Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM

Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
York University, Toronto, Canada

Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
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 does not offer an explanation for 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.
Analysis of some successful cold fusion experiments resulted in practical considerations for modification of the Coulomb barrier.
The analysis also predicts the possibility of another cold fusion reaction based on similarities between the nuclear structures of Ni and Cr.

617 comments to Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM

  • ing. Michelangelo De Meo

    The Independent Third Party Report Has Been Posted by Professor Levi Following the site :
    Also, the Report of the Independent Third Party has been published on Google Scholar:

  • Giovanni Guerrini

    Dr. Bert Abbing

    Thank you.

    Regards G G

  • Andrea Rossi

    Your last comment is interesting also in general in the following sense: an experiment made by the creme of the scientists of all the world, with funding of tens of billions of Euros, raises doubts: this makes normal and understandable that also the E-Cat science can raise doubts among the scientific echelons.
    Nobody is immune from doubts. Respect them, I have an advantage, though: with a commercial breakthrough I can make futile any kind of doubt.
    Warm Regards,

  • Curiosone

    I read the comment of Bert Abbing: there is the difference between a true physicist and a bunch of guys with an agenda

  • DTravchenko

    What impressed me from the open letter of Bert Abbing is the fact that your enemies qualify themselves as big chemists and physicists, but are privy of elementary knowledge of chemistry and physics.
    Warm Regards,

  • JCRenoir

    Prof. Bert Abbing:
    I congratulate with you for your open letter. Of course I agree with you.

  • Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, excellent post by Dr. Bert Abbing.
    I was happy you gave him a nice pat on the back, and added a fact about
    the 1 MW Plant.
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for the link to this interview. This is another important endorsement to LENR coming from the top level Science.
    The considerations of the nuclear eng. Piero Andreuccetti of CESI ( Italian R&D leading center belonging to ENEL) are very intelligent. I also agree with him about the work on course at the MIT directed by Dr Brian Ahern.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrew

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    i’d like to bring to your attention this interesting interview:

    Kind Regards

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dr Bert Abbing, Physicist:
    Thank you for your substantially correct insight; now, the operation of the 1 MW plant in the factory of IH’s Customer will be the commercial breakthrough.
    Warm Regards,

  • orsobubu

    >I got it: you got stuck seat in the theater…

    ahhaha this was very good

    …and I learned about the film, many thanks to you sir, I was really going to miss it!

  • BertAbbing

    Bert Abbing PhD, Physicist

    Open Letter

    To whom it may concern,

    Dear sirs I’m writing to you because I’m ashamed by the biased, negative, unscientific behavior of some blogs regarding the Rossi Ecat topic.
    Not even what is written in these blogs is completely without any scientific foundation but also the comments or contributions that contrast with their opinions, are harshly attacked with a behavior that is very far from what is a normal scientific debate.
    Making a more in depth search one can find that the same persons, with same nicknames, write the same, or similar, comments on “different” blogs, revealing a network of organized disinformationist voted only to diffuse doubt, suspicion and a kind of “conspiracy theory” among common people and persons who eventually have to take decisions but are not trained in physics or other scientific fields.
    This network is what I would call a “negationist mafia”, and is not surprising to realize that many of those people have economic interests.
    As an example I will examine here pages against the TPR2 that are a good example of a general behavior. This pages are self published in blog by a company called “StepChange Innovations GmbH”, that is self defining “a technology development and consulting firm based in Germany”, and appears to operate mainly in the chemical industry field. The articles, as others also against Rossi, are all signed by Dr. Christian Schumacher the company CEO who has no background as a physicist presenting himself as having “ 20 years of experience in the chemical industry with global players such as Hoechst AG and DyStar Textilfarben GmbH as head of R&D, senior regional business manager Asia Pacific, head of e-commerce, head of marketing services, new product development manager and R&D chemist”.
    With such a background he made several mistakes in the article writing and appears clear that his main interest is not scientific.

    Let us review just few of the main errors in the article and also in some of the comments.
    First of all we note an annoying repetition of old arguments who were already answered in the past but, like “gutta cavat lapidem”, probably in the author mind there is the strategy that repeating a false argumentations will at least win over the new readers.
    One of the arguments is clearly wrong and demonstrate all the ignorance in the field. The fact that the emissivity of the IR camera was set to 1 ( Black Body ) in the TPR1 have in reality set a LOWER LIMIT to the energy measurements because the temperatures read by any IR camera will be the minimum possible in this case. This point was already discussed in the past.
    Also calling IR imaging for just a “qualitative method” demonstrate the author inexperience
    in measurements and laboratory methods. If one has the humility to search in the literature can find that Thermographic Calorimetry is commonly used in a variety of fields ( e.g. medical, but also military and aerospace ) where a fluid calorimeter is not usable.
    A fluid calorimeter is a complex device to design and at the temperatures of the hotcat is even more complex requiring careful calibration of fluid flow ( forced air ? ) and fluid temperature. Probably in this kind of device a heat exchanger ( eg. air to water ) that would require also an extremely careful calibration.
    All this means high costs and long times and also would be of no interest because the only interest of the Professors that conducted the test, was to have a lower limit of the produced heat and avoid any possible error that could increase the measured value. They achieved that calibrating the apparatus using the dummy, ( actually the same reactor without the charge ) and taking always the most conservative scenario. They specified that many times in both reports.
    This point was completely missed, probably purposely or by inexperience, by the blog author.

    Thermographic recording was the method of choice because was sufficiently simple, direct, and economic to obtain the desired result.
    It is good scientific practice when writing to be precise, true and documented so finding phrasing like:
    “There is still criticism about the way of energy input, vaguely described and not ruling out manipulations by wiring tricks, inaccurate measurement of the output energy, and lack of proper calibration.”
    Immediately let the educated reader to discard all the article as unscientific and just disinformation. The energy input is described in the report with an electric diagram, there was also a calibration, the point of measurement were two giving coherent figures. So the main content of this affirmation is FALSE, the other is also vague and belongs to the realm of hypothesis and paranoid suspects not to reality.

    The rest is just a sad reading. All “Miracles” about wires was already clarified in the report on page 19 where is written “ All the characteristics of these resistors, however, such as their geometric dimensions and the exact makeup of the alloy they are made of, are covered by trade secret. ” So is a fact and not an hypothesis, as written by a certain “Thomas Clarke” in a comment against “KJ”, that that was a special custom alloy made especially for the reactor and NOT standard Inconel. Without these data all mumbling about fusion of wires is just nonsense.

    The author of the blog page, probably pressed by the agenda to attack the report fails even in what it should be his own field: chemistry. He tries to transmit the idea that LiH4 is so unstable that would not be usable. The fact LiH4 does effectively have a violent reaction with water is written even in the Wikipedia page ( from which he has copied the chemical formulas, but the reaction with moisture of air, is much more slower. Even in the reference he cites, copying part of the abstract without understanding it, is written that “The water absorption up to 11.7% due to exposure to air for 1 h does not change in any drastic way the hydrogen desorption rate of ball milled LiAlH4 “ . This means that the reaction is slow with a low release of Hydrogen in air, so low that from the same abstract we learn that this hydride , “ does not self-ignite on contact with air but can only be ignited by scraping ”, and from Wikipedia page : “Aged, air-exposed samples often appear white because they have absorbed enough moisture to generate a mixture of the white compounds lithium hydroxide and aluminium hydroxide.”
    Aged means long term exposure and not that “would decompose rapidly upon storage in air, in presence of moisture”.
    So we have the FACT that the author of this blog article is deliberately manipulating scientific data to follow an agenda.
    The other reference cited by the author is a downloadable Open Access publication that almost nothing has to do with the examined topic.

    As a final note regarding this first article let me comment about the ridiculous thesis of reversed clamp cited in the comments. If we enter in the domain of the hypothetical and paranoid suspect every scientific paper on earth is questionable so this hypothesis have no foundation but is only “ conspiracy theory “, with no value.

    The second part of the article is even worse, on a quality point of view, than the first.
    We find a mix of unrelated facts. Rossi Patent, any declaration from him, or any other theory has nothing to do with the measurements, as the fact that this or that isotope is commercially available. Also what happened in 2011 is not of any interest here because does not regard this paper and also no result was published from that sample.
    If the group had not mentioned Cu for example is because there was NOT. This means that fortunately for them the reaction p+Ni is excluded. But this does NOT mean that ALL reactions are excluded.
    The only fact that remains is that from the samples collected there is an evidence of isotope shift. It is also NOT true that the fuel was exhausted if we read the data with carefully.
    Part of the Li7 was still there and I would not be surprised if the main source of energy would be the Li7.
    As regarding sampling and handling of the powders we should presume that the group have this abilities. One of the members of the group is even specialist in Forensic Chemical Analisys.
    For obvious reasons Rossi participated to reactor loading and powder extraction ( in the presence of at least a member of the committee ).
    It was his reactor. But is not written in the report that he participated in sampling and handling that are others phases. Again even in that part of the article we find a deliberate distortion of facts in order to demonstrate predetermined thesis.
    Nuclear Physics and Quantum Mechanics are not field for lay persons so I would invite the author of that blog to refrain to comment or criticize Theoretical Physics works.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Andreas Moraitis:
    The reason why Husserl’s importance for the approach to any scientific issue ( remember he was originally a physicist and a mathematician) is not well known is due to the extreme difficulty of his texts. To read Husserl is one of the most difficult tasks you can imagine under the intellectual point of view, also because his German language is very difficult to translate, and usually translations lose part of the meaning he wants to carry with his words. I had to take lessons of German language with a specialist, to study in German the “Ideen zur einer reinen phaenomenologie und phaenomenologischen philosophie” ( I improperly wrote ‘phaenomenologie’ because I have not the dieresis to put on the ‘a’) and only reading in German I could understand what he wrote. Also in this case, even if in the exam of Filosofia Teoretica I gave on it Prof. Enzo Paci granted me a 30/30 cum laude, I was and am convinced that I have got only a fraction of it. It is immense but very difficult; you have to stay hours on every page, otherwise its content flows on the surface of your brain like water on granite.
    The translation in Italian of the “Ideen” has been made by Prof Enzo Paci: when during the exam I told him that to understand Enzo Paci I had to read Edmund Husserl he laughed like crazy.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Obviously I can add nothing to what has been published in the Report of the ITP.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I understand your attitude – although I am convinced that the 110/110 would not have been granted without reason. Anyway, the subject of your thesis is one of the most interesting (and challenging) subjects that one could choose for a philosophical study. Maybe one day when you have more time you might want to summarize your thoughts on it.
    Unfortunately, while everybody has at least heard of Einstein’s General Relativity, Husserl’s work is almost unknown to the wider public. Viewing both concepts in context must be an effective “catalyzer” for unbiased thinking – perhaps one of the most urgent needs in a rapidly evolving world.

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  • Greg Leonard

    Dear Eric Ashworth
    I do not believe any sort of separate vanes can counteract the torque generated by the motor on the body of the vehicle.
    A pair of contra-rotating rotors may be necessary.
    Incidentally, the Entecho web site appears to have been hacked this morning!!
    Greg Leonard

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Determining the Fuel Composition for an eCat Reactor

    Based on the Lugano Report, an estimate of the fuel composition may be attempted

    Known facts:
    1. Fuel sample had a mass of 1 gram
    2. Page 29: “From the analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and ICP-AES analysis we find there is about 0.011 grams of 7Li in the 1 gram fuel.
    4. Page 29: “… the information from ICP-AES that there is about 0.55 gram NI in the fuel.
    5. Page 28: “From all combined H in addition to the Ni.
    6. Page 28: “… from the ICP-AES analysis which shows the mass ratio between Li and Al is compatible with a LiAlH4 molecule.
    7. Page 28: “…natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7% and 7Li 93%
    8. Page 28: “We remark in particular that hydrogen but no deuterium was seen by SIMS.


    The average mass of the lithium atoms are 0.07*6 + 0.93*7 = 6.93 amu.
    Aluminum atoms have a mass of 27 amu while hydrogen atoms have an average mass of 1.
    So the molecular weight of the LiAlH4 must be 6.93 + 27 + 4 = 37.93 amu.
    There for the amount of LiAlH4 must be 0.011 grams * 37.93 / 6.93 = 0.06 grams and the amount of aluminum must be 0.043 grams. The amount of hydrogen in the LiAlH4 must be 0.006 grams.
    The iron mass must therefore be 1.0 grams (total) – 0.55 grams (Ni) – 0.043 grams (Al) – 0.011 grams (Li) – 0.006 grams (H) = 0.39 grams of iron.

    Element % by Weight
    Nickel 55.0
    Iron 39.0
    Aluminum 4.3
    Lithium 1.1
    Hydrogen (no Deuterium) 0.6
    Total 100.0
    LiAlH4 6.0

    It is also possible that the LiAlH4 was prepared using hydrogen depleted of deuterium.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Andrea Moraitis:
    I do not think it is worth. I studied Relativity in the ” Università Degli Studi di Milano” with Prof. Ludovico Geymonat , who was my Professor of “Filosofia della Scienza” and in my doctoral thesis, that I made with Prof. Enzo Paci as the doctoral advisor and my teacher of Husserl’s Phenomenology, made of Relativity a paradigmatic example of a work that has been born by means of an epochè of all the consolidated pre-existing knowledge. Honestly, is an immature work that is not worth to be published. At those times I already was working, designing, manufacturing and selling incinerators with energy recovery and had to work at least 10-12 hours per day so I had to study during the night. My thesis got a 110/110 from the 11 Professors that examined me, but I valued it 60/110 then, much less now. It is superficial. I had not the time and the focus necessary to make it as deep as I should have done. Forget it.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    What would be the very small change in the Laws of Physics supposed by E. Teller ?

    Dear readers of the JoNP,
    I was thinking about what McKubre told Edward Teller had said to him:

    “He didn’t think cold fusion was a reality, but said if it were he could account for it with a very small change in the laws of physics.”

    What sort of very small change in the Laws of Physics could be occuring to Edward Teller, from which would be possible to explain cold fusion?

    probably Edward Teller knew the Don Borghi experiment, from which neutrons are obtained from fusion proton-electron at low energy. And as this is impossible from the Laws of the Standard Model, maybe occurred to him that one of the mysterious mechanisms that rule the nuclear reactions in cold fusion is concerning the fusion proton-electron at low energy: p+e = n.

    Perhaps he also would be thinking about a new sort of gravity Planck’s constant acting within the nuclei, as I propose in my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron

    The academic physicists are finally surrendering themselves to the reality of cold fusion, as we see from what was said by the Russian nuclear physicist Dr Vitaly Uzikov:

    As the fusion proton-electron may have an important contribution for the nuclear reactions occuring in cold fusion, one can hope that the next step is the acceptation of the Don Borghi experiment.
    So, one may even hope that Don Borghi experiment will finally be accepted by the academics, and his experiment will be repeated in the universities.

    After all, as the cold fusion is being finally accepted by the academics, there is no reason anymore for the refusal of the Don Borghi experiment.


  • Andrea Rossi

    I got it: you got stuck seat in the theater looking permanently at “Interstellar”, until, resisting the roller coaster vibrations of the spaceship when it crossed at the speed of light the barrier of the wormhole, you reached, through the same wormhole, the planet “Alltrue”, so called because in it all you imagine gets true.
    Warm Regards

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I have been tempted to ask you this for a long time, but for some reason I did not dare to do it: Would it be possible that you publish online your doctoral thesis on the relationship between the philosophy of Edmund Husserl and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity? I would be very interested in reading it. Of course, I would not hesitate to improve my sparse Italian for this purpose.

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  • orsobubu

    >Silvio Caggia:
    >Dear Andrea Rossi,
    >a philosophic question:
    >which is your preferite philosopher?

    >Edmund Husserl.
    >Warm Regards,

    Silvio Caggia, I cant’ believe it, I’m sure there was a slip a lapse a typo a virus or some other sort of connection bug or internet malfunction and the name of his preferite starts with M and ends with X, I know it better because Andrea Rossi not only is fond of the cold fusion and the epochè but he likes the permanent revolution very much and things like that also

  • Eric Ashworth

    Koen Vandewalle & Greg Leonard, Because of your interest in this specialiosed subject I shall provide further information to help explain and so that you can give it further consideration. As you are aware Wladimir has technical in depth knowledge of the atomic nucleous which is an extremely specialised subject with technical jargon. Language is only useful when you can understand it and this can cause a problem. However, I shall continue to put forward my considerations of energy interactions and hope that Wladimir can glean some useful information from what I think based on my observations of the mechanism involved in my research. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear Greg Leonard, Regards your reply November 6th pertaining to the torque generated on the Entecho craft by the centrifugal fan. The torque I believe is compensated by a series of blades securred to the inner rigid body of the craft. My suggestion is to syncronise the angle of attack of the fixed blades to that of the flow generated by the centrifugal fan by computer control of the fixed blades with regards r.p.m.. As you know R&D is ongoing and the Entecho technology is still in this stage. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    We are working on the reconciliations after the results of the Report. We will publish the conclusions when we will have resolved all the equations involved.
    Warm Regards

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Reading The Report, I noticed on page 52 (Appendix 4) there was presence of aluminum in the fuel but it disappeared in the ash. The Report proposes that the aluminum came from Lithium Aluminum Hydride (page 28) which they assume was employed to release hydrogen gas at elevated temperatures. So what happened to the aluminum?

  • Andrea Rossi

    D. Travchenko:
    This paper is becoming viral and I am very honoured of what you say: yes, I agree totally with you in regard of the inportance of this publication.
    Warm Regards,

  • DTravchenko

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Did you see the article on Proatom written by Dr Vitaly Uzikov?
    This is a peer reviewed nuclear physics magazine and Dr Uzikov is a preminent figure of the Russian Nuclear Physics world. Congratulations to the Professors of the ITP, this is an important endorsement from the mainstream Russian scientific environment. If you come in Russia you will find friends of much higher level than you can even imagine.
    From Russia, with love and with the regular Warm Regards,
    D. Travchenko

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
    Thank you, your link is very important because it also has the English translation. The position of Dr Vitaly Uzikov is a milestone in the evolution of the scientific mainstream science. Now we have to reconcile the results of the Report of the ITP with the Standard Model.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    Edmund Husserl.
    Warm Regards,

  • Silvio Caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    a philosophic question:
    which is your preferite philosopher?
    I try a guess: Jeremy Bentham?

  • ing. Michelangelo De Meo

    Dear Dr. Rossi to announce that the prestigious Russian site is praising his story
    signed by VAUzikov leading progettazionetecnologo , NIIAR .
    He concluded ” … that Rossi is back in his marathon winner scientific .. ” .
    Dr. Rossi continues to run without looking back and win for all of us .
    Thank you for your extraordinary work .

  • Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    Thank you for this very important link.
    Dr Uzikov is a top level nuclear phusicist of Russia and his attention is extremely important, also as a recognition coming from the top levels of the mainstream scientific world community.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears readers of the JoNP

    Sincerely… I dont like to call cold fusion by LENR.

    More than 20 years ago, there was a very strong resistance against cold fusion, because the phenomenon is impossible from the Laws of the Standard Physics. To speak about cold fusion was a tabu in the scientific community.

    With the aim to lubricate the oposition of the academic physicists against cold fusion, and soften the resistance against the acceptation of the phenomenon, Edmund Storms had proposed to call it LENR.

    But today we dont need to call it LENR, because today cold fusion is a reality. It was confirmed by 3 universities in Europe, and Andrea Rossi is putting his cold fusion E-Cat in the market.
    So, we dont need to be afraid of any resistance anymore. Cold fusion is a reality.

    Storms got his 15 minutes of fame. And we dont need to use the word LENR. We have to call it just by the correct name: “cold fusion”, because nuclear fusion occurs in the phenomenon, as stated by the report published by the 3 universities.

    I think to call things by the correct word they mean is the correct way to call them.


  • Italo R.

    Dear Dr, Rossi,
    I have found this russian web site where they talk positively about the last test.
    It is written in russian language but easily translating with Google.

    Kind Regards,
    Italo R.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in November 7th, 2014 at 4:40 PM


    FYI, it also fundamentally makes no sense to listen to Wlad’s characterization of other people’s statements, theories, etc…, as he has little understanding of them to begin with and even less interest in trying to actually understand more.

    of course
    I will never understand why a chord can never be broken by the fast rotation of a stone tied to its end, and I also cannot understand why the strong nuclear force can never be won by the rotation of a proton moving with very high speed, as you claim.

    Do you understand it, Daniel ??

    Unfortunatelly I cant, dear Mr. JR.
    I suggest you to propose a New Physics based on Crazy Laws, and then I hope we will be able to understand your arguments.

    As I also do not understand why you have no shame to say nonsenses here, where everbody may realize your lack of understanding in fundamental questions in Physics.


  • JR


    FYI, it also fundamentally makes no sense to listen to Wlad’s characterization of other people’s statements, theories, etc…, as he has little understanding of them to begin with and even less interest in trying to actually understand more.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 7:31 AM

    Dear Daniel,

    If he meant centrifugal force, then his argument still makes no sense. The centrifugal force is a fictitious force associated with an orbiting body and is caused by the force that pulls the body towards the center of the orbit – the binding force (strong force) in this case. So it fundamentally makes no sense to say that the binding force has to overcome the centrifugal force to maintain a bound system.

    Dear readers,
    despite Mr. JR has already lost the discussion here,
    we have to take the opportunity,
    so that to show that,
    Mr. JR uses the inversion of the causality in his arguments.

    What Mr. JR said is equivalent to say:

    A stone tied to the end of a chord and moving circularly very fast cannot cause the rupture of the chord, because the centrifugal force is a fictitious force associated with an orbiting body and is caused by the force that pulls the body towards the center of the orbit – the force of the chord in this case.

    according to Mr. JR,
    a chord tied to a stone moving in circular orbit can NEVER be broken.

    According to Mr. JR, a very fine nylon thread for fishing (0.1mm in diameter) can easily keep a mass 100.000kg moving in circular trajectory, because the line will never break, because the line is subjected to the centrifugal force, which is ficticious.

    Those ones who believe that a fine nylon thread will never be break by a mass of 100.000kg moving in circular trajectory tied to the end of the nylon, they can believe in what Mr. JR says here in the JoNP.


  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Gell-Mann versus Edward Teller

    Mallove speaking about Gell-Mann:
    From the principles of Quantum Mechanics cold fusion occurrence is impossible to occur, as stated by the Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann at a public forum (lecture at Portland State University in 1998): “It’s a bunch of baloney. Cold fusion is theoretically impossible, and there are no experimental findings that indicate it exists” 3.
    3- E. Mallove, CSICOP: “Science Cops? at War with Cold Fusion, Infinite Energy, V. 4, No. 23, 1999

    E. Teller:
    McKubre was summoned by Edward Teller. “He didn’t think cold fusion was a reality, but said if it were he could account for it with a very small change in the laws of physics.”

    two two laureates Nobel Prize with different opinions on cold fusion.

    Gell-Mann was sure the cold fusion is impossible because he was sure the Standard Nuclear Physics was developed under unchanging and correct Laws of Physics.

    While Teller knew that something is missing in the Laws of the Standard Model.

    And there is no need to be a genius like Teller to realize that the Standard Model is not the final theory, since there are unsolved puzzle in Nuclear Physics, and some nuclear properties cannot be explained by the Standard Model.

    Teller also knew that by keeping the Laws of the Standard Model would be impossible to explain cold fusion, and that’s why he said that at least a small change in the Laws of Physics is needed.

    However, even a “small” change in the Laws of Physics always represent a big changing in the Physics.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Mark Saker:
    In the gas- fueled E-Cat, which is under R&D so far, the use of a thermoelectric device to produce electricity for intrinsic use is not opportune, due to its very low efficiency.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    You wrote the answer yourself.
    Warm Regards,

  • Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    about the Gas-Cat.
    The current cat (TPR2) seems to be stable (constant input heat to maintain a constant reaction).
    Why the self-produced heat is not enough?
    It seems that, for the reaction, not only heat it’s needed.
    (But… with a very very small amount of electric energy, I must suppose….).
    Have I missed something?
    PS: I know that you do not comment what is happening in the reactor, as a matter of fact I know you do not comment anything. 🙂
    Self Sustaining Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Thank you for this useful link.
    Warm Regards,

  • Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You asked yesterday for assistance tracking down references to LENR in the Manhatten Project. There is now a thread about this topic on E-Cat World. Some readers have come up with some references you might find useful. You can heck out the comments here:

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi

    No comment.
    Warm Regards,

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 6th, 2014 at 3:41 AM

    Dear Wladimir,

    And as I’m not a nuclear physisist, I did not now that the (or at least some) nucleï rotate so fast. Thank you for the explanation and the interesting links!

    and the situation becomes worst when some nuclei are excited. Their rotation is so fast that it causes the deformation of the nucleus.

    See the figure at left in the title Recent physical results of the article High-spin physics ISP.
    In the figure we see that a spheric nucleus is deformed when it is excited getting a high-spin, and there is a changing in the spheric shape: the nucleus takes the shape of an elipsoid, under the action of the centrifugal force:

    Recent physical results
    First evidence of magnetic rotation in nuclei around mass A = 80

    “The conventional concept of nuclear rotation is based on the existence of a deformed mass distribution of the nucleus (see left figure).”

    under very fast nuclear rotation, the magnitude of the centrifugal force on protons and neutrons is very larger than that of the strong nuclear force (as calculated by me here in the JoNP).
    Note that the nucleus is deformed due to the fast rotation, and therefore the excited high-spin nuclei would have to be desintegrated under the action of the centrifugal force, if protons and neutrons were bound via the strong nuclear force.

    Nevertheless, those excited high-spin nuclei survive, and it means that the strong nuclear force is not the responsible for the nucleus aggregation.


  • Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    1- yes
    2- working on it: very promising
    Warm Regards,

  • Curiosone

    General Emilio Spaziante has pleaded guilty for corruption and has been sentenced to serve 4 years in prison: he is the officer of the Guardia di Finanza that closed Petroldragon and all the other factories of yours twenty years ago: any comment?

  • JCRenoir

    1-Are you sure you will be able to reconcile the results of the ITP, regarding the isotopes shift, remaining in the Standard Model ?
    2- How is going your new invention of the gas fueled E-Cat?

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>