Cold nuclear fusion

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.

PACS.: 25.45 – deuterium induced reactions

Submitted to Physics of Atomic Nuclei/Yadernaya Fizika in Russian

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

Direct Download

Paolo Accomazzi

August 22, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I would like to comment about the electronic screening effect on nuclear collisions. I have read several times in this site and in Rossi – Focardi paper that Coulomb barrier is lowered from the presence of electrons.

I wish to indicate to your attention a very important paper about this subject:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q553324r5g0103w1/

There is also a preprint available from arXiv:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606082v3

In short, Hydrogen nuclei are attracted very near the nucleus of a heavy atom, authors take Z=80 for the heavy atom and doing calculations with Density Functional Theory (very popular method in computational chemistry) they find out a equilibrium distance of about 0.3 Angstroms for the proton.

This means that, once “solubilized” in the metal lattice protons may stay very near metal heavier nuclei.

The secret of the Ecat may be in the potential curve the protons experience once entered in the metal lattice. If that curve permit that hydrogen nuclei remain for a long time near metal nuclei where electronic density is much more elevated than far away from metal nuclei then fusion events my be higher by orders of magnitude than expected, considering a fusion rate decaying with an exponential law with the distance.

H. Visscher

August 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Hello Mr. Rossi,

Just two more months to go!

Can you tell me what you exactly will be doing the coming two months (other that answering our questions) and when? Is my assumption correct that the 1MW plant is ready in his rough stages and just needs to be fine-tuned and tested? I also know that mostly the last 20% of such a project takes about 80% of the available time. Does this 80/20 rule also apply for you 1MW Plant?

Thanks

Peter

August 22, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Washington Times is reporting on the e-cat. Seems the news are finally starting to reach mainstream media.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/

Andrea Rossi

August 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Dear Gherardo:
I casually found this comment of yours in the first page of the “spam” section. Probably for some reason our robot sends to spam your comments, probably for some link or word in it. I always check the first pages of spam (we receive hundreds of them per day) to find some to recover, today I found this from you. Probably your former comment is finished in the spam, I can do nothing. If there was a link, probably that link has been taken for advertising from the robot.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Gherardo

August 22, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Mr Rossi,
I’d like to understand where my post of 2 days ago did end.
I understand that you have moderated it by deleting but I would apreciate an personal explanation since you have my mail so I can understand what was wrong with it.
Sincerely Gherardo

August 22, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Dear Granchio:
If the T goes too high, Ni melts and the reactor stops.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Granchio

August 22, 2011 at 4:56 AM

Dear mr.Rossi
Is there a limit on temperature of the hot core ?
Reading on this blog seemly be that, if the core is too cold, the reaction don’t take place. Introducing some electric heating energy the process start and after some time become autonomous. If after starting we shut down or rescrict the coolig water, what happens ? I hypotize that the steam become more and more hot, to a limit over the cat on the core melt or poison himself, or become no more fucntional.
You can release information on this issue ?
Best regards.

Peter Heckert

August 22, 2011 at 4:19 AM

Just a comment for the scientific paper above:

Pons and Fleischmann where not the first who discovered nuclear reactions in solidstate deuterium material.

There where reports of neutron emmissions of deuteriized solidstates before:
1. V. A. Klyuev et al., Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 12, 551 (1986).
2. B. V. Derjaguin et al., Colloid. J. USSR 48, 8 (1986).
3. S. E. Jones et al., Nature 338, 737 (1989).

There was also a swedish guy who reported large amounts of energy and helium on electrolysis between 1920 and later.

Pons and Fleischmann where the first, who claimed they have a sustained -industrieal usable- reaction, reliably generating energys in the range kW/cm^3.
Finally they failed to really show off the energy, their calometry had errors. They only had stories to tell about melted electrodes, but they had no energy, that they could show off, unlike Rossi et al. Also most peer experimenters did not find neutrons and this is why mainstream science gave up on “cold fusion”.

I found an interesting paper where different experiments are analyzed and categorized for energy production, EM radition, neutron, noise and electric effects.
The author has the theory that large voltages, temperatures and pressures can be generated in metal cracks and these trigger “microhot fusion”. He doesnt use the term cold fusion.
Its interesting to read, you find it here:

“The Extended Micro Hot Fusion Scenario”
http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0039v1.pdf

Indeed, I have already speculated, if Mr. Rossi might use piezoelectric or pyroelectric materials as catalyzer 😉

Best,

August 22, 2011 at 3:31 AM

Dear Erik Ander:
Yes, it is possible, no limits, changing the heat exchanger.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Erik Ander

August 22, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Best Mr Rossi!

Looking forward to when the householdversion of the e-cat hit the market
(even if as you been told it will take some time)

if i dont want 100C hot water i wonder can i circulate the water faster
trough the cat? and than get not very hot water but larger volume water?
so i wonder how much water can i possible run trough the e-cat
for example in Litre / minute?
?

Best regards! Erik

Magnus Holm

August 21, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

I have read that Steven Krivit is claiming that the output heat is far less than your claims, and that he has based this on visual observations of the steam output of the E-Cat. I must say that I disagree with Steven Krivit’s claims due to the fact that the visual observation clearly shows no liquid water coming out of the hose whatsoever. This means that the only unvaporized water contained in the steam can be in small droplets which indicates that the steam is more than 75%(by weight) dry. Below 75% the waterdrops become so large that you would visually be able to see liquid water spray from the hose together with the steam. You can read more about this in an article from Alan Fletcher,

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410C.php

This means with 7kg/hr of input water that from a purely visual observation one can say that at least the output power will be 4kW which is far above the 700W input power. I must congratulate you on your invention, which perhaps is the biggest in the history of mankind, and I eagerly awaits your big 1 MW demo in October. I hope that not too many hurdles show up on your way to commercialization, the economy and the enviroment need this as soon as possible.

August 21, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Dear Insight:
Interesting. Actually, in this period we are focused on other issues, but your proposal is a possible declination for the future.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

August 21, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Is a good idea.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Koen Vandewalle

August 21, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Dear Andrea,
is extreme small multicore a good idea for very high temp?
Is homemade device dangerous or stupid ? EG without lead shielding. I can imagine some will try when the theory is explained. (some may even before)
kind regards,
Koen

August 21, 2011 at 5:47 AM

BTW, if a lot of ice is melted, all Eskimos, Russians, Norwegians, Swedish and so on, all people that often see a hard winter, will instinctively know, what this means. Such a video would have much more psychological effect than a “scientific” proof.

insight

August 21, 2011 at 4:45 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,
What do you think about using E-Cat technology to make methanol? Methanol can be produced by subtracting CO2 from atmosphere. It could be used during the transition to a new transportation era (electric cars, hydrogen, public transportation+taxis+no private cars, and so on) to stay with gasoline cars, avoiding rebuilding an entire world of automobiles. In Italy, Gruppo Mossi & Ghisolfi is going to produce this kind of substances. Have you already talked with them about your technology to drive their production? Furthermore, have you talked with Brazilian people? They use special cars with ethanol.

August 21, 2011 at 3:38 AM

Dear Italo A. Albanese:
Wrong measurements are possible, in these cases, when, as always happened so far with LENR tests, tiny amounts of energy are produced. When only some tenth of Wh/h are produced, a mistake is possible along your insight. In our case, we produce kWh/h, so mistakes are much evident; think this very simple thing: the reactor is a small vertical cylinder, and should the flow of water be not turned into steam, the steel cylinder would be filled up by water, but the temperature of hot water could not reach 100 Celsius, at atmospheric pressure, which is the pressure we work with (regularly measured by a precision deprimometer).
Of course we check the water out of the hose, also the professors who made the tests did it, and, once eliminated the condensate water deposits along the hose, it resulted to be irrilevant. Of course in the hose there is also water which condenses: the hose is so hot that you can’t put your fingers on it, even for seconds, and of course this heat is at expense of the steam which inside the hose condensates.
We measure every day in our tests the water that exits from the hose, and the amount is irrilevant: how could not it be, if the temperature inside that “vertical bottle” which is the chimney is above 100 Celsius ? Take a small pot of water, put it on the heater of your kitchen, make it arrive to the boiling point, then sink your thetmometer in the water (not on the surface, of course): if you will find a temperature of 100 Celsius or more, buy another thermometer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Final consideration: in October our E-Cats will start to work on regular base for our Customers, and the work they will perform will be the actual test of their efficiency.

Italo A. Albanese

August 20, 2011 at 6:16 PM

@Peter Heckert: The point is that “somebody” says that e-cats do not generate kW, just some Watt, if any. According to “him”, the input current warms the water up to the boiling point, but only a small fraction of water becomes stream, the most part fills the chimney up to the output hose then flows away. The “steam quality” paper of Alan Fletcher seems to say that this could be possible, but there is no evidence of chimney filling. I think this is not enough, the e-cat experiment should give good evidence there is no (o very few) water flow in the output hose, in order to deny every possible wrong measurement claim.

Best regards,
Italo A.

p.s. Sorry for insisting on this thread, I would not to transform this forum in a chat.

August 20, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Dear Ron Stringer:
Thank you for your kind attention to our work.
I sincerely think that for a long period all energy sources will have to be integrated. As always, the more fit will prevail gradually in specific sectors: thre cheaper and environmentally more sustainable will prevail where they will be applicable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Ron Stringer

August 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Dear Dr. Rossi,
I have been following the news of your e-cat since the demo in January, with great interest. The e-cat promises to be a boon to the world.
I am also fascinated by your commitment to engaging with all of the people who contact you here. It is greatly appreciated, especially as this is not necessarily to your own advantage – I am sure you have said more than you needed to (maybe more than you intended to!) from time to time.
You have repeatedly said, in response to questions, that all energy sources are necessary and all will continue to be used, even after the introduction of the e-cat. I am intrigued by this. On one level, it is simply true, there will still be applications where a tank of gasoline will be a better energy source than an e-cat. On the other hand, there will necessarily be a serious realignment in the proportion of use of the various sources. The e-cat will replace the use of fossil fuels in most situations, over time.
I have a feeling that your statement on the future use of all energy sources is an attempt to be somewhat diplomatic, though I don’t know why you feel this to be necessary. Do you foresee many situations where the e-cat will be inferior to other energy sources?
Best of luck in your efforts, I am looking forward to October! – Ron

August 20, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Dear H.Hansson:
Thank you very much for the report, very interesting.
We are close to put the E-Cat in the market. What you suggest is wise.
Warm regards,
A.R.

H. Hansson

August 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Dear Mr.. Rossi,
The subversive elements (snakes) can only delay the progress. DIA (US. Defense Intelligence Agency) two years ago issued a report (do not think it has been posted on this forum) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf

The report describes how there is at least 10 well-funded opponent in LENR race. All close behind you.

It have probably been mistakes, things done and gone wrong .. but none of it will mean anything if you are the first to demonstrate a working commercial e-cat. It is important that you as soon as possible, publishing details about the installation and certification/tests. And when it is reasonable from a security standpoint give a test date..

Unfortunately, I think a clarification on the above points will result in that your opponents take more direct action why security issues is of concern.

August 20, 2011 at 10:29 AM

@Italo A. Albanese
It’s not as easy as it seems. 5 kW or 10 kW of energy cannot vanish. If the steam is set free inside the room it will dissipate into the room and heat it up. I have a 10 kW gasboilerheater here. This is never running non-stop. If this is running non-stop, the heat becomes too much….
The steam could be condensated in a container filled with ice. 1 kg of dry steam can melt about 8kg of ice. This would be a possibility for visual demonstration. So the flow of melted water at 0°C must be 9 times the input flow of the e-cat. But even, if we only get 4 times it still would be an impressive visual proof.

August 20, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Dear Italo A. Albanese:
The kind of test you propose is one of the many possible, and is among the most difficult, because you should have a loss of energy difficult to calculate. The method we used is more professional. The method we will use, will be definitely professional, because if a Customer needs a result, if the result is not obtained means the E-Cat does not work. But in any case you will never read that the snakes etc. are satisfied: they are paid to try to fight against us, so they will always find something to say . Better ignore them and go on. We have better to do than to tame snakes.
Warm regards,
A.R.

August 20, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,
I can’t understand why are you wasting your time with this steam quality question. If you really want to answer to “snakes”, “imbeciles”, “spies”, just repeat your experiment with a water trap (that is, a pyrex vase) in the output steam hose, so everybody can see if the e-cat is working or just tossing out warm water. Maybe half a day of time and 100 $ of material could be a worth prize to shut up those persons.

August 20, 2011 at 4:54 AM

Dear Koen Vandewalle:
We are working on all the possible declinations and projections of this technology, as you suggest. Anyway, to heat a house or to cool it, or to desalinate water etc using an energy that costs 1/10 of the standard can be considered a good start.
Warm regards,
A.R.

August 20, 2011 at 4:34 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

did you -or your co-researchers- evalute other theoretical possibilities of abnormal energy production than nuclear reactions?
There was a method proposed to extract energy from vacuum energy fluctuations.
See here http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Moddel_VacExtrac.pdf on page 11, the apparatus proposed by Haisch and Moddel.
They propose to pump atomar hydrogen through casimir cavities in order to tap the socalled “zero-point-energy”.

While your apparatus is quite different, this could happen nevertheless inside of the apparatus.

August 20, 2011 at 4:33 AM

Drear Paul,
You are correct, I made a typo:
The correct address is the one indicated by you!
Warm Regards,
Andrea

Paul

August 20, 2011 at 4:20 AM

That link seems to be broken.
The correct one must be this:

Note: The last letter of url must be “C” and not “c”

georgehants

August 20, 2011 at 4:11 AM

Mr.Rossi, your link comes up server not found. is it correct.
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410c.php
SORRY FOR THE TYPO!
THE CORRECT ADDRESS IS
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410C.php
A.R.

August 20, 2011 at 4:07 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,
Thats a very interesting site!
However the link, you provided, doesnt work here.
This link works for me:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410C.php
This doesnt work:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410c.php

There seems to be a case-sensitivity problem with the server.

Peter
PERFECTLY RIGHT! THE CORRECT ADDRESS IS THE ONE WITH THE CAPITAL “C” .
WARM REGARDS,
A.R.

August 20, 2011 at 3:51 AM

Dear Andrea,
There is one thing I cannot understand in the strategy to present the technology: A feedwater heater is not very spectacular demonstration device. There are pipes with hot water going in and pipes with hotter water going out. All closed, pressurized and isolated. Most you can do as a demonstration for the visitors is changing the probes that measure input and output temperatures as a proof that the measurements are correct, measuring the flow of the water, making some calculations measuring the ignition energy and there is the proof. Nothing spectacular, and not much visual. The added value is hidden in a complex industrial plant. Powering a steam locomotive (www.mulitpowerinternational.com sells new ones with the required adaptations to the boiler) and make rounds for some couple of days-weeks-months would be more visual and also fun. Just an idea, because you always ask for ready to sell applications. Also helps a little to think more non-electric. And they have their customers in the market who would probably like not to buy so much coal anymore.
Kind regards,
Koen

Gibed

August 20, 2011 at 3:30 AM

Sorry Mr. Rossi, the page linked by the URL http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410c.php
does not exist or cannot be accessed.

Best wishes
Gibed
I MADE A TYPO, SORRY: THE CORRECT ADDRESS IS:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410C.php
Warm regards,
A.R.

August 20, 2011 at 3:06 AM

IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO ALL OUR READERS:
PLEASE GO TO
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410C.php
YOU WILL FIND A VERY WELL DONE ANALYSIS OF THE STEAM QUALITY. WE RECEIVED IT FROM A SWEDISH PHYSIC.
ANDREA ROSSI

August 20, 2011 at 3:00 AM

Dear Sebastian:
1- 5 tonns
2- 2 tonns (for the lead shielding, which is the 90% of the weight)
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Alan DeAngelis

August 19, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Dear Ing. Rossi:

Perhaps the following consecutive reactions can take place in palladium saturated with deuterium.

Pd (N) + D > Ag*(N+2) (step1)

D + Ag*(N+2) > He(4) + Pd(N) (step 2)
_____________________________

Overall: D+D > He(4) 24 MeV heat ( no gamma rays)

All the best,
Alan DeAngelis

Sebastian

August 19, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi

I have one question:
How heavy is the 1MW reactor going to be?
1) with the container
2) without the container (just the E-Cats + necessary equipment)

Thank you very much

August 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Dear Steve:
Until the start up of the 1 MW plant in October, I will be focused on it, but in the meantime we are also studying the turbines application.
I got very good help on this issue.
Warm regards,
A.R.

August 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Dear Koen:
Yes, it is intentional. The target of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics is to create a mature competition, sharing knowledge within the limits allowed by the rules of the market. Is an equilibrium difficult to be maintained, like the nuclear explosions in a star versus the pull of gravity…
Warm Regards,
A.R.

August 19, 2011 at 10:29 AM

This article is really fantastic !
Thanks for publishing on this Journal.
In simple engineers physics: when your marbles can roll free, you almost cannot destroy them in a collision because they bump away, but when you fixate them, a good shot splits them (unfortunately for the marbles).
The trillion dollar question: how do we make good, cheap shots ? Dear Mr Rossi, Andrea, you give it all away for free. Is this intentional ? (please rewrite or delete if you want. Never hard feelings on that.)

When you do the same with bubbles, some of them fuse, and the smaller they are, the higher the wobbling “resonance” frequency after the merging and the faster the energy is drained through the environment. The big ones keep on wobbling for centuries. There will be a certain influence of a certain form-factor of the nucleus, but that demands an analysis of vibration modes of nuclei. I do not know if science is there already. It may be very complex.
This must be a piece of cake to explain to the mainstream media. If everyone understands how it works, technology is easier to accept and to spread.

Maybe a better understanding of this theory and knowledge will help us in future to clean up all the nuclear mess of current fission tech. Did anyone ever cool a radioactive material to 0°K ? There is so much work to do.
Kind regards,
Koen

Joseph Fine

August 19, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Journal of Nuclear Physics

Archives

Recent Comments

Search

Cold nuclear fusion

3,558 comments to Cold nuclear fusion

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Posts

Resources

Meta