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 Sebastian:
1- Of course! When I say a thing that depends on me, I maintain it: the 1 MW plant will be started upin October, in the USA. Please read the answer I gave to Sterling Allen
2- Defkalion never got any information about our technology, for what concerns the reactors.
Warm regards,
A.R.
More questions:
– Where, now, will the first 1 MW power demonstration take place? US? Will the date be changed?
Dear Luca T:
Please read the answer to Sterling Allen,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Goumy:
The 1 MW plant will be started upin the USA: please read the answer to Sterling Allen few minutes ago.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Sterling:
I prefer that the reasons will be cleared by a judge by a verdict. Facts, not chatters, as usual with me. Our attorneys have filed a suit.
I confirm that our 1 MW plant will be put in operation in the USA, after an agreement we made last week with one of the most important entities of the USA; the tests will be made by the highest level scientists you can think of. I cannot give the names, until after the test. To the test will attend the highest level scientific journalists I know.
Thank you for your kind attention,
A.R.
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for posting the press release.
Could you give us any information as to the reasons behind this?
We’re in process of preparing a story for PESN.
Thanks
Sterling
[…] Frank (admin) The following press release was posted today by Andrea Rossi on his web […]
Dear Mr Rossi,
Does the termination of the License and Technology Transfer Agreement with Defkalion change anything to the place where the first 1 MW plant will be installed, and the date of this installation?
Best regards,
A.G.
Rossi August 4th 7.52 – …. announces that the License and Technology Transfer Agreement between the two companies has been recently terminated
Rossi August 4th 7.28 – … in any case the start up in October of a 1 MW plant eill cut the head of the bull.
Rossi I don’t understand. The Defkalion plant will start in october in greece or not?
I’m sorry, I forgot a question:
3) How does your commercialization strategy look like now? Will there be another company (like Defkalion) to basically take over their work?
Thank you.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
thank you for making this split-up public. I have a few questions.
1) What are the implications of this on the contruction and delivery of the 1MW reactor?
Is the last week of October still a date to consider? Will you keep testing the 1MW plant in Florida or in Bologna? Will there still be a public demonstration?
2) When Defkalion stated that they produced their “Hyperion” products, were they lying?
Thank you.
EFA- Energia da Fonti Alternative srl, the Italian Company through which the rights for the production of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat were granted …
Caro Ing. Rossi
sono perplesso: sono buone o brutte notizie? Ritardi sulla presentazione dell’impiando da 1 MW? Altri problemi?
saluti
Enzo Amato
Dear Marcia Pires:
Thank you for your question, and here is the
PRESS RELEASE :
Bologna-Rome (Italy) August 4th 2011
EFA- Energia da Fonti Alternative srl, the Italian Company through which the rights for the production of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat were granted to Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies LTD, publicly announces that the License and Technology Transfer Agreement between the two companies has been recently terminated. All business relationships with Praxen , the Cyprus based company that owns the Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies S.A., have been cancelled and asof today neither Praxen nor Defkalion, nor any other Greek company whatsoever holds any rights for the production of the E-Cat or for any other exploitation of Andrea Rossi’s technology.
Furthermore Andrea Rossi and EFA announce that no information, nor industrial secret, nor any technology whatsoever has been neither transferred, nor disclosed, neither to Praxen, nor to Defkalion, nor to any other Greek company whatsoever and currently Andrea Rossi and EFA are not planning to deal with any other project in Greece.
Not one single test, of the many demonstrations of the E-Cat technology held around the world, has ever been done in Greeceand no E-Cat has ever been brought, produced, or assembled in the territory of the Ellenic Republic: so not only the technology is still fully owned by Andrea Rossi’s company, Leonardo Corporation, but it still remains a well preserved industrial secret.
Any declaration or public announcement of third parties claiming possession of rights on the E-Cat technology and/or indide knowledge of said technology, as well as any statement of third parties in conflict with the above facts shall be considered a fake and treated as misleading information.
Andrea Rossi is the inventor of the “Method and Apparatus for carrying out Nickel and Hydrogen Exothermal reactions” (known to the general public as E-Cat) for which international patent demand no. WO2009/125444 is pending and Italian Patent office has already been issued on April 6th, 2011 the final patent no. 0001387256.
EFA Energia da Fonti Alternative s.r.l. is incorporated in Italy.
Leonardo Corporation is incorporated in New Hampshire, USA.
Contact:
EFA srl- Via Marsili 4- 40124 Bologna- Italy
Dear Alvaro Rodriguez:
Thank you for your honest comment; in any case the start up in October of a 1 MW plant eill cut the head of the bull.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I have to say that my greatest doubt about the ecat has vanished.
The problem about the wetness of the steam and the potential denial of actual production of energy had really caught my mind.
How could it not,right?
The thing is that when they teach you thermodynamics there is the concept declared as the wetness of the steam,meaning a percentage of how much water is present in the vapor-water mixture.It is very useful for calculating energy measurements in different points of a heat circuit.
This is what I remembered.
It is ,however, misleading!
As I looked it up again in a book I realized that that very concept was used to express as one what is not homogeneus.That is,that if a tube going from one heater to the next contains “50% wet steam” it means that 50% of the mass of water is liquid and that “over it hovers” steam representing the missing 50%.
(creating a lot of pressure,thus the energy calculations)
But steam itself coming out of a pipe at ambient pressure is what it is and has a specific energy density the moment it comes of the water.
I apologize for any problems caused and hope you the best.
Steam could still be carrying water now,but nearer to a 3% than to a 70% =)
Regards ,
Alvaro Rodríguez
Dear Andrea Rossi,
There is a rumor that Defkalion is not working with you anymore. Is it true?
Best,
Marcia.
Dear Ing Rossi, you wrote:
“…We can reach 500 Celsius, but in a very instable mode. The lower is the T, the higher the stability. At the moment, to turn off the input power, we must make steam at 100.1-101 Celsius; above this limit we need the drive, we are able to arrive to 200 C with good stability, above not, so far. This is the problem we are dealing with….”.
I suppose that this instability means a rapid variation (down and up) of the energy produced.
Have you tried to regulate in automatic the pressure of hydrogen inside the reaction chamber measuring its inner temperature? It should be necessary a capillary thermocouple, a normal three-mode PID controller and a micrometric regulating three-way valve on the hidrogen to the cell. The discharge way of valve, to reduce the cell pressure, could go to a recovery line.
I apologize if I have written something useless. I do not really know how the cell works…
Italo
Dear Ludwik Kowalski,
We made tests making just hor water in closed circuits, tests with water in open circuit, tests making steam and we always found coherent results. By the way, when you put in operation a 1 MW plant, there is no room for much discussions, because or the Customers receive the energy they need, or not. The way we measured the dryness of steam is normal and has been made by instruments normally used for this purpose, as I have been told from who made the measurements. Imprecision is always possible, it is possible that the energy produced will be less than we are measuring, of course, but we guaranteed an energy surplus far less than the one we are measuring.
Thank you for your attention and I wish you will spend a wonderful Birthday !
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Burt:
In my life I designed, manufactured, delivered and started up thousands of plants of any kind in the thermotechnic field of energy production from any kind of something that can give energy. When you start up a plant, if everything goes perfectly well from the beginning it is an Act of God. The test will be made by the world highest level possible Scientists, and I cannot make mistakes. Well, do you think that a responsible person could be not worried? My life is in the stakes.
Anyway, at this point I can guarantee that the start up will be made in October.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
What would I do I had a table-top device producing excess energy at the rate of several kW, for one hour or so? To convince people that my claim is real I would use at least three different methods to measure the input energy, and at least three different methods of using the output energy, in each demonstration.
Three nearly identical results for the input energy, and three nearly identical results for the output energy, in each demonstration, would indeed be very convincing. Standard methods of measuring large energies (electric for the input and thermal for the output) are highly reliable. The fact that excess heat is different in each demonstration would not bother people, at this stage of our ability to control CMNS phenomena.
Good luck in October, when I will become 80 years old. I am not very optimistic. But I will be happy to be wrong.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Ludwik Kowalski
Dear Prof. Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize):
I understand. These comments are arrived well. In any case, if you do not find a comment of yours approved within 24 hours from when you send it, this means is fallen in the spam tank, therefore please send it to my private address, which you know, so I will process it my way.
Warmest Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Dear Prof. Brian Josephson (NobelPrize),
I agree.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
I’d just like to add that if the e-cat is indeed generating heat with no input energy then that would be sufficient to demonstrate its utility. The question then is purely that of quantifying the amount of heat.
Dear Andrea,
I have been using the same email address all the time; the problem is that every now and then some rather unintelligent spam detectors discover a spam email where a university address has been used and accordingly block email from all 15K members of the university and this goes on until they get a complaint! There is a simple answer — put my usual email address on the white list. This one I’m sending from an alias which hopefully will not be blocked, and I’ll send comment on your reply separately.
Brian J.
Dear Mr Rossi,
What are your main worries about the 1 MW plant? Is it that something breaks down during transport from the US, or is it that the output rate will not be what you hope, or something else.
Best Regards,
Burt
Dear Peter Heckert:
Anyway, we are working hard to make electric power too, and we are close.
Warm regards,
A.R.
@Martin
Heating buildings is more than 50% of energy consumption and air pollution so far I know.
Usually this is done with oil, gas and coal.
So, if NI-H Fusion could only do this worldwide, the main problem could be solved and the oil and gas depency where removed.
For electricity there are other solutions, wind and sun.
However, when (in future) NI-H Fusion is proven and accepted, then without doubt a lot of scientific investigation will be done, and condensed matter science could find new unexpected energy sources and methods.
Best where, they invent a super accu based on element transmutation. If this happened, solar energy and wind could easily cover all worldwide energy needs.
Dear Martin:
Today is impossible to know.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Rick:
Sorry, I cannot answer questions regarding the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Michel M.:
Of course is easier to put in operation a single module than a 1 MW plant, but we have to make a 1 MW plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Daniel Garcia:
The 1 MW plant will be put in operation during the last week of October. The exact place will be communicated in September.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Hello Mr. Rossi.
What will be the date for de “E” day we are all waiting for?
Thank you.
Wish you the best!
Dear,
Reading the most atractive new discoveries, it is surprising how at the edge of the third millenium the world is still victim of International Monopolisms which guide the human life.
Here below is summarized an Important discovery for the exploitation of a new natural primary Energy –
Pure-Continuous-Endless and Available free costs in Nature.
It is long time by now that Pollution which affects substantially our health and the environment, stands on various International programs without a direct and final solution to replace actual methods of traditional energy exploitation, which harm considerably the world human life physically and economically.
The discovery I am proposing for exploitation, refers to the only one energy economically advantageous and available continuously in nature day and night, pure, endless and free cost.
I wish to refer to the exploitation of the Gravity Energy that can be controlled and exploited to our need to almost any extent.
The present discovery fully resolves the painful headache of world millennium, hinged on costly traditional Energies with all relevant consequences.
Energy, most commonly is associated to fossil and hydrocarbon dependency, solid, liquid or Gas and exploited for Electric Power Generation and for general Heating Systems, where absorb much of its consume, polluting the Air and through-out the rain also affects all our means of subsistence, jeopardizing the eco-system, the environment and the human health, where diseases and cancer reached the apogeal.
Energy costs also influence the final cost of all products in proportion of over 30%, beginning from the row material, handling, transportation, manufacturing, storage, marketing, up to the final consumer delivery.
Other systems based on Nuclear solution or Aeolian and Sun concepts revealed to be inefficient for costs and performances, subject to operate exclusively on certain area with favorable atmospheric condition with a yearly output efficiency of around 12 to 15%.
The discovery I am proposing, is characterized by the know how to exploit the Gravity Energy and foresee the construction of medium and large industrial engines operated exclusively by the above new energy as a primary force, and connected to suitable Electric Generators, to water pumps, to air pumps, or arranged to any need of cheap industrial power as per example: Desalinating Plants or even for rescue waters, ect., and crank progress towards a cheaper cost of life, improving living condition for millions human beings in precarious conditions.
Anthony Ceresa –
E-mail: anthonyceresa@yahoo.com – a.ceresa2002@libero.it
Dear Dr Rossi,
The 1MW configuration needs multiple E-Cats connected together, wouldnt it have been easier to start production with single E-Cats ? (Hyperion ?)
Auguri e forza !
Michel
Dr. Rossi,
I’m curious about the instability you experience when the E-Cat is allowed to heat up to more than 200C. If the reactants have to be heated to a minimum temperature to initiate the reaction and the reaction temperature has to be controlled to within a narrow range, is the problem with allowing the reactants to exceed that temeperature range that you can’t remove heat from the reactants quickly enough and a positive feedback occurs that pushes the reaction rate even higher until something melts?
Dear mr Rossi,
In other posts you said that it is impossible to gain all energy in the world with your invention.
Do you have an idea which percentage of the total needed energy in the world can be gained with e-cats?
Best regards,
Martin
Ps your spam filter is working to good i think…
Dear Georgehants:
I have maximum respect for any Scientist, even if I may disagree with some.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
What percentage of scientists in the World, whose area of research should include Cold Fusion do you think are competent to be in the positions that they hold.
Dear Bill Nichols,
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr Rossi
To your question.
A possible initial application for: a.) desiccants; and b.) solid state cooling; may be in mobile transportation. Per our earlier conversations and interest, specifically in the cooling and condensation stages in the Rankine cycle using water as a propellant (i.e. steam engine). Recall your interest and previous questions we’ve shared for this application area.
Briefly, were taking advantage of the high heat content and natural non-linear properties of water we see daily in nature. One benefit, it could increase besides greater efficiency, the likelihood since water is a variable gas to never have to replace water in a steam water vehicle through ambient air exchange. Using latent heat of evaporation and condensation, plus other properties of water, the efficiency in a steam engine may provide ecological benefits (Atmospheric Scientist in me and no, I’m not talking about Climate Change which I worked heavily in for almost a decade–still do to lesser degree).
For mobile transportation, the heat, as I stated before, from your device solves the hardest part, the energy needed to warm the water to the boiling point (steam). It would minimize the need to convert heat from your device to all electricity for an electric vehicle (except some conversion needed for a lithium battery) which as you’ve stated has significant loss to convert heat to electrical. We’re striving for maximum efficiency and minimum waste.
We know when water reaches the boiling point, it is converted to steam, this expansion from a liquid to a gas is by a factor of about 1700. This is lots and lots of potential power…why steam power is so important today and in our past.
Since water has a very high dielectric constant, here’s an option to consider besides using your device to fully heat to pure steam (from an earlier question of yours)…
Microwave injectors in an engine (Think like a small microwave oven).
1.) Heat the water to just below boiling point using your E-cat.
2.) Use the dielectric constant properties of water (that is a
microwave injector device in a piston). The electrical power
comes from the lithium battery.
3.) Inject the near boiling water droplets (the size of roughly
.1 to 1 micron). This maximizes the droplet area to convert
the water to steam most efficiently and maximize expansion and
thus power.
4.) Depending on the specification of your device, the energy
needed from the battery may be modest.
5.) This could provide high flexibility in engine performance as
the water droplet size and distribution density acts like a
conventional fuel…but with more power due to the higher heat
content in water versus fossil fuels. Plus the water is not
consumed and is recycled.
The concept of using microwave injectors to turn water droplets to steam may provide a flexibility and performance your E-Cat may not be able to meet…at least at this stage of development in vehicles.
Here’s where the desiccants and solid cooling technology may have utility.
The steam in the exhaust of a steam engine can already be efficiently and mostly recaptured. Using desiccants and solid cooling could allow not only further potential enhancements of condensation (Clausius-Clapeyron equation) …but using ambient water vapor…capture and refill any water that may be lost. It could also potentially return the water at a near ideal temperature to minimize additional heat needed to near or at boiling point to create steam for use again.
So…three technological possibilities to consider in a steam car: 1) microwave injectors-proven; 2.) desiccants—largely proven; 3.) solid state cooling—incipient stages; that may increase the efficiency and power of steam engines for much of not all types of transportation needs.
As a scientist, were attempting to engineer and replicate what nature does. Water is such a powerful, yet elegant compound (besides essential for life).
Finally, goal is to illustrate possibly options and levers to maximize effectiveness of your heat phenomena.
BTW…offer there are other unique properties of water that may eventually bear fruit if your device capabilities are as I understand them. We must, like my grandchildren, demonstrate we can crawl first.
Hope this answers your questions, plus provides thoughts, ideas, options to consider in your quest for applications to the E-Cat.
All the best, and take care.
Bill Nichols
Dear Italo Albanese,
Yes, we are working on the issue of the fluid.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Alessandro Casali:
You are right, theoretically I could leave it to my collaborators, but I can see particulars that in this phase are very difficult to understand for People who do not know what is inside.
About the other question, it involves the nature of the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I also suggest you to take some rest from time to time even if the time is running out.
I suppose you are working together with a trusted team of specialists and each of them is dedicated to a specific task, so what is your own specific task, apart from coordinating the team? i mean is there any peculiar task that only you can do?
A question about self sustaining reactions: as i undestand it, you have somehow managed to find the balance for a stable reaction so that you can keep the reaction temperature over the minimum temperature required to stay alive but below the runaway temperature.
On the other hand, in driven reactions, the reaction is set to produce less heat than the minimum temperature and an internal heater is used to bring the remperature over the minimum but still below the runaway temperature, therefore if you turn off the internal heater the temperature goes below the minimum and the reaction stops.
Is my assumption any correct?
If so, i guess the recent updates to the reactors where due to the need of providing it with a turn off device for self sustaining mode.
Correct guess?
Warm Regards,
ac
Dear Andrea Rossi,
have you considered to give the input energy to e-cats with a hot fluid instead of electrical resistance?
In this way the fluid no longer give energy if the temperature rises too much and even subtract energy, if the e-cat becomes hotter than the fluid. You should only substitute the electrical resistance with a hot fluid serpentine and choose a suitable fluid (glicol, oil, molten salt) for the “ignition” temperature you need. Obviously, a first e-cat could heat the fluid for others.
Best regards,
Italo A.
Hi! Here are two recent artices that feature or mention your work
Is the Age of Oil Nearly Over? http://15minutesonline.com/columnists/3107-no-stranger-to-controversy-stephen-cook-asks-is-the-age-of-oil-nearly-over.html
Cold Fusion, Warm Future. A new Day Dawning?
http://15minutesonline.com/columnists/3061-cold-fusion-warm-future-a-new-day-dawning.html
Dear Marco,
Thank you for the suggestion, but the problem is that the higher the series the more difficult is the stabilization. We are resolving the problam.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Claud:
Thank you for the suggestion, but it is impossible to reduce the workload.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Jam:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Greven Grevesson:
You are right: I will invite Prof. Peter Ekstrom to visit the plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Rick Gresham,
What you suggest is a good declination of the product along the marketing derivates.
Warm regards,
A.R.