats Lewan on E-Cat Test Results – News Compilation on E-Cat Validation Paper
Includes show notes and links
If the article will be published in a peer reviewed magazine, do you know which one is it ?
Do you know if the Report of the ITP will be also published in a peer reviewed magazine?
Here’s an excerpt from the email that Coast to Coast AM sent out after the show last night, which can be found at http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2014/10/09
From: CoastZone
To: sterlingda…
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 7:53 AM [MDT]
Subject: CoastZone – Cold Fusion Breakthroughs
October 10, 2014 Coast Insider Audio
Cold Fusion Breakthroughs:
During the first half, CEO of Pure Energy Systems Inc., Sterling D. Allan , talked about the latest developments in alternative energies and cold fusion technology. Allan commented on a recently published third-party report on the performance of Andrea Rossi’s low energy nuclear reactor. Rossie’s “cold fusion” device ran for 32 days continuously at over 1000° C using only a gram of fuel, he reported, noting it produced 3.5 times more energy than was put into the system. According to Allan, we may only be five to ten years away from a small (size of refrigerator) cold fusion system that can power a house.