by Yeong E. Kim Department of Physics, Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA
ABSTRACT
Generalized theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) is used to carry out theoretical analyses of recent experimental results of Rossi et al. for hydrogen-nickel system. Based on incomplete experimental information currently available, preliminary theoretical explanations of the experimental results are presented in terms of the generalized BECNF theory. Additional accurate experimental data are needed for obtaining more complete theoretical descriptions and predictions, which can be tested by further experiments.
I. Introduction
Over the last two decades, there have been many publications reporting experimental observations of excess heat generation and anomalous nuclear reactions occurring in metals at ultra-low energies, now known as „low-energy nuclear reactions‟ (LENR). Theoretical explanations of the LENR phenomena have been described based on the theory of Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion (BECNF) in micro/nano-scale metal particles [1-3]. The BECNF theory is based on a single basic assumption capable of explaining the observed LENR phenomena; deuterons in metals undergo Bose-Einstein condensation. While the BECNF theory is able to make general qualitative predictions concerning LENR phenomena it is also a quantitative predictive physical theory. Some of the theoretical predictions have been confirmed by experiments reported recently. The BECNF theory was generalized for the case of two species of Bosons [4].
Recently, there were two positive demonstrations (January and March, 2011) of a heat generating device called “Energy Catalyzer” [5]. The Energy Catalyzer is an apparatus built by inventor Andrea Rossi, Italy. The patent application [5] states that the device transforms energy stored in its fuel (hydrogen and nickel) into heat by means of nuclear reaction of the two fuel components, with a consequent observed production of copper [5,6]. According to Rossi‟s patent application [5], heating of the sample is accomplished by an electric resistance heater. Details of March 2011 demonstration were reported by Essen and Kullander [7]. The report [7] also contains references to January 2011 demonstration. In the following, we describe hydrogen-nickel reactions in section II. Other possible reactions are discussed in section III. Conclusions are given in section IV.
II. Hydrogen-Nickel Reactions
The generalized BECNF theory [4] can be applied to the case of hydrogen-nickel fusion reactions observed in Rossi‟s device (the energy catalyzer) [5] under the following two conditions: (1) additives used (not disclosed in the patent application) form Ni alloy and/or Ni metal/alloy oxide in the surface regions of nickel nano-scale particles, so that Ni atoms/nuclei become mobile with a sufficiently large diffusion coefficient and (2) local magnetic field is very weak in the surface regions, providing a suitable environment in which two neighboring protons can couple their spins anti-parallel to form spin-zero singlet state (S=0). Relatively low Curie temperature (nickel has the Curie temperature of 631 oK (~358 oC)) is expected to help to maintain the weak magnetic field in the surface regions. If Rossi‟s device is operated at temperatures greater than the Curie temperature ~358 oC and with hydrogen pressures of up to ~22 bars, the conditions (1) and (2) may have been achieved in Rossi‟s device. The mobility of Ni atoms/nuclei (condition (1)) is enhanced by the use of an electric resistance heater to maintain higher temperatures. This may provide a suitable environment in which more of both Ni atoms/nuclei and protons become mobile, thus creating a favorable environment for the case of two species of Bosons (Ni nuclei and composite Bosons of paired two protons). If the velocities of mobile Ni atoms/nuclei under the condition (1) are sufficiently slow, their de-Broglie wavelengths become sufficiently large and may overlap with neighboring two-proton composite Bosons which are also mobile, thus creating Bose-Einstein condensation of two species of Bosons. The generalized BECNF theory can now be applied to these two-species of Bosons and provides a mechanism for the suppression/cancellation of the Coulomb barrier, as shown in [4]. Once the Coulomb barrier is overcome in the entrance reaction channel, many possible allowed exit reaction channels may become open such as reactions (i) ANi(2p(S=0), p)ˆA+1 Cu, with even A=58, 60, 62 and 64. These reactions will produce radioactive isotopes 59Cu and 61Cu with A = 58 and 60, respectively. 59Cu has a half-life of 81.5 seconds and decays by the electron capture to the 59Ni ground state (58.1%) which has a half-life of 7.6 x 10ˆ4 years and to the 59Ni excited states (41.9%) which in turn decay to the 59Ni ground state by emitting gamma-rays with energies ranging from 310.9 keV to 2682.0 keV [8]. 61Cu has a half-life of 3.333 hours and decays by the electron capture to the stable 61Ni ground state (67%) and to the 61Ni excited states (33%) which in turn decay to the 61Ni ground state by emitting gamma-rays with energies ranging from 67.412 keV to 2123.93 keV [8]. Gamma-rays (and neutrons) have not been observed outside the reactor chamber during the experiment [6]. These gamma-rays may have been present inside the reaction chamber. If no radiations are observed, reactions (i) are ruled out. Focardi and Rossi [6] reported that the experimental results of Rossi et al. indicate the production of stable isotopes 63Cu and 65Cu with an isotopic ratio of 63Cu /65Cu ~ 1.6 (natural abundance is 63Cu/ 65Cu = 2.24). This production of Cu may be due to reactions (i). The production of 63Cu and 65Cu with isotopic ratio of 63Cu /65Cu different from the natural isotopic ratio is expected and can be explained by estimating the reaction rates for 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu. Reaction rates estimates based on transmission probability calculated from a barrier tunneling model similar to the alpha-decay theory indicate that the reaction rates for stable Cu productions, 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu, are expected to be much larger than the reaction rates for production of radioactive Cu, 58Ni(2p(S=0), p)59Cu and 60Ni(2p(S=0), p)61Cu. This leads to the prediction that intensities of the gamma-rays from the decays of 59Cu and 61Cu are expected to be weak and do not commensurate with the observed heat production, which is mostly from stable Cu production reactions 62Ni(2p(S=0), p)63Cu and 64Ni(2p(S=0), p)65Cu. There are other exit reaction channels which are (nearly) radiation-less, such as reactions (ii) ANi(2p(S=0), α)ˆA-2Ni, (even A=58, 60, 62, and 64) [9]. For this case, we expect that the natural isotopic ratio of Ni isotopes will be changed in a particular way, which can be checked from the sample after each experiment. Even though reactions (ii) produce radioactive isotope 56Ni, it can be shown using the alpha-decay theory that its reaction rate is much slower (by many order of magnitudes) than those of other reactions. Other exit reaction channels, ANi(2p(S=0), d)ACu, ANi(2p(S=0), 3He)ˆA-1Ni, and ANi(2p(S=0), t)ˆA-1Cu (all with even A=58, 60, 62, and 64) are ruled out since these reactions all have negative Q-values. There are possibilities of neutron-emission exit reaction channels, such as reactions (iii) ANi(2p(S=0), n)ˆA+1Zn, (even A= 62, and 64; Q is negative for A = 58 and 60). However, reaction rates for reactions (iii) are expected be substantially smaller than those for reaction (i). Reactions (iii) involve emission of a tightly bound neutron (62Ni -> 61Ni + n, Q = -10.597MeV or 64Ni -> 63Ni + n, Q = -9.657MeV) while reactions (i) involve emission of a loosely bound proton from an excited compound nuclear state consisting of ANi (even A) and 2p(S=0). Therefore, the transmission probability of a neutron tunneling through the centrifugal barrier in reactions (iii) is expected to be substantially smaller than that of a proton tunneling through the centrifugal barrier in reactions (i). The branching ratios of reactions (i) and (ii) need to be determined by measurements of gamma-ray energies and changes in isotopic ratios from future Ross-type experiments. Theoretically, the branching ratios can be estimated by calculating transmission probability of an emitted charged particle tunneling through both Coulomb and centrifugal barriers in the exit reaction channel, as done in the alpha-decay theory.
III. Other Possible Reactions
In addition to the above reactions described in II, there are possibilities of reactions involving additives used (not disclosed so far). For an example, if lithium is added as an additive, reaction (iv) 6Li(2p(S=0), p 3He)4He may be possible. As in cases of reactions (i) and (ii), Ni nano-particles would be still playing an important role of providing two-proton singlet composite Bosons for reaction (iv). Reaction (iv) would not change the isotopic ratios of Ni.
VI. Conclusions
In order to explore validity and to test predictions of the generalized BECNF theory for the hydrogen-metal system, it is very important to carry out Rossi-type experiments independently in order to establish what are exact inputs and outputs of each experiment. If the entrance and exit reaction channels are established experimentally, we can investigate selection rules as well as estimates of the reaction rates for different exit reaction channels, based on the generalized BECNF theory [1-4]. Once these experimental results are established, further application of the generalized BECNF theory can be made for the purpose of confirming the theoretical mechanism and making theoretical predictions, which can then be tested experimentally. Basic description of the above theoretical concepts for BECNF in the hydrogen-metal system will be included in an invited talk at a forthcoming nuclear physics conference [10], and will be published in the conference proceedings [10].
References
- Y. E. Kim, “Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Mechanism for Deuteron-Induced Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Grains and Particles”, Naturwissenschaften 96, 803 (2009) and references therein.
- Y. E. Kim, “Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal”, J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 4, 188 (2010), Proceedings of Symposium on New Energy Technologies, the 239th National Meeting of American Chemical Society, San Francisco, March 21-26, 2010.
- Y. E. Kim, “Theoretical interpretation of anomalous tritium and neutron productions during Pd/D co-deposition experiments”, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 52, 31101 (2010).
- Y. E. Kim and A. L. Zubarev, “Mixtures of Charged Bosons Confined in Harmonic Traps and Bose-Einstein Condensation Mechanism for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions and Transmutation Processes in Condensed Matter”, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of the 11th International conference on Cold Fusion, Marseilles, France, 31 October – 5 November, 2006, World Scientific Publishing Co., pp. 711-717.
- Andrea Rossi, “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTION”, United States Patent Application Publication (Pub. No.: US 2011/0005506 A1, Pub. Date: Jan. 13, 2011); http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/ja/WO2009125444.
- S. Focardi and A. Rossi, “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”, March 22, 2010. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3080659.ece/BINARY/Rossi-Forcardi_paper.pdf
https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=66 , February 2010 - H. Essen and S. Kullander, “Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna, 29 March 2011”, a travel report, April 3, 2011; http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
- Table of Isotopes, 8th Edition, Volume I: A = 1-150, edited by R. B. Firestone et al., published by John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1999), pages 270 and 284.
- Reactions (ii) were suggested by T. E. Ward, private communication, May 11, 2011.
- Y. E. Kim, “Deuteron Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles”, an invited talk to be presented at the Fifth Asia Pacific Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics 2011(APFB2011), August 22-26, 2011, Seoul, Korea. (http://www.apctp.org/conferences/2011/APFB2011/)
Dear Mr. Rossi,
this has nothing to do with faith or not faith.
If I would make such a discovery I wouldnt believe what I see and I would make anything to proof to myself any to the public.
And I would not hope you or anybody else believes it.
Remember, this is the internet, you dont really know me and I dont really know you, thats just a fact.
I repair professional devices and I know easy it is to fool myself.
Also I see dayly how my customers (professional technicians) fool themself.
So a setup is needed that eliminates any possibility of error or manipulation.
Of course I want your success but this cannot been believed without extraordinary proof.
Please dont take this as anffront, but something cannot be accepted in faith it must be scientifically proven and the energy excess /can/ be easily proven, thats the good thing about it.
Best,
P. Heckert
Dear Luke Mortensen:
These commercial issues will be addressed in November. Anyway, our marketing will start only with 1 MW plants, for certification issues mainly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
This can be a very good idea, thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Peter Heckert:
Thank you for your suggestion, but we are making a 1 MW plant that will go in operation in October: this overcomes the issue at all, for persons in good faith. The others do not intyerest to us.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dear Cesar BP:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Martin,
Yes, Greece is a Paradise for holidays, I agree totally.
The sole professor I worked with is Sergio Focardi, and he is still working with me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear mr Rossi,
The last 3 days i am in Greece and now i understand why you choose this country to start with! Anyway ofcourse i have some questions. I read about an italian prof who worked with you in the past. He has also developed a similar product like the e-cat and is also ready for production. Are you awere of this? Is this true? And the most important question is this a copy of your technology?
Best regards
Martin
Dear Rossi.
Only for curiosity, i did a research in steam aviation engines and find a little piece or art, an engine at Warner Robins Air Force Museum, it has 70 HP at 300 PSI, made in 1920’s. Take a look at http://www.myersengines.com/engines/steam_aircraft_engine.htm , these guys are selling a 1/2 scale motor. This is not what you are trying to find, but it is fun to know that we had steam airplanes.
Good luck.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
First, excuse my english, Im not a native english speaker.
I want to propose a setup that can be used to give a scientific proof for the energy excess:
1) Supply the whole system with a transformer, say a 1kW transformer, that would be destroyed if it delivers 2 kW for a longer time.
2) Generate 10 kW of steam and use this to heat water. Generate 10 kW for several days.
Make this setup in such a way, that all input cables and hoses and output cables and hoses are clearly visible.
Try to get as much scientifically and technically trained witnesses for this experiment that make images and videos.
3) If this experiment is finished successfully and has generated 10 kW for several days, give the transformer to the public for scientific investigation.
Now, this would be a hard proof. I think it would be a better proof than a 1MW plant, because it will be hard for any observer to measure the energy for such a big 1MW system.
Best,
P. Heckert
Chris Johnson, Andrea Rossi;
Perhaps a Variable Phase turbine could be used at the output of a higher pressure (HP) turbine. That is, there would be two turbines – a HP Turbine followed by a low-pressure (LP) Turbine. Perhaps one might use super-critical CO2 instead of steam at the HP end and sub-critical Variable Phase CO2 (liquid and gas) for the LP turbine. Saying it and then designing and building a system are, of course, two different things.
Anyway, my thermodynamics are a little bit rusty. So thanks for the interesting link to Variable Phase systems.
J.F.
AR,
Could you describe your series of ecat “models”?
1. What naming scheme have you given to prototypes ?
(for example, you have standard 5KW models, and presumably a new model that can self-sustain. Internal “Rossi” names. Like… “Firebird” or “9 Lives” or “Version 0.9”)
2. How many different models make up the 1MW?
3. How are you spending your R&D time before 1MW?
(new ecat models, better control optimization, or testing individual ecats?)
-Luke
Dear Rick Meisinger:
20 years, I guarantee. Probably we will give to the Customers a 20 years guarantee.
About the 9 lifes of cats: yes, but God made them and, you know, He has skills we don’t have.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi;
I read that the expected life of the E-Cat is 20 years. I have heard that most cats also have 9 lives, I assume that will be true for your cat as well. We appreciate your diligence in bringing this technology into the world!
Thermal Regards,
Rick
Dear Albert Ellul:
You are right.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Italo:
Good imafination: most of what you thought is right. Anyway, I am really glad to see that there is People waiting for this plant with enthusiasm and hope, it makes me feel responsible: I am working 16 hours per day not to disappoint anybody.
I am deeply grateful for your comment, for its spirit.
Wharm Regards,
Andrea
Dear Chris Johnson:
Thank you very much for your help.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A US company called Energent has a low grade heat to electricity turbine that they claim generatess 35% more electricity than standard Organic Rankine Cycle turbines. A paper about it is here: http://www.energent.net/documents/Geothermal_Resources_Council_2009_Paper.pdf . It is in field trials, but I’m not sure if it is currently being sold.
They also currently sell (through Carrier Corporation as their distributor) a system that generates electricity by replacing steam pressure relief valves with a turbine that generates electricity as it relieves pressure. This is an off the shelf system sized so that it can roll through a standard doorway. I’m not sure if your system could generate the volume of steam required to run it, but it might be worth looking at. See http://www.energent.net/documents/Microsteam_Brochure.pdf .
Thinking about the 1MW plant I wonder which instruments have been inserted to control the various parameters.
The following notes come only from my imagination…
Probably all signals (measured and output command) will stay on a single PLC (Programmable Logic Controller).
I think that among all parameters to be controlled there are the following:
1- Regulation of the total flow of water/steam. It must be varied by a set-point, and stay constant at that value.
2- Regulation of pressure and temperature of water or steam at output.
The pressure depends on the pump of water in input to the system and on the machine where the output steam enters.
The temperature depends on the quantity of heat generated by all reactors.
3- Regulations on hydrogen in input to each reactor.
The main regulation on hydrogen is its pressure, as the heat generated by reactor depends on it.
Hydrogen surely comes from a high pressure line, (common to all reactors), so on each reactor there must be a reducing
valve actuated by an external signal, to set its individual value.
Each cell is only pressurized (there isn’t a flow entering), so in the case of necessary reduction of pressure there must
be another valve (actuated too by an external signal) that vent the reaction chamber to another line at lower pressure. It
is useful to reduce the strenght of reaction or to stop it in some case.
Both valves (inlet and exaust) are actuated by a pressure controller whose set-point comes from the following controller.
What is the right pressure of hydrogen in each cell while it is running?
Its value will be decided by the system. Probably each cell has a measure of differential temperature on water or steam
made between output and input. That value determine the correct value of the pressure of hydrogen inside the cell through
PLC. The controller will have the derivative function too, avoiding the delay due to thermal transmission.
Its output is the set-point to the previous pressure controller. In this way there is a cascade control, the best in these
cases.
After that there must surely be safety devices.
In a reaction cell the worst thing that can happen is the very fast increase in temperature due to excess of reaction.
How control it to avoid the melting of nickel?
Stopping of reaction can be done purging the hydrogen (it is too complicated inserting a cold water circuit).
The signal that there is this over reaction could come from a very thin thermocouple inserted inside the cell. Its
reaction time is very low allowing a fast responce of the safety system.
Could there be something true in what I have described?
Italo
Dear Ing. Rossi, regarding self sustaining e-cat, in my opinion I would not give it much importance especially if a self -sustaining e-Cat would add safety risks. The reason for this is the following:
Once e-Cats requiring electrical input become the norm, most of the elctrical power would be coming anyway from e-Cat-powered alternators. Hence, that electricity would practically be free to the prime mover of electrical power. Meanwhile the cost of electricity to the consumer would also plummet and if I had an e-Cat at home to heat my house, the lectricity I would need to run the eCat would be very cheap.
Whichever one looks at it, whetehr self-sustaining or with electrical input, the net cost of the energy output will be very low.
May God be with you and your business partners and may we see the day when the first 1MW unit is shown to the world.
Great show
Dear Stephen T:
The heat is not wasted, it is used.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
You are correct, but I cannot talk about the internal operation of the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi, Morgan & Italo:
Just as there is are materials and conditions to enable the reaction to take place ( e.g. Nickel isotopes, Hydrogen, Catalyst etc. as well as physical conditions such as pressure, temperature and other phenomena), is it possible that there could be other materials and conditions internal to the reactor that moderate or control the rate and hence the stability of the reaction? That is, the first derivative of the power generated.
Changing the temperature of the inlet water or the pressure of the inlet Hydrogen might affect the reaction rate in tens of seconds or, if you’re lucky, tens of milliseconds, but E-CAT power could change in tens of microseconds or tens of pico-seconds. That is, it could melt down while you wait for the temperature to come down by adding water.
So, is there research planned to find any “Materials and Methods” that reduce the change in the output Power output rate?
Joseph Fine
Dear Ing. Rossi,
your thoughts on this if you please: If LENR is the new energy source how do we manage the waste heat? Absent the direct conversion of aneutronic fusion to electricity (as in Hydrogen/Boron 11, polywell device and others not proven) the concern is the wasted heat of conversion of nuclear energy to electricity.
My question: on a grand scale of success where all of the Earth’s people have access to unlimited energy from LENR can we calculate the ability of the atmosphere to dissipate the heat? Is it a better situation than our “greenhouse”? I suspect it is but leave it to smarter ones to do the calculations.
Again, my congratulations on your amazing achievements. Thomas Edison would be impressed by your methods. Humans will always have to conserve and be responsible with technologies of all kinds. We live in a world of wonders on the brink of greatness thanks to people like you.
No answer may be expected but your thoughts are always appreciated.
Sincerely, and Warmly Submitted,
Stephen Taylor
Thanks for your feedback Mr. Italo. You are perfectly right. However, I think this could be solved by putting the pump (the one and only) after the 3-way valve, thus creating four pressure levels within the unit. p0 in the reservoir, p1 after the valve before pump, p2 after pump before reactor, p3 after reactor. p1 one will be pumped so that it reaches a pressure under atmospheric pressure. This will allow water to enter from the reservoir. As p3 will be higher than p1 it will also be possible for water to loopback. p1<p0<p3<p2. Of course you still need a pump (which will always be necessary) and a high precision 3-way electronic valve (yes I know these are pricy) so it could get to costly, but who can say it will be too costly?
Dear Phil Winston
No, it doesn’t work like this.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Mario Voltaggio:
Very interesting insight, very useful.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Mr. Morgan:
The water in the output of reactor has a pressure lower than the input.
So, to make a recycle line from output to the three-port valve in the input of reactor, it is necessary inserting an electric pump to permit that back flow.
So, if for each reactor there are necessary the pump and the three-way regulating valve, the overall cost increases much.
Maybe (but I am not quite sure) it should be better, easier and chieaper working on the pressure of hydrogen entering in the reactor.
More pressure, more heat generate and viceversa.
Italo
Hello Dr. Kim,
Thank you for offering your theory to explain the LENR process observed in Mr. Rossi’s device. We need more exceptional scientists such as yourself working on the theories in order to be able to optimize performance in the future.
I have a few questions for you. My understanding of super conductor operation is that electrons can pair up and flow freely within a superconducting material without resistance. Does your theory suggest that protons can do a simular thing within the Rossi device? Is this somehow related to the ability of the proton pairs to reach the Ni nucleous relatively easily by quantum theory? Finally, have there been experimental results supporting the proton pairing at room temperatures and above?
D. R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I send you references and some sections of a paper I think could be interesting for your work.
Mario Voltaggio
Nanocrystalline nickel as a material with high hydrogen storage capacity
by D. Vojtěch a,, A. Michalcová a, M. Klementová b, J. Šerák a, M. Morťaniková.
Materials Letters 63 (2009) 1074–1076
Abstract
“In the present work a nano-crystalline nickel powder is prepared by selective leaching of a rapidly solidified
Al–20Ni ribbon in aqueous sodium hydroxide. Almost spherical powder particles of 50–150 nm in size
consist of grains having diameters in a range of 2–5 nm. Elemental analysis shows a very high gravimetric
density of hydrogen in the powder of 2.6 wt.%. Mass spectrometry reveals that hydrogen desorbs from the
powder at 80–150 °C.”
From the discussion of their results:
“The prepared nickel powder consists of almost spherical particles of about 50–150 nm is size, see Fig. 1. There are dark and light areas,
indicating an internal sub-structure of the particles. EDS confirms that the powder is dominated by nickel, but it also contains about 5 wt.%
of aluminum in solid solution. XRD pattern of the powder containsonly broad peaks at 2Theta=44, 51 and 76°, see Fig. 2, which can be
assigned to nickel. The large peak breadth suggests that the phase is either amorphous or nano-crystalline with crystallite size in order of
nanometers. Selected area electron diffraction pattern (SAED) in Fig. 1
contains diffuse but distinguishable reflections, indicating that the phase is nano-crystalline. This is confirmed by a HR TEM image of a nickel particle in Fig. 3 showing that the particle is composed of crystalline grains having diameters between 2 and 5 nm. The formation of nano-sized grains during chemical leaching is supported by
the fine microstructure of the original alloy, see experimental part.
Hydrogen gravimetric density was measured for the as-received nickel powder.We assumed that hydrogen formed by the reaction of aluminum
with sodiumhydroxide (2Al+2NaOH+6H2O→2Na[Al(OH)4] +3H2)
partially adsorbed on the surface of nickel particles and desorbed upon
heating. The analysis of hydrogen reveals that the as-received nickel powder contains 2.6% of hydrogen. This value is surprisingly high. It is lower as compared to the light metal hydrides but it exceeds the
gravimetric densities of hydrogen in the hydrogen storage alloys based on
transition metals (usually less than 2% of hydrogen) [8]. For this reason the
analysis was performed several times and the obtained values ranged from 2.2 to 2.8%. If, for simplicity, we assume that the nickel powder is
composed of closely packed spheres (Fig. 1), a simple calculation gives
excellent volumetric density 1895 dm3 of hydrogen per 1 dm3 of Ni powder at atmospheric pressure. In the real powder, however, the spheres
are not closely packed, so that the volumetric density would be slightly
reduced. Despite the high hydrogen density observed in our experiment, the major portion of hydrogen released as gas during the leaching.
Theoretically, when we take the stoichiometry of the above chemical reaction, the selective leaching of Al–20Ni alloy could provide a nickel
powder containing up to 44.5% of hydrogen! Therefore, the hydriding efficiency in our experiment was less than 6%.
Let us now try to estimate a theoretical gravimetric density of hydrogen in a nickel powder. When we take that the nickel spheres
are covered by a monomolecular layer of hydrogen and that a hydrogen molecule occupies an area of approx. (0.148·0.074) nm2 (this simplified estimation is based on the internuclear distance of H2
0.074 nm), calculated hydrogen gravimetric densities would be
approx. 0.2 and 4.0% for spheres of 100 and 5 nm in size, respectively.
This suggests that there is a significant portion of hydrogen incorporated
in the internal structure of the spheres (Fig.1) in the prepared nickel powder. Inward diffusion of hydrogen is supported by the
abundance of grain boundaries in the structure of the spheres.
Beside the absolute hydrogen gravimetric or volumetric densities,desorption temperatures of hydrogen are also important in context
with hydrogen storage. Generally, excessive desorption temperatures
above approx. 200 °C are not suitable, because they lead to additional energy consumption associated with heating of the storage medium.”
“The life expectance of the E-Cat is 20 years.
In any case, surely the economy scale will lower the price also of an order of magnitude.”
Excellent news, Dr Rossi. Thank you for your prompt and clear reply.
Dear Mr Rossi
If your E-Cat can change Nickel into Copper can it change Iridium into Platinum through the same process??
Regards,
Phil
p.s- Thank you for this invention, I cant wait for it to change the world
Dear Morgan:
Thank you for your suggestion, we will study it.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Thon Brocket:
The life expectance of the E-Cat is 20 years.
In any case, surely the economy scale will lower the price also of an order of magnitude.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi
You have quoted a capital cost of Euro 2000 / kW(electrical) installed generating capacity. Over, say, a five year payback and a 50% utilisation, this would give a finance cost of about 12 cents / kW-hr energy cost, which is not competitive with coal-fired generation at 6-8 cents / kW-hr. Do you expect the cost of your units to fall significantly as production ramps up?
I have question/suggestion regarding maintaining reactor stability. If this is primarily a question of maintaining a stable temperature, consider the following setup.
To the water inlet to the reactor a high precision electronic 3-way valve is installed. This 3-way valve will combine the cold water coming from the reservoir together with a loopback of hot water exiting the reactor. When the reactor shows signs of cooling down, the 3-way valve will increase the loopback water thus increasing temperature inside the reactor. If the reactor shows signs of heating up, the loopback will be closed and the feedwater flow will be increased. On top of this it is essential that the flow of water from the reservoir is highly controllable.
An electric resistor must still be used at startups and perhaps in situations when the loopback for some reason cannot contain the reactor temperature. However, if the current startup procedure is done together with positive water flow, looping back the whole flow of water could perhaps minimize the startup time.
The 3-way valve, feedwater flow, and the electric resistor will of course be regulated by a control computer to maintain stability. What do you think about this idea?
Dear Aaron:
Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I just stumbled upon this new low temperature stirling engine company. I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned it.
http://www.coolenergyinc.com/wasteheat.html
They may be too early in development to be useful. They announced their first two customers back in February of this year.
From their website:
“The main applications today are waste heat recovery and combined heat and power (CHP) systems for buildings and residences. In ongoing testing at a temperature differential of only 210ºC, the 3rd generation SolarHeart Engine has consistently produced 2000 watts of electric power, and reached a thermal to electrical conversion efficiency of over 16%. The 4th generation units are expected to produce up to 3000 Watts of electricity at temperatures up to 300°C, and larger units are in development”
Dear Dzhafer:
1- We reach higher power combining modules
2- Ni-H is not a lucky case, is a productive system, provided you add catalysts
3-Not so far
4-No, you can use any coolant
5- After November we will open our commercial and financial operation, after the start up of the 1 MW plant
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
I’m not being skeptic here but if your Ecat proves to do what you say, you will have saved the miserable year 2011 and the upcoming economic Armageddon.
I’m putting my remaining trust in Humanity in one wish, will cross my fingers and wish to see some hope for us all soon.
If you doubt about how to protect your invention, I recommend you just release it to public and open a donation account. You will get richer faster, avoid competition and still won’t be ever able to spend the entire amount of donations you’ll receive from around the world. Or you could ask countries to pay for a public release; they will pay you billions… More than you’ll ever need Sir.
I don’t believe I have any advice to give about how you should market the product but with the development of such life changing technology you should know that you have great responsibilities, so great that you need to consider philosophical choices.
Best regards from Belgium.
David
2nd attempt!
Dear Mr. Rossi,
First thank you for your courage and perseverance. Your work is one of the seldom exciting technological advances of this last decade. Thank you for breaking the oil and gaz boredom.
I have several questions for you:
1- Can you increase the power output of the small e-cat device above 150kW? I have read somewhere that you can generate much more than the standard few kW by playing with the catalyzer (quantity?) but that the reaction is less stable. Why is the reaction less controllable? Could it be somehow related to the size of the e-cat?
2- In your opinion, is this Nickel + H a lucky case? In other words, do you think that there are other metallic elements that could show the same type of reaction with hydrogen (at for example higher temperature)? Did you make any experiments? Can we expect even higher energy density?
3- Did you look into making smaller e-cat (portable e-cats or even pocket e-cat). Today most portable devices suffer from the limited amount of energy the lithium batteries can offer. A portable e-cat will be a killer device (a laptop or smartphone you never need to recharge).
I do not see any fundamental limitation to drastically reduce the size of the e-cat. Creating a very local spot with temperature around 500C is feasible. What you would probably need is try to get the reaction out of water, and replace lead with some thermoelectric material to directly convert radiation into electricity. Are you working in this direction? Or is this impossible for some reason?
4- Does your fusion reaction need to happen in aquous environment? In other words, is water necessary?
5- One of the frustrating things, is that we do not have any way to participate in the e-cat revolution. How can we invest in you work? Do you have any partnership with large corporations? As far as I know, Defkalion is not going to go public in the near term…
Finally, I should tell you that your e-cat device will enable the era of modern robotics. With such compact and high energy density, a lot of machinery can be radically changed.
Many thanks and good luck,
Best regards,
Dzhafer.
Dear Neil Ferguson:
I am afraid your numbers are not correct, so I am not sure the consequent calculation is right. I was the director of a refinery when I was 30 years old, and the distillation of oil kept far less that you wrote, depending on the kind of oil and of distilled products.
Anyway, E-Cat generators are suitable for water distillation processes.
Warmest regards,
A.R.
Dear Eng. Rossi,
My understanding is that the E-Catalyzer may not immediately be suitable for use directly in automobiles. In that sense it will not impinge on oil demand. On the other hand, refinement of crude oil consumes over 25% of the crude oil itself, for example during distillation. If the Energy Catalyzer can replace the oil as the heating source for the refinement process, can it not fairly be said that the Energy Catalyzer will in short order render an increase by one-third of net oil reserves?
With respect,
Neil Ferguson
Dear Aldo Soleri:
Please contact us in November, after the start up of our 1 MW plant, for commercial issues,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Rossi buongiorno.
Come ditta operante da fine 96 nella diagnosi- soluzioni energetiche, siamo interessati a partecipare ad un possibile sviluppo tecnico commerciale.
Saremmo lieti di un contatto per verificarne le possibilità.
Grazie cordiali saluti
Aldo Soleri- Arkim
Dear ing. Rossi,
these are the links toward
(1) my “live-blogging” (you have to read it backwards) of convention on Cold Fusion yesterday in Viareggio;
(2) the slides which Celani showed during his speech (I’ve adapted them for the web);
(3) the original slides by Celani (pdf).
Thank you very much for the phone call during the convention.
Dear Carlo Puosi:
OK, as soon as I receive, I publish.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Buonasera ing Rossi
Fatto
Cordiali saluti
Claudio Puosi
Gent. Carlo Puosi:
può pregare il Sig. Passerini di inviarmi il Report del meeting di Viareggio al blog del Journal Of Nuclear Physics? Lo pubblicheremo immediatamente.
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.
English: Can you ask to Mr Passerini to send to the Journal’s blog the report of the Conference of Viareggio? We will approve it immediately.
Alla conferenza era presente Daniele Passerini che aggiornava il suo blog in tempo reale.In attesa che si possa mettere in rete la conferenza,potrà trovare le prime informazioni sul sito di Daniele.
Cordiali saluti
Claudio Puosi
Dear Claudio Puosi,
I thank you for the honour to call me in the USA and allow me to participate to your convention.
If you please will send to this blog the link to the report of your convention, we will be very glad to approve it and put it in our blog.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi