by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Abstract
Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion.
Introduction
Experiments of Fleischmann and Pons made about 20 years ago [1], raised the question about the possibility of nuclear DD fusion at room temperature. Conflicting results of numerous experiments that followed, dampened the initial euphoria, and the scientific community quickly came to common belief, that the results of [1] are erroneous. One of the convincing arguments of skeptics was the lack in these experiments of evidence of nuclear decay products. It was assumed that “if there are no neutrons, therefore is no fusion.” However, quite a large international group of physicists, currently a total of about 100-150 people, continues to work in this direction. To date, these enthusiasts have accumulated considerable experience in the field. The leading group of physicists working in this direction, in our opinion, is the group led by Dr. M. McKubre [2]. Interesting results were also obtained in the group of Dr. Y. Arata [3]. Despite some setbacks with the repeatability of results, these researchers still believe in the existence of the effect of cold fusion, even though they do not fully understand its nature. Some time ago we proposed a possible mechanism to explain the results of cold fusion of deuterium [4]. This work considered a possible mechanism of acceleration of deuterium contaminant atoms in the crystals through the interaction of atoms with long-wavelength lattice vibrations in deformed parts of the crystal. Estimates have shown that even if a very small portion of the impurity atoms (~105) get involved in this process and acquires a few keV energy, this will be sufficient to describe the energy released in experiments [2]. This work also hypothesized that the lifetime of the intermediate nucleus increases with decreasing energy of its excitation, so that so-called “radiation-less cooling” of the excited nucleus becomes possible. In [5], we set out a more detailed examination of the process. Quite recently, a sharp increase of the probability of fusion of various elements was found in accelerator experiments for the cases when the target particles are either imbedded in a metal crystal or are a part of the conducting crystal. These experiments compel us to look afresh on the problem of cold fusion.
Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators
For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear.
Figure 1. Up – experimental data [8], showing the energy dependence of the S-factor for sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of matter that contains the nucleus 7Li. Down – the similar data [7] for the reaction of DD, when the target nucleus is placed in a crystal of zirconium. The data are well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV.
The phenomenon is apparently due to the strong anisotropy of the electrical fields of the crystal lattice in the presence of free conduction electrons. Data for zirconium crystals for the DD reactions can be well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV. It is natural to assume that the corresponding distance between of two atoms of deuterium in these circumstances is less than the molecular size of deuterium. In the case of the screening potential of 300 eV, the distance of convergence of deuterium atoms is ~510ˆ12 m, which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the size of a molecule of deuterium, where the screening potential is 27 eV. As it turned out, the reaction rate for DD fusion in these conditions is quite sufficient to describe the experimental results of McKubre and others [2]. Below we present the calculation of the rate process similar to the mu-catalysis where, instead of the exchange interaction by the muon, the factor of bringing together two deuterons is the effect of conduction electrons and the lattice of the crystal.
Calculation of the DD fusion rate for “Metal-Crystal” catalysis
The expression for the cross section of synthesis in the collision of two nuclei can be written as
where for the DD fusion
Here the energy E is shown in keV in the center of mass. S(E) astrophysical factor (at low energies it can be considered constant), the factor 1/E reflects de Broglie dependence of cross section on energy. The main energy dependence of the fusion is contained in an expression
that determines the probability of penetration of the deuteron through the Coulomb barrier. From the above expressions, it is evident that in the case of DD collisions and in the case of DDμcatalysis, the physics of the processes is the same. We use this fact to determine the probability of DD fusion in the case of the “metal-crystalline” DD-catalysis. In the case of DDμ- catalysis the size of the muon deuterium molecules (ion+) is ~5×10ˆ13m. Deuterium nuclei approach such a distance at a kinetic energy ~3 keV. Using the expression (1), we found that the ratio of σ(3.0 keV)/σ(0.3 keV) = 1.05×10ˆ16. It should be noted that for the free deuterium molecule this ratio [ σ(3.0keV)/σ(0.03keV)] is about 10ˆ73. Experimental estimations of the fusion rate for the (DDμ)+ case presented in the paper by Hale [10]:
Thus, we obtain for the “metal-crystalline” catalysis DD fusion rate (for zirconium case):
Is this enough to explain the experiments on cold fusion? We suppose that a screening potential for palladium is about the same as for zirconium. 1 cmˆ3 (12.6 g) of palladium contains 6.0210ˆ23(12.6/106.4) = 0.710ˆ23 atoms. Fraction of crystalline cells with dual (or more) the number of deuterium atoms at a ratio of D: Pd ~1:1 is the case in the experiments [2] ~0.25 (e.g., for Poisson distribution). Crystal cell containing deuterium atoms 0 or 1, in the sense of a fusion reaction, we consider as “passive”. Thus, the number of “active” deuterium cells in 1 cmˆ3 of palladium is equal to 1.810ˆ22. In this case, in a 1 cmˆ3 of palladium the reaction rate will be
this corresponds to the energy release of about 3 kW. This is quite sufficient to explain the results of McKubre group [2]. Most promising version for practical applications would be Platinum (Pt) crystals, where the screening potential for d(d,p)t fusion at room temperature is about 675 eV [11]. In this case, DD fusion rate would be:
The problem of “nonradiative” release of nuclear fusion energy
As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay products of the compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion with the formation of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox in [4]. We believe that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the materialization of the two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity for some time. This time defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions. Figure 2 schematically illustrates the mechanism of this process. After penetration into the compound nucleus at a very low energy, the deuterons happen to be in a quasi-stabile state seating in the opposite potential wells. In principle, this system is a dual “electromagnetic-nuclear” oscillator. In this oscillator the total kinetic energy of the deuteron turns into potential energy of the oscillator, and vice versa. In the case of very low-energy, the amplitude of oscillations is small, and the reactions with nucleon exchange are suppressed.
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the nuclear decay frequency dependence on the compound nucleus 4He* excitation energy for the merging deuterons is presented. The diagram illustrates the shape of the potential well of the compound nucleus. The edges of the potential well are defined by the strong interaction, the dependence at short distances Coulomb repulsion.
The lifetime of the excited 4He* nucleus can be considered in the formalism of the usual radioactive decay. In this case,
Here ν is the decay frequency, i.e., the reciprocal of the decay time τ. According to our hypothesis, the decay rate is a function of excitation energy of the compound nucleus E. Approximating with the first two terms of the polynomial expansion, we have:
Here ν° is the decay frequency at asymptotically low excitation energy. According to quantum-mechanical considerations, the wave functions of deuterons do not completely disappear with decreasing energy, as illustrated by the introduction of the term ν°. The second term of the expansion describes the linear dependence of the frequency decay on the excitation energy. The characteristic nuclear frequency is usually about 10ˆ22 sˆ-1. In fusion reaction D+D4He there is a broad resonance at an energy around 8 MeV. Simple estimates by the width of the resonance and the uncertainty relation gives a lifetime of the intermediate state of about 0.810ˆ22 s. The “nuclear” reaction rate falls approximately linearly with decreasing energy. Apparently, a group of McKubre [2] operates in an effective energy range below 2 keV in the c.m.s. Thus, in these experiments, the excitation energy is at least 4×10ˆ3 times less than in the resonance region. We assume that the rate of nuclear decay is that many times smaller. The corresponding lifetime is less than 0.3×10ˆ18 s. This fall in the nuclear reaction rate has little effect on the ratio of output decay channels of the compound nucleus, but down to a certain limit. This limit is about 6 keV. A compound nucleus at this energy is no longer an isolated system, since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach to the nearest electron and carry the excitation energy of the compound nucleus. The total angular momentum carried by the virtual photons can be zero, so this process is not prohibited. For the distance to the nearest electron, we chose the radius of the electrons in the helium atom (3.1×10ˆ11 m). From the uncertainty relations, duration of this process is about 10ˆ-19 seconds. In the case of “metal-crystalline” catalysis the distance to the nearest electrons can be significantly less and the process of dissipation of energy will go faster. It is assumed that after an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the environment the relatively small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes, and the frequency of the compound nucleus decaying with the emission of nucleons will be determined only by the term ν°. For convenience, we assume that this value is no more than 10ˆ12-10ˆ14 per second. In this case, the serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment in a time of about 10ˆ-16 will lead to the loss of ~4 MeV from the compound nucleus (after which decays with emission of nucleons are energetically forbidden), and then additional exchange will lead to the loss of all of the free energy of the compound nucleus (24 MeV) and finally the nucleus will be in the 4He ground state. The energy dissipation mechanism of the compound nucleus 4He* with virtual photons, discussed above, naturally raises the question of the electromagnetic-nuclear structure of the excited compound nucleus.
Fig. 3. Possible energy diagram of the excited 4He* nucleus is presented.
Figure 3 represents a possible energy structure of the excited 4He* nucleus and changes of its spatial configuration in the process of releasing of excitation energy. Investigation of this process might be useful to study the quark-gluon dynamics and the structure of the nucleus.
Discussion
Perhaps, in this long-standing history of cold fusion, finally the mystery of this curious and enigmatic phenomenon is gradually being opened. Besides possible benefits that the practical application of this discovery will bring, the scientific community should take into account the sociological lessons that we have gained during such a long ordeal of rejection of this brilliant, though largely accidental, scientific discovery. We would like to express the special appreciation to the scientists that actively resisted the negative verdict imposed about twenty years ago on this topic by the vast majority of nuclear physicists.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. S.B. Dabagov, Dr. M. McKubre, Dr. F. Tanzela, Dr. V.A. Kuzmin, Prof. L.N. Bogdanova and Prof. T.V. Tetereva for help and valuable discussions. The author is grateful to Prof. V.G. Kadyshevsky, Prof. V.A. Rubakov, Prof. S.S. Gershtein, Prof. V.V. Belyaev, Prof. N.E. Tyurin, Prof. V.L. Aksenov, Prof. V.M. Samsonov, Prof. I.M. Gramenitsky, Prof. A.G. Olshevsky, Prof. V.G. Baryshevsky for their help and useful advice. I am grateful to Dr. VM. Golovatyuk, Prof. M.D. Bavizhev, Dr. N.I. Zimin, Prof. A.M. Taratin for their continued support. I am also grateful to Prof. A. Tollestrup, Prof. U. Amaldi, Prof. W. Scandale, Prof. A. Seiden, Prof. R. Carrigan, Prof. A. Korol, Prof. J. Hauptmann, Prof. V. Guidi, Prof. F. Sauli, Prof. G. Mitselmakher, Prof. A. Takahashi, and Prof. X. Artru for stimulating feedback. Continued support in this process was provided with my colleagues and the leadership of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, and I am especially grateful to Prof. R. Parkey, Prof. N. Rofsky, Prof. J. Anderson and Prof. G. Arbique. I express special thanks to my wife, N.A. Tsyganova for her stimulating ideas and uncompromising support.
References
1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. W. Anderson, L. J. Li, M. Hawkins, J. Electro anal. Chem. 287, 293 (1990).
2. M. C. H. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, and P. Haglestein, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000, Lerici (La Spezia), Ed. F. Scaramuzzi, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy, 2001), p 3; M. C. H. McKubre, In Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Proceedings Of The 10th International Conference On Cold Fusion; Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 21-29 August, 2003, Ed by P. L. Hagelstein and S. R. Chubb, (World Sci., Singapore, 2006). M. C. H. McKubre, “Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions”, Presented at the Short Course on LENR for ICCF-10, August 25, 2003.
3. Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, “The special report on research project for creation of new energy”, J. High Temp. Soc. (1) (2008).
4. E. Tsyganov, in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 1981–1989. Original Russian text published in Yadernaya Fizika, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 2036–2044.
5. E.N. Tsyganov, “The mechanism of DD fusion in crystals”, submitted to IL NUOVO CIMENTO 34 (4-5) (2011), in Proceedings of the International Conference Channeling 2010 in Ferrara, Italy, October 3-8 2010.
6. H.J. Assenbaum, K. Langanke and C. Rolfs, Z. Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei 327, p. 461-468 (1987).
7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.
8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008).
9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293
10. G.M. Hale, “Nuclear physics of the muon catalyzed d+d reactions”, Muon Catalyzed Fusion 5/6 (1990/91) p. 227-232.
11. F. Raiola (for the LUNA Collaboration), B. Burchard, Z. Fulop, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.31, 1141 (2005); Eur. Phys. J. A 27, s01, 79 (2006).
by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Dear Rossi,
Here’s what I meant before. If all readings were correct, the figures from NyTeknik’s report clearly show a huge energy output, even with the safest, most conservative hypotheses.
Cheers to that, but now let’s roll. I consider myself hired for your UK Operations, right? 🙂
Carlo Ombello
Dear D Gilmour:
I know perfectly what I risk, but the horse is in the trail and has to race.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Martin Matejka:
Luckily we have the persons like you, against the gum chewers ( for the newcomers: gum chewers are those who cannot read the title of a newspaper if they are, at the same time, chewing a gum).
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Lemos:
Please contact me in November, when we will start our commercial strategy,
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear vRodrigo:
The module is 10 kW.
Contact me in November , when we will start our commercial strategy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Frank Acland:
1- When I say a thing, I do it. I said by the end of October we will test the 1 MW plant and we will do it
2- yes
Thank you for your kind attention,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Congratulations on your recent Bologna experiment — I think that the results that have been reported have been convincing to many people.
Many followers of your progress were probably surprised to learn that you had delayed the shipment of the 1 MW plant to the USA. Without revealing anything confidential, are you able to say that 1) despite this change of plan you are still in a position to perform the announced demo in the last week of October, and 2) you are still in a strong enough business position to start producing E-Cats commercially in the immediate future?
Thank you — and best wishes for the upcoming weeks and months!
Best regards,
Frank Acland
Dear Mr. Rossi,
What do you mean with 500euros for 1Kw? 1kw is the box you described that people could buy on a supermarket or something like that?
I wnat to be a retailer here in Portugal.
I sent you a mail, hope to hear from you soon.
Hope everything goes as you want and the world needs this 🙂
Thanks Mr. Rossi.
Rodrigo
It seems incredible!! if all comes true, can we talk to do business in Portugal?
Please provide me an e-mail to exchange details or something, ok?
Thanks alot,
Lemos
Dear Andrea Rossi,
there is an article from the snake where he tries to crunch numbers in an embarassing way.
Let’s do the math of the total energy input versus energy output:
(That’s a total energy loss of MJ during a 7.5-hour period)
Energy input – Energy output = Total energy loss
– by the snake: (38.88 + 1.44) – 31.5 = 8.82 MJ
– by excel calculation:
33.6 – 100.4 = –66.8 MJ (sign minus means energy GAIN )
(see excel on link http://www.scribd.com/doc/68013344/Temp-Data-Ecat-6-10-11-Edited-by-MAP):
This shows, that E-CAT has Total energy output handed over via heat-exchanger to water for whole time = 100.4 MJ, NOT ONLY 31.5 MJ as is stated in the snake’s article.
I should mention, that huge amount of energy was remained/not exhausted via heat exchanger in E-CAT after finished test (E-CAT stayed very hot).
This energy should by take into account with calculation with Total energy loss.
I hope, this calculation is clear.
Best Regards, M.
I did review the boiler kW question and I guess there was a mistake in my traslation.
A boiler for a bathroom for hot water is 2 kW.
What I was speaking about was the centralized boiler to warm the house.
(Parlo di caldaia autonoma a metano per appartamento e non di scalda acqua elettrico per un bagno.)
I did review a few brochures and the power ranges from 18 to 35 kW.
Thanks, Gherardo
Dear Sir: I am truly amazed at the “underground” internet traffic the 6 Oct test has brought forward. There is no longer any doubts of your successful presentation. Now there is much discussion as to how to proceed in dealing with such a Global Threat!! Believe me, when I say that you now need to be a bit paranoid! Warmest Regards and Congratulations. DG
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
I agree,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Carlo Ombello:
Thank you!
A.R.
Dear Gherardo:
1- During the stabilization period the gain is as you say, when ot goes in self sustained mode is much higher
2- I am sorry to correct you: a boiler is 2 kW of power or less in a family
3- I always prefer guarantee less than I give
4- The trial lasted the time it had been scheduled to last: People arrived around 9.30 a.m. and all finished around midnight, to get the cooling time necessary to disassemble the E-Cat to allow everybody to check everything. We have weighted the E-Cat before and after the test, and at the end we disassembled everything to allow all the attendants to check that nothing “exotic” was there and that thermocouples . components and all was perfectly set.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
After the oct.6th experiment I have a few questions from the prospectve of an householder buyer:
1) I did read from reports that the energy gain was between 3:1 and 6:1. That was because the startup period was correctly accounted in. I understand that for the reactor stabilization it’s better to heat up (or mix the powder?) the core every some time. My question to you is: after the startup, in a regular usage what is the energy gain along the tipical 24 hours all including?
2) Today a boiler for heating the house requires between 25 and 35 Kw. What will be the power generated by the e-cat? If a single element did 3.5 Kw in the test then the 3 in the box will make about 10 Kw give or take. Correct? Isn’t too low for heating in the winter? Where is my mistake?
3) I do understand that you can decide the energy gain ratio. What is the side effect you want to avoid and so stay conservative?
4) we were expecting a very long trial. Why did you cut it short? or esle, why it was advertised as a long test and then was made shorter?
Thanks a lot for your great work, Gherardo
Andrea,
I’m with you, I agree all the calcs have been very conservative, and many aspects have not been considered. I have myself made some calcs to show this, to demonstrate that anyway energy was produced. This fact in itself should be regarded as the most important subject, because it clarifies to everyone that you got your hands on a magnificent discovery.
The fact that the power ouput is far more kW than the conservative estimates may suggest, is secondary from a scientific point of view.
I think this latest test is by far the most impressive of all, now please just keep going and never let go! and if you require hospitality in London, don’t look farther than here, contact me. 😉
Regards
Carlo Ombello
Mr. Rossi:
Congratulations! “Who wants to understand, can easily understand, who wants not to understand will not steal a single second of my time.” Good for you! This is the only attitude that will keep you sane.
Are you having trouble with lawyers disagreeing? My suggestion go over their heads to their boss and talk plain “english” to him.
Dear H.Hansson:
Maybe you are right: I hope so.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Fred L:
Correct, a lot of energy lost through the insulation (which was experimental) has not been calculated, to be conservative.
The insulation has to be improved, and this resolves also the other problem. We have not to waste heat.
Thank you for your atention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Carlo Ombello:
At this point the word is exclusively to the market. The Customers will tell you if the E-Cat works properly or not.
The set up war perfect, the position of the thermocouples proper, the energy produced before the self sustained operation was already more than the energy consumed, even if of course for the first 2 hours we just heat up, if you read carefully the data you will discover that as soon as the temp of the primary is arrived up to 100 Celsius the production of energy was more than the consumed energy, there has been a period during which the resistance has been turned on for 10 minutes and turned off for 10-15 minutes, durind this period we already got more energy than we consumed, until we arrived to the stabilization, and at that point we produced more than 3.4 kWh/h consuming nothing. Who wants to understand, can easily understand, who wants not to understand will not steal a single second of my time. By the way: we did not consider, to be more conservative, all the energy lost through the insulation: in total a surface of 5000 square cm heated up to 60-80 Celsius… As a matter of fact, the energy produced by the E-Cat has been more than the one measured, and we wanted this, to be very conservative. About the delta T: we have taken for the calculation the minimum delta obtained during the self sustained period, to be connservative. The position of the thermocouple is correct. You can proof this: buy the same connection we used (costs 10 dollars in any shop of hydraulics and plumbing) insert water at whatever temperature you want, put a thermometer in the same position we used, take the temperature; then, put the same thermometer a couple of inches more distant, you will see no difference, provided the pipe is insulated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Guru Gurovic,
You have seen that we passed from 2.000 euro/kW to 500. The price goes down with the increase of production. The life of the E-Cat is 20 years, as we foresee.
Besides: A family needs 4-5 kW, not 10.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giorgio Adorni Francia:
Perfect. Contact me in November,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dave:
OK, contact me in November,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Hank Mills:
The 3 and half hours of self sustaining have been done without spots of resìistance on. What I said is that the spots of resistances turned on after the sustaining mode is stabilized have a duration of 10 minutes and that the minimum dueation of the self sustaining mode is one hour. Of course it can be more, as you saw in the test, wherein it has been 3 and a half hours long. A computer will regulate this in the commercial units.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You have stated the following more than once, I believe.
“The drive is turned on for spots of 10 minutes, as you have read in the NyTeknik Report.”
I have looked and looked through the data from the period of “self sustain mode” in NyTeknik’s report, that can be found at the following URL.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
I do not see anything in that paper documenting that the drive was turned on for spots of 10 minutes after self sustain mode began. Actually, other than the device producing “frequencies” being turned on, it does not indicate any power was utilized after the start of self sustain mode.
So to be clear, are you stating that after the start of self sustain mode, the main drive (not just the box producing frequencies) was turned on for ten minutes, from time to time?
If so, NyTeknik should include the information in their above linked document, because after looking multiple times, I cannot find it.
Thank you for all the hard work you are doing.
Hank Mills
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I am ecstatic over the success of your E Cat! It should be the boost this poor old planet needs to start on the road to recovery. I have been following your progress for some time now and pray for your continued success.
When the time comes I want to become qualified to be a service company to offer sales and service
Dear Ing. Rossi, WOW!!! I can’t keep my people (phisicists, engineers) cool any longer… Our best regards.
I am a big fan of E-CAT, however as I was first 15 years technician and last 25 years more economist I see this marketing obstacle:
If selling price is planned for 500 Euros per 1 kW of output capability, this is 5.000 Euros for 10 kW home general purpose devices. For period of 1 winter season this device is capable save around 1.000 Euros of costs for coal/gas/electricity (at tasks as heating water and heating home).
Economic amortization is thus around 5 years.
Folks had unrealistic dreams about 6 months – 1 year of amortization.
E-CAT for 5.000 Euros this way will great toy for some ecologist clowns as Gore and Madonna which are doing hundreds lectures about ecology and their home contains 27 big chandeliers and to 105th lecturing they fly with their own bizjet which burn 10 tonnes of kerosine per one flight.
Clean E-CAT, no emission for 5.000 Euros = great toy for rich eco clowns.
38 + 16 = 54 MJ obviously… 😛
Dear Rossi,
Long time no post (from me). I eagerly waited for the test, and luckily we now have some numbers! After some early criticism over the setup, I can see no point from people who claim no energy was produced. Mats Lewan only calculated 38 MJ during self-sustained mode, but what are the other figures involved? I tried to take the most notable ones into account, so to get a taste of what happened. From NyTeknik’s report, the total consumption of the electrical resistance was about 31.6 MJ (I took all the steps up and down into account) for the whole test duration. This is already below the conservative 38 MJ estimate output from Lewan.
But let’s also take into account something else, for example the 2 hours prior to the self-sustaining mode. During that time, the Delta T on the secondary water circuit was always at least 3 °C, which means that a further 16 MJ were released through the heat exchanger. This increases the total heat exchange to 38 + 16 = 52 MJ, and this is still very conservative by all means. If you’re interested, I can forward my excel calcs to you via email.
Despite some faulty setup from the experiment, I say well done, and look forward to end of this month. May I suggest though for any next e-cat trial to extend for a good day or two in self-sustained mode, just to wipe out any doubt from those who still don’t trust you?
Kind regards, keep going!
Carlo Ombello
[…] In addition to getting the 1 MW plant ready, Rossi is apparently struggling to come up with a satisfactory design for a small E-Cat. Today on his web site he issued this appeal: […]
Dear M. Rossi,
I’d like to thank you for your hard work and for the brilliant demonstration on 6th october.
Following the report by NyTeknik and some pictures I’d like to submit to you some of my toughts.
Any comment from you will be appriciated.
The inside of the E-CAT is basically a box, with a big heat exchanger place on top of the core where the reaction takes place, the design is quite similar of what a CPU and his heat dissipator looks like in a computer.
During the test, you actually used a resistance to heat the 30L of water in the E-CAT to the reaction temperature which I assume is aroud 110-120°C. Then the boiling water produces steam that heat an external heat exchanger with the secondary circuit. Witnesses report that even with the insulation the external T° of the E-CAT was around 60-85°C, which means that A LOT of energy is radiated outside of the E-CAT.
What do you think about the following design :
Instead of heating the 30L of E-CAT to 110-120°C, you place the resistance directly to the core, and you transform the heat exchanger inside the E-CAT so that the secondary circuit is directly connected to it. With this new design, you never need to heat the 30L inside the E-CAT to the boiling point, the water inside the E-CAT will be cooled by the fresh water from the secondary circuit and you get rid of radiated heat because the water could be maintained around 60° for example.
As a side question, regarding the report that the ouside of the E-CAT was around 60-85°C even with the insulation, how do you plan to cool the inside of the container with 52 E-CATs running at the same time ?
Keep up the hard work, you have the power to change this world for the better.
Best Regards,
Fred L
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Regarding your business partner in USA. “Never accept the first offer” is pretty much the name on the ballgame.
My best guess is that your customer in USA will come back “running” with a better deal. After all you have PROVED yourself with the 6/October tests.
And when you get the report/s from the professors.. mail them a copy.
Dear Wladimir:
Your comment, from a colleague as you, is an honour,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear david Roberson:
1- Many hours. The drive is turned on for spots of 10 minutes, as you have read in the Nyteknik Report
2- No
3- flat
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Francesco Toro,
The E-Cat basic module “for the People”, that we will put in commerce within months, will be 40 cm long, 40 cm large, 40 cm high, will weight 60 kg, the shape of a cube. I need a design cheap ( I want to put it in commerce at a price of 500 euros per kW) but nice, very nice. I will buy the design which I will choose and everybody has my honour word that I will not use designs not paid. I need it within two months.
Go to the report of Nyteknik (google “Nyteknic E-Cat Test October 6”) to see the pipes position: that will be it.
Please send proposals to
info@leonardocorp1996.com
I am sure that from the enthusiasm od our Readers will pop up a masterpiece.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
Dear ing. Red thanks for your attention.
I hope not to have understood badly. It seems me that you want a beautiful covering to contain the discovery.
The data that would need me are simply a squirt of the whole outline of the E-Cat with rated dimensions; the location and the measures of the pipes of input / output; the location and the measures of possible points of connection for probes of process control; the maximum temperature of job of the external wrap; possible inside coverings in lead and relative thickness.
I know that you are already sustaining onerous expenses therefore I won’t want any remuneration. The main point is the good result of your product!
In case you became rich he will want to say that you will buy me the denture… ah ah ah!
What it cares, is besides, that I have understood well your demands.
As it regards a possible squirt to send I think me that you own my address E-mail for which I attend the dispatch of your indications.
Best regards
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I want to congratulate you on your recent successful test of the ECAT. The latest self sustaining mode where you allow the device to run without any input is impressive indeed. That certainly falls within my best definition of self sustaining.
Please allow me to ask a couple of questions. How long would the device continue to generate the 3.5 kilowatts of power output without additional power input? Is it possible for the device to run in this manner until the fuel needs replacement?
My second question relates to the form factor of the core that holds the mixture. Is that still in a cylindrical shape or is it now flat as was suggested by the reports from those present at the test? I believe that a flat planar form would have many advantages regarding scaling for power.
Thanks,
D.R.
Dr. Andrea Rossi wrote:
“nobody is aggressive against something he is not afraid of…”
Here in Brazil we use to say: “ninguém chuta cachorro morto”
Which means: “nobody kicks dead dog”
Dear One-of-the-99%:
The more I work, the more the E-Cats will work, the more will pop up blogs against our work: the more they are afraid of us, the more they will try to talk badly of us. The more they talk badly of us, the more they give evidence that our E-Cats work: nobody is aggressive against something he is not afraid of..
Now let’s go to the start up of the 1 MW plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Francesco Toro:
Please ask exactly the data you need. If I receive a design that will ignite fire in my heart, I will buy it.
Warm Regards,
A.
“”Dear Enrico Bendinelli:
What can you do? For example: We are studying the design of the body of the E-Cat. No one of the proposals I received I do like.””
I am ready! Ing. Rossi you send me to squirt and The see to plan the container of the E-Cat trying to adapt it to simple and economic production. Naturally I need burdens given on the conditions of inside solicitation to which you must withstand. The tries there and if The won’ts succeed at least will have tried!
Best Regards
Thanks for his punctual answer ing. Rossi.
I would not now want to bore her with too questions but me, since I have been a planner, I have the characteristic to always think about the practical applications of the devices and therefore my curiosity is very inclined. Still excusing me for the trouble I would want to ask her:
1) if in the future it will be possible to directly foresee a dissipation of the power for simple convection on the liquid to heat;
2) if in the big fittingses (up to 100 Mws) you foresee to use And-Cat of very great dimensions or so many small And-Cat prepared in parallel, of the visible type in the photos of his container;
3) finally, excuse my indiscretion, if you have indeed problems of marketing for his/her Discovery such to have been forced to mortgage your house. In this case I would have an idea, if you agree, to launch a signature so that you can quietly continue your experiments up to the production (also seeds handicraft) of many devices to introduce on the market. I have the impression that a lot of multinationals want to take you for tiredness and to snatch you so cheap the secret of your invention. Am I wrong me? Thanks and “good luck.”
Kindest regards
Mr. Rossi,
I am glad you have your demo behind you. So many bloggers continue to write that your E-CAT demo proved your E-CAT invention does not work, however I disagree. So, how do you feel about the outcome? I want you to know you that have plenty of supporters which believe in what you say and your concept.
Your invention has inspired me to design and build a new product. Another engineer and I are planning to build some prototypes, so perhaps in one or two years I may have something to offer your new venture. The product I am designing would not compete with your business, but rather it should compliment it.
I know you are busy getting your business off the ground, but have you considered the possibility of having small investors invest in your business (as angel investors) as oppose to some large company? With the “We are the 99%” demos going on across the United States, the time seems ripe to try something new like this. It would be unique if you could fund your venture with no “1%” money. What a crazy thought — imagine hundreds of thousands of young people investing in this clean energy and taking down the oil companies and OPEC and shaking up Wall Street. Let the social campaign begin!
Finally, no matter how wealthy and famous you become, I hope you will keep the door open to new ideas and do not allow your IP to be turned over to an overpaid CEO of a large corporation.
Best of luck,
One-of-the-99%
I am the team leader of a group of people with long experience in development of hardware/software projects for industrial electronic and telecommunication.
I think we can help you in designing the required electronics and control algorithms.
Dear Enrico Bendinelli:
What can you do? For example: We are studying the design of the body of the E-Cat. No one of the proposals I received I do like.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gent.mo Mr.Rossi,
quello che e’ riuscito a fare e’ fantastico, congratulazione per il lavoro ed in bocca al lupo per il futuro.
Enrico Bendinelli
PS Mi piacerebbe infinitamente contribuire al vostro progetto.
Dear K. Dobrolecki:
The energy at the output is thermal.
The energy we need at the input is also thermal, indipendently from the source: we need heat, not electricity.
Should we use a direct thermal source instead of heat produced indirectly we could save consequently. But this fact, in a self sustained mode, which is gonna be prevalent, is not so much relevant, and an electric resistance costs less, saves space and is simpler.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Sebastian:
1-yes
2- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.