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 Mr Andrea Rossi*,
*Nobel Laurate 2012
Congratulations. Thanks to Allah or God i.e master of the Universe, surely a new era is starting with your gigantic step. Generally speaking, we were (and for a few years still will be) burning everything so as to generate energy, except dirty Fission. What a waste. Energy generation by “Hot Fusion” is only an instrument of fooling people under the name of science. It is apparently nothing more than an employment tool to many physicists. World will be much better place to live. How much humankind owes to you? Thank you very much great Engineer.
[…] posts on his blog, Rossi stated he achieved what he called a self-sustained reaction but had to use a generator to […]
Buongiorno ing. Rossi.
Le chiedo se sono previsti
al momento degli e-cat mobili,in modo
tale da sostituire i gruppi elettrogeni
su ruota.
P.s.
Michael Faraday era figlio di un
fabbro e con umiltà credeva in Dio,spero
che il Signore conceda anche a Lei la possibilità
di aiutare il prossimo,senza pensare a fama e profitti
che sono il semplice riflesso del proprio lavoro.
Cordiali saluti
Francesco D.M.
Buona sera Ing. Rossi,
seguo da mesi sul web la sue ricerche. Sapere dello straordinario successo ottenuto con l’esperimento del 28 ottobre mi emoziona.
Complimenti e sopratutto grazie
Vladimiro
Dear Joseph Fine:
1- Entire plant, I preferred to lower the power to stay well stable in self sustaining mode, in perfect agreement with the Customer, more interested to the self sustained mode.
2- no
3- I will be back in the USA to organize the manufacturing soon. We gotta make jobs.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giovanni:
You are right, besides, please read also my answer to the same comment in this blog. We have produced more energy than the consumed one also during the non self sustained mode.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Plumber:
All of it,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Sebastian:
I already answered: the Genset was necessary for the dissipators and for the pumps, control panels, etc.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joseph Fine:
During the hours before the self sustained mode we consumed in total 400 kW and produced in total 300 kW.
The consume of power during the heat up starts from a power of 10 kW and after this is raised slowly, until we reach 99 Celsius, at that point we give maximum power and as the water begins to vaporize we turn off the resistances and go on with self sustained mode. This is what happened during this test.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Rossi
Che dire…? MERAVIGLIOSO!
Congratulation Mr Rossi for your achivement!
I liked to be in Bologna yesterday but was no possible.
One question:
why in your opinion press and media did not cover this important experiment?
why you gave the exclusive to one important agency but still now there is no coverage on press/media?
Best regards
A.R.
Enjoy your day off, resting, playing tennis etc.
What was the maximum power produced by the E-CAT(s) when electrical power (for heating) was used? That is, 470 KW were produced in self sustainment mode. (The test was run at lower power for stability.) If the test(s) were run at full power, maintaining electrical heating for stability, what was – or would have been – the peak power? (I think output would have been closer to 1 MW.)
Joseph
Dear Mr. Rossi,
congratulations on your successful test. I have one question.
There are reports that the external generator was left running during self-sustain mode. Could you please elaborate why this was the case?
How much power can this generator produce?
Thank you very much.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for the wonderful early Christmas present! I was worrying that I would get that darned big lump of coal again but instead you gave me what I hoped and prayed for! I start to pray now for Peace and Love. Who knows, maybe we can have that too!
Warmly and Sincerely,
Stephen Taylor
Dear Dr.Rossi,
Congratulations for the tests of the 1 MW E-Cat!
The results are brilliants : Input /Output : 66/2,635 KWh !!
From now all the “critics” are useless!
Now we begin a new era.
Best regards from Transylvania,
Michael K.
EVVIVA!!! E se entro una settimana non sento notizie nei network televisivi mi incateno davanti al QUIRINALE!
Fra qualche anno, tra moglie e marito, verso fine autunno….: “Caro! ti sei ricordato di mettere la ricarica di nichel nella caldaia? Ormai con questa diminuzione di CO2 per colpa dell’ECAT gli inverni sono tornati ad essere così rigidi!”
VIVA ROSSI VIVA IL GENIO ITALIANO
Dear Mr. Rossi,
congratulations on your successful test! I am both very excited, because your E-Cat is perhaps the single most important technology development in years – and sad, because it is lacking the attention it surely deserves.
With the world resources being depleted at an unsustainable, and (even worse) ever-growing rate, and production of several key raw materials like oil and gold having reached past their peaks and now possibly in permanent, irreversible decline – we definitely need more options, and the E-Cat is a welcome one.
La maggioranza degli scienziati e dei ricercatori lavora in umili laboratori e rimane completamente sconosciuta ai più, ma con quello che sta facendo il Dr. Rossi ha una seria possibilità di finire sui libri di storia accanto a Newton, Einstein, Fermi… e questo mi rende orgoglioso di essere Italiano – una volta tanto!
Andrea Ruggirello
programmer, web developer / Virtual Reality 360-degree photographer
WARNING- CORRECTIONS OF THE DRAFT OD THE TEST MADE ON OCTOBER 28TH ON THE E-CAT MW 1:
IN THE DRAFT, PLEASE CORRECT THE FOLLOWING TYPOS:
1- THE WEIGHT OF HYDROGEN HAS BEEN MEASURED IN GRAMS, NOT KG, AS ERRONEOUSLY WRITTEN
2- THE FLOW RATE OF THE WATER PUMPS HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 350 KG/HOUR FOR EACH OF THE 2 OPERATING PUMPS, NOT 700 EACH AS ERRONEOUSLY WRITTEN IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH, WHILE IS CORRECT THE FLOW RATE OF 350 KG/H WRITTEN IN THE FORMER PARAGRAPH, ON THE BASE OF WHICH THE CALCULATION OG THE PRODUCED ENERGY HAS BEEN MADE. JUST A TYPO.
SORRY, BUT YESTERDAY WE WERE VERY TIRED.
WARM REGARDS,
ANDREA ROSSI
P.S. TODAY I WILL PUBLISH THE COMMENTS, BUT WILL NOT ANSWER: SORRY, I TAKE A FULL DAY OFF, TOO TIRED. GOTTA PLAY TENNIS.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Greetings from Lithuania for successful test of 1 mw plant!
We hope komercialisation started without delay and even before claimed date!
Best regards
Gediminas
I have to say that you are a Hero to people like me. Your work will give power to the people everywhere, where it belongs.
In an earlier post you mentioned that the 1 megawatt unit would consume 10,000 grams of ni fuel for 6 months operation. At the end of that time can that charge be reprocessed to reclaim the unused portion of ni. If so, what is the approximate percentage of ni that can be reclaimed? I apologise if you have already covered this subject.
Tonight from the roof of our building in New York, we watched fireworks for the 125th anniversary of the Statue of Liberty. What a fitting coincidence to the end of this historic day. May all of us, inspired by your tireless drive and zeal, go out and help implement this technology with utmost haste!
Dear Ing. Rossi
I red this comment from George on the test results: (http://www.ecatnews.net/2011/10/29/rossi-here-is-the-report-of-the-test-jnp/)
>It is clear from the excel curve that the device needed at least 2,5 hrs initially to “heat up”…however this phase and the energy >which has been put IN is nowhere mentioned! You cannot claim the device created 2635kwH at a ratio 2635:0 , totally disregarding >the fact that energy was put in since the device did not heat itself up by magic! Since you conveniently left out this data…it >could very well be you needed to put in as much (or more) energy as was “produced”.
I replied:
Giovanni · 4 minutes ago
After the “warm up”, the device could have been kept working for months….. so the initial energy used at the start up becomes more and more irrilevant. The most important ratio is between energy used to maintain the reaction (66 kWh from 12:30 to 18:00) and total energy produced. Or am I wrong?
Am I wrong?
My best regards
Giovanni
Tensione fiduciosa da Marzo fino ad oggi che adesso diventa un respiro di sollievo. Congratulazioni e grazie per aver pensato diversamente e per aver avuto il coraggio di agire di conseguenza. Un grande esempio.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Congratulations on your successful test of today. 470 KW in self sustanence mode is truly a fantastic result. We dance with joy here in Brooklyn, New York! Hopefully, tonight you are recovering after partying like its 2013!!!
Blessed weekend!
Andrea!
Good to hear the news.
Congratulations to you and to those working with you on this important and historic achievement.
1. Was the 470 KW value for self-sustaining power produced by one half of the plant or by the entire plant – (both halves together)?
2. Did you switch between Side 1 and Side 2 and operate each of the halves in self sustaining mode?
3. Are you going to buy back your house in Florida, or are you planning to move?
If so, we’d like to have you move here or build here in New Jersey. The winters are cold in NJ, but not as cold as in New Hampshire. Now, of course, you can heat with the E-CAT, once you get permissions from the local authorities.
Joseph
Well?
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I just hope my grandchildren will read you name right next to Marconi in their textbooks. Last nine months have been really exciting. Keep the good work! Wish you the best! Ah… I almost forgot, I hope you get as rich as you deserve, we are tired of people getting rich at the expense of others getting poorer.
Best Regards,
Gustavo
While I think that this has a very small chance of working. Here is hoping it does!!! Good luck to you today.
Cari Andrea Rossi e Sergio Focardi,
Hope all the best for you and us!
E grazie per il vostro lavoro.. Vi seguo da un po’, sia sul blog di Passerini sia su questo.
Focardi era mio relatore alla tesi di laurea (nel 2000), ricordo bene quando mi mostrò il suo laboratorio e le sue spiegazioni sulla faccenda, e se non avessi già imboccato un’altro settore quasi certamente mi sarei dedicato a quello. L’ho rivisto alla conferenza successiva alla vostra prima dimostrazione qui a Bologna, e l’ho salutato dopo molti anni…
E’ tutto molto entusiasmante, e anche a me è venuta una gran voglia di collaborare, ma realisticamente non avevo nulla di utile da dire che non fosse stato già detto, così ho preferito finora tacere, e darmi da fare piuttosto per diffondere il più possibile il vostro lavoro e il mio entusiasmo.
Domenica sarà il mio compleanno, e il vostro è un gran bel bel regalo, in un certo senso, e colgo dunque l’occasione per ringraziarvi!
I più cari saluti e auguri, e capitemi, parlo italiano perchè almeno di qualcosa di nostro, nonostante tutto, bisogna essere fieri…
Umberto
Egr.Ing Rossi, sono col fiato sospeso e spero che tutto funzioni regolarmente. Le informazioni, però, sono poche e le aspettative moltissime. Desidererei, ad esempio, sapere, visto che non è stato possibile seguire in diretta l’avvenimento, a che ora comincia e per quante ora l’impianto dovrà funzionare in autoalimentazione per stabilire che l’esperimento ha avuto successo. Ci sarà un comunicato ufficiale finale o dovremo accontentarci di cercare qualche notizia sul web nei prossimi giorni? Le sarei grato se potesse formire a quanti, come me, la seguono le informazioni richieste.
Bravo Senior Rossi,
We wish you the very best in all your Works.Bringing this to market is the right way forward to global use and acceptance. We would love to install this tech in our radiant zone project in Quebec,Canada. A large Toast (salut) to you and Tesla too!
Buena Suarte
Pete
Mr Rossi.
I cant wait for this to work. Rooting for you.
Best regards
Phil
Mr. Rossi,
Today is a big day. I give all my positive thinking towards your invention, it represents a new hope.
Greetings from a Venezuelan Citizen.
Alfredo
Gent.mo Ing. Rossi,
sto incrociando le dita per la prova di oggi. Spero che il reattore sia già in temperatura e stia dimostrando la sua efficienza. Ho tanta voglia di fare un salto a Bologna nel pomeriggio, per essere presente in un giorno storico come questo. Intanto resto collegato col suo blog sperando che arrivino notizie fresche.
Buona fortuna!
Claudio Prati
IN CULO ALLA BALENA DOTT.ROSSI
Hello dear Ing.Rossi
In reference to what is written by Thomas Blakeslee, you forgive me if I take the liberty to respond to him in your site, I would say to him that all great hope we entertain you the best E-cat, to be able to produce energy too well Electrical. As has already been written by me, will be sufficient to improve the COP. I have no reason to doubt that you, dear Mr. Smith, you’ll break down this barrier with your studies. For now, the most important thing is: YOU ARE IN COLD FUSION ABLE TO SELF-MAINTENANCE, THIS IS NOT LITTLE!
When Guglielmo Marconi invented the radio transmissions had already shown that radio waves existed, but he invented as a convoy, tuners, and transmit over long distances.
For now, therefore, will have to do a great demonstration of today (1 MW) which will confirm the enormous importance of the absolute brilliant invention.
We are all anxiously awaiting the ‘big bang’.
Warm greetings
Dear Andrea Rossi
Good luck for today, exciting times and thank you for sharing the ride.
Alot of people will be waiting for the results.
Best Regards
Sean.
Buona fortuna, ci vediamo a novembre!
Godspeed Mr. Andrea Rossi. Allah speed you.
AR Slnk
Good luck today Mr Rossi. This could be à turning point for us all.
Dear Signor Rossi:
I’ve been totally captivated by the news of your great invention since march. Your courage, perseverance and endurance are very inspiring. When I am down, I think about the world with your technology and Iam instantly elated. All the best for you and humanity! S.M.
Extend our greatist positive wishes and prayers that your tests today will exceed all expectations. Your preserverance and dedication is amazing. Kindly keep me informed
Best Regards and wishes
James Morrison
Canada
As I sit here in Northern Wisconsin at midnight a cold winter starts, we all wish you the success. May you lead the way to a warmer future and an eternal spring!
Rick Olson
Mr. Rossi,
I am seven years old. Good luck tomorrow. Thank you.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
You have already changed the world of new energy research. With good fortune, your world and all of the world will begin again.
I continue to work on your requested beautiful design for the home sized E-Cat. And even if it is only from my own hand, to see your work transform into a beautiful object, brings it to life, makes it seem already part of our world.
These are exciting times. Best Wishes to you.
.
Il mondo pare stanco di esser ciò che è,domani inizia la rivoluzione,pacifica,saggia e necessaria.
Buona fortuna e ancora grazie.
Wishing you the best of luck on this eve of what we all hope will be a new era for humankind.
In caloroso in bocca al lupo per domani. Speriamo tutti che vada tutto bene!!
I wish you and your colleagues the best of luck for tomorrow’s test.
There are many people here willing you to succeed so please keep us posted on developments.
Cheers,
Alan