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
Gent.mo ing.Rossi
Mi scusi ma il link citato nel precedente post non sembra più funzionare. Per il ritrovamento della Legge citata occorre digitare il seguente link:
http://www.normattiva.it/atto/caricaDettaglioAtto?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=1995-06-13&atto.codiceRedazionale=095G0234¤tPage=1
Cordiali saluti
F.T.
Gent.mo ing. Rossi
Mi perdoni se scrivo in italiano ma la complessità dell’argomento va oltre le mie capacità espressive inglesi.
Volevo fare presente che l’articolo di legge citato dal Sottosegretario De Vincenzi tratta di “impianti nucleari” da dismettere o costruire (art.1 comma a) <>
E qui si intende chiaramente che la Legge intende regolamentare le centrali nucleari in essere utilizzanti i famigerati materiali “fissili” dei quali ben conosciamo gli effetti deleteri.
Quindi nulla accomuna lo E-Cat dove NON vengono utilizzati materiali “radioattivi” propriamente detti.
Nel successivo comma b), con il chiaro intento di proteggere la comunità, tratta dei materiali radioattivi ovviamente del tipo sopra indicato e dalle sorgenti naturali di radiazioni. Ancora una volta, dicendola in “Di Pietrese”, “che c’azzecca?”
C’è da dire che parla anche di “radiazioni ionizzanti” dovute a non meglio identificate “apparecchiature ivi comprese quelle ad uso radiologico”, allegando delle tabelle dove vengono indicati i valori massimi di emissione tollerati. Anche qui il Disposto non sembra interfacciabile con le condizioni esistenti durante il funzionamento del E-Cat, in quanto si arguisce che dette apparecchiature utilizzino materiali radioattivi naturali e non.
Detto ciò, la citazione del decreto.legislativo:1995;230 http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato , fatta dal sottosegretario appare pretestuosa e fuorviante se non in malafede ovvero suggerita da qualcun altro altrettanto in malafade.
Cara Pekka e altri: come vedi le nostre polemiche sono discretamente giustificate. Se poi riesci a considerare il resto del contesto (violenta campagna mediatica di debunking contro il n.s. ing Rossi, inimicizia delle grosse multinazionali petrolifere, gelosie di altri ricercatori) ti accorgerai che la situazione è abbastanza critica. Quanto appena esposto mette ovviamente l’ing. Rossi e sostenitori perennemente sulla difensiva. Sebbene dispiaccia…ebbene sì, siamo un poco prevenuti.
Il sottosegretario, data la portata epocale della notizia, avrebbe potuto mostrare maggiore interesse per il caso “Rossi” ponendo in essere tutte quelle iniziative per un approfondimento di quanto realizzato e (perché no?) contattandolo direttamente al fine di facilitargli la ricerca, l’ingegnerizzazione e l’espansione del prodotto sul mercato nazionale ed estero.
Il “made in italy”, di cui molti di noi sono orgogliosi, potrebbe tornare ad alti livelli commerciali migliorando il bilancio della nazione, bilancio che oggi arranca in recessione.
Cordiali saluti
F.T.
one wishes Mr. Rossi
Keep the course he has set
and do not enchanted by the sirens that will surely increase
quo fata ferunt
E.Laureti
Dear Andrea,
one of your supporters, co-author in 22passi, has written a nice article:
giovedì 17 maggio 2012
Importanza del lavoro fatto fin qui
dall’Ing. Andrea Rossi.
Desidero ribadire, ove non fosse chiaro, quanto consideri determinante il lavoro svolto fin qui dall’Ing. Andrea Rossi; senza la Sua personalissima iniziativa e l’ottima scelta di “fare armi e bagagli” ed andarsene in America, non saremmo qui a parlarne e a credere che qualcosa di positivo possa accadere.
Infatti è soltanto grazie alle due iniziative sopra accennate, se oggi possiamo parlare di LENR o Cold Fusion, se assistiamo nel web ad un fiorire continuo di siti, blog, forum che parlano di questo argomento; esiste:
un dialogo ad alto livello come quello da me evidenziato nel post “Tanto che aspettiamo news from Pisa” tra quattro ricercatori internazionali o quello che si è appena svolto a Pisa o …
… lo scambio di opinioni tra semplici sostenitori, persone che nella vita fanno tutt’altro ma che per merito di Rossi si sono appassionate, persino, alla Fisica
esiste la contrapposizione tra chi come noi è a favore e chi è contrario, ma ne discute o …
… le conferenze – dibattiti – seminari – del tipo CERN – SAPIENZA etc. etc.
la sperimentazione del genere “artigianale” tipo ATHANOR – con tutta la stima ed il plauso per i protagonisti di quella ricerca ed esiste quella …
… americana – giapponese – greca, nota e meno nota, ufficiale od ufficiosa tipo NASA – Defkalion – Mitsubishi – altro…
Tutto questo per merito di Rossi, perché ha rivitalizzato una sperimentazione che non è mai terminata, ma che si trascinava quasi in maniera clandestina, sottoscala e nell’indifferenza generale.
Quando il mondo ha realizzato che questo industriale italiano avrebbe potuto immettere sul mercato un dispositivo rivoluzionario – E-Cat – che dovrebbe produrre acqua calda a costi irrisori, quindi produrre una macchina da soldi, improvvisamente, hanno realizzato che, forse, avevano perso il treno e, con un certo affanno, sono corsi a riaccendere il “sacro fuoco della ricerca”!!!!!!!!!!
Quindi, in conclusione, il suo dovere Rossi lo ha fatto ed anche molto bene; ora, starebbe agli altri RICERCATORI sedersi attorno ad tavolo, sviluppare un progetto comune, presentarlo alla UE, ottenere i finanziamenti e partendo da quanto è già stato fatto proseguire fino alla possibile soluzione della formula magica.
Il nostro compito dovrebbe essere quello di fare in modo che la “fiamma” non si spenga.
paolo
Dear Pekka Janhunen,
do you know what struck me the most in the letter’s tone? How little political it is.
Anyway, in the content, the clear message I read is in that “(presumibilmente negativo)” referred to the exit of certifications: with these two words the intention is made known.
This is my humble opinion as an italian reader. I may be wrong.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
Thanks,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
Good, well equilibrated comment. Typical of a Finnish mind.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr Salvi,don’t worry.I think that when a man dedicates his life to a search like this makes it not only for money,but for a grate sense of love towards the world.
Regards G G
Dear bernie Koppenhofer:
Thank you very much, I appreciate,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi: The question and answer website is great, http://faq.ecat.com/latest-page2/ I have been directing friends to the site for them to get an understanding of the E-Cat, with good results. I hope others from this site will do the same. Please keep adding to the site.
Dear Antonella, Andrea and others:
In my opinion (perhaps naive), one can also see the De Vincenti text in partly positive light:
1) He effectively recognises the reality of LENR. It is an achievement, I don’t remember other governments having done it yet.
2) In the final paragraph he says that (only) through more reliable scientific and technical findings can the practical applications of the (E-cat) device be assessed. This is true: for example airplane applications haven’t yet been much investigated, as we heard today (in response to Charlie Sutherland’s question).
3) He expresses some worries about radiation, but that can only be his personal opinion, because the question belongs to certificators and radiation safety officials (while his background is Professor in Economics).
Maybe the tone of the text was negative; this I cannot judge because I do not speak Italian. But in official matters the contents is more important than the tone. One could use what is good in the text and request to correct what is factually wrong.
Dear Carlo Salvi:
We will fight to make possible the wider diffusion of this technology.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gentili signori, purtroppo non servira’ a nulla fare polemica con questo o quel personaggio inerente alla politica italiana. L’ Italia è un paese di azzeccagarbugli, per cui è chiaro che chi vuole ostacolare la diffusione dell’ e-cat troverà ogni scusa per tentare di sabotarlo in favore del buon vecchio petrolio. Sicuramente il discorso riguardante i raggi gamma servirà ai “serpenti” per ostacolare la vendita di questo apparecchio. E la cosa ridicola è che ogni forma di energia che noi usiamo quotidianamente è potenzialmente letale, dal gas metano delle nostre cucine, al gpl , alla benzina, alla corrente elettrica. Chiunque puo’ farsi del male utilizzando impropriamente le fonti di energia. Ma loro cercheranno di ostacolarla Signor Rossi, dicendo che i raggi gamma potrebbero fuoriuscire e creare danni alla salute. La prego di prendere le dovute precauzioni, perchè temo che le varie lobbies acquisteranno LORO gli e-cat piu’ potenti per distribuire col massimo guadagno energia elettrica senza permetterci di generarcela da soli con gli e-cat da 10kw. Lei che è una persona intelligente Signor Rossi, non permetta che questo accada.
La saluto con stima e continuero’ a seguire con attenzione l’evoluzione della vicenda…
Dear K.D.:
We did it:
please see http://www.ecat.com
The sales of the 1 MW plants are in course and their certification will be completed very soon. About the domestic ones, we have to wait for the certifications and we are not able to feresee, now, the timing to go through.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dir Mr.Rossi
Those, who follow all you responses to the questions on this forum, know what you talk about.
But as Koen Vandewalle say
> May 15th, 2012 at 2:29 PM
> Dear Andrea,
> 1.5 grams ? Makes me think of a cigarette.
> It is a shame that they don’t understand it in Italy.
Any one who see this side first time don’t know what it is about. And then make confusing statements on other website
If is the 1.5 grams for 1MW or 10kW and for how long.
Of course any one can find the information on ECAT.com if they they about it existence.
Other thing. The site can be read by any one, all over the world. But only by English speaking.
So not everyone can know about E-Cats.
What I want to suggest is. As you said, you have representation in most countries of the world. But they will be reveled when the E-Cats will be ready for sale.
But meantime they can organise the E-Cat websites, where will be copy in theirs languages of the information given on your official website ECAT.com
The more peoples know about your discovery, the more influence they might have on theirs representatives in governments.
The other things is. You could receive more informations about how many peoples might be interested in each country, which can be helpful in setup future distribution.
Dear Antonella:
We must put a clear distinction between competitors, acting as “neutral validators” and true scientists: we are working very well with many of the best scientists who are helping us very much. I am referring, among the others, to the military scientists working on our plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
I am not able to answer, because I have no backgroung at all on aeronautics. But it seems to me a very long term issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I understand the new reactors can reach the higher temperatures sufficient for a useful Carnot cycle engine. Could several of these new reactors be configured in parallel to produce sufficient energy and within weight restraints to supply a Carnot cycle propeller drive aircraft engine?
Dear Andrea,
I have given the following answer to a question on Franck Acland’s E-CatWorld.
“What I think of italian scientists…well,
I feel very… disappointed. Engineer Massa, who would be going to test Abundo’s Athanor, has not found other interested people yet, he still has no real team.
It seems that none of the scientists are going to act, all of them stay in their universities doing their business.
Scientists are just asking to test the E-Cat, they are not interested in testing a primitive LENR device, first because cold fusion scientists do not need any evidence, they already know that it exists; second, IMO, because almost all of them have their own patent, given or pending.
They will not stand for Rossi, they are all one against the others, they will not fight together against the lobbies.”
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you,
Warm Regasrds,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1.5 grams ? Makes me think of a cigarette.
It is a shame that they don’t understand it in Italy. If you decide to release the secret, which only takes ten minutes of your time, I suppose, all Italians and other European citizens will buy Asian E-cats by the hundreds of millions. Just like we already buy all the I-stuff.
At this moment, I am building an M-Cat. It will never produce energy, but it is capable of turning on the lights on a different way. Very comprehensive. If it performs as I expect, I will send you some image.
It can, if necessary, be used to create some critical mass (among students, politicians and entrepreneurs) when the certificators are planning their timing past your lifetime (because they are also threatened), or the customers of E-Cats receive too much opposition.
Kindest and most respectfull regards,
Koen
Dear Antonella:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini,
We work hard on it, not less than 16 hours per day. The work is going well, without money from any taxpayer…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Francesco:
I agree,
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi
Si, infatti qui in Italia i politici si riempiono la bocca della cosiddetta “crescita” ma non si capisce di quale crescita si parli… forse del loro portafoglio?
Io non vedo altro che aziende industriali che “delocalizzano” e politici italiani che se ne fregano. Intanto qui vengono a mancare stipendi e pensioni che dovrebbero essere contribuiti dal LAVORO CHE NON C’E’. Come ho già accennato in questo blog i politici sono per la maggior parte lobbisti che tutelano interessi personali, fregandosene della collettività ovvero incompetenti che si associano per pappagallismo ai primi.
L’E-Cat, ormai ne ho l’assoluta certezza per i segnali che provengono dalla comunità degli scientisti (e non scienziati… sic), FA PAURA A MOLTI, prime tra tutti le multinazionali petrolifere. Stanno cercando di metterla sul piano della sicurezza facendo terrorismo mediatico per giustificare un successivo provvedimento restrittivo della nostra libertà di utilizzarlo.
Tenga duro ingegnere… noi siamo tutti con Lei.
Sincere cordialità
F.T.
Vorrei scusarmi con tutti se scrivo in italiano,ma il mio arruginito inglese mi richiederebbe troppo tempo per scrivere correttamente messaggi così lunghi.Abbiate pazienza,grazie.
Caro dott Rossi,ho fatto due conti e se mi sono perso nel mare di zeri mi corregga.
Rimanendo in Italia il consumo elettrico annuale è di 350.000 GWh,di cui 70.000 da rinnovabili per la maggior parte idroelettrico e solo il 2% da fotovoltaico.Volendo andare ad emissioni zero per coprire il restante 280.000 GWh/anno con rinnovabili dovremmo tapezzare il territorio di pannelli e pale eoliche ed allagare vallate con costosissime e “Damoclesche” dighe,devastando il territorio.Per non parlare poi del costo degli incentivi.
Volendo ivece utilizzare il nucleare a fissione,occorrerebbero 35 centrali da 1 GW che ad un costo stimato(difficile da definire)finale ottimistico di circa 5 miliardi/euro l’una verrebbe la bellezza di 175 miliardi.Senza considerare i costi di smaltimento scorie e dello smantellamento impianti a fine carriera.Per non parlare poi dei rischi.
Considerando la Sua stima di poter produrre impianti con cop 6 e turbine Siemens da 7.5MWh netti al prezzo di circa 23 milioni di euro,per ricoprire quel fabbisogno occorrerebbero 4.400 centrali ad un costo complessivo di 101 miliardi e 200 milioni eu.Poi,chi mette i soldi per il fissile?Con i suoi impianti potrebbero essere i privati ad intraprendere,senza bisogno di incentivi ma con finanziamenti a tassi agevolati magari dallo stato e banche.
Questo con la “Ford T”.
Attendo con trepidazione il prototipo della macchina elettrifera con reattori ad alta temperatura…a quel punto con la dovuta diffusione delle informazioni mi aspetto che in tutto il mondo la gente scenda in piazza armata di cartelli con scritto”vogliamo l’e cat!!”
Rivoluzione nella rivoluzione nella rivoluzione.
Cari e caldi saluti G G
Dear dott Rossi,I agree.
Dear Andrea,
I think it is not a matter of this Deputy or this Government, it’s just what Italy is. We let Marconi go to England, Fermi to USA, Colombo to Spain…Feel safe, you are in good company.
I wish you all the best.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
La verita’ e’ che questo governo e’ composto da persone competentissime ( anche troppo) di banche, per le quali stanno facendo “miracoli”, ma totalmente prive di sensibilita’ verso industria , artigianato e lavoratori, che stanno devastando. Ho quasi l’impressione che siano terrorizzati dagli ambiti in cui per riuscire a guadagnare occorre lavorare duramente, loro, abituati a guadagnare senza fatica soprattutto quando l’economia reale soffre. Ecco da quale contesto culturale, piu’ che politico, esce questa “persona poco avveduta” che ha fatto scappare dall’Italia un investimento, dicendo fesserie di cui, probabilmente, non si e’ nemmeno reso conto: ha firmato, secondo me, un rapportino scritto da un tale che, onestamente, abbiamo gia’ scoperto chi e’, noi che siamo abituati a lavorare 16 ore al giorno.
Questa l’ho scritta in Italiano, non mi va di far fare pessima figura internazionale ad un soggetto che rappresenta , purtroppo, un importante ministero del governo Italiano in un momento tragico come questo.
But, from now on, please write in English!
Cari saluti,
A.R.
…e già che ci sono la dico tutta…leggendo quella dichiarazione la riassumerei in:”siamo consapevoli che la fusione fredda esiste,non abbiamo fiducia nell’e cat,ma anche se funzionasse emetterebbe raggi gamma quindi non potrebbe aver larga diffusione”…la mia impressione è che certi fissionisti caldi stiano attendendo gli sviluppi e nel caso(quando) questa tecnologia sarà sul mercato,questi signori si convertiranno in fusionisti freddi centralizzati,vietando la diffusione capillare degli apparati cercando di salvaguardare i loro interessi omologandola solo per grossi,grossissimi impianti mantenendone il monopolio.Mia umile impressione deduttiva.
saluti G G
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dott Rossi e Antonella,sono completamente d’accordo con voi sullo stare lontano da certi luoghi impantananti e trovo giusta l’attuale strategia nel suo complesso.Aggiungerei solo che certi rischi vi sono in tutto il mondo (in Italia vi è il valore aggiunto di cialtronesca malafede)e il potenziamento del lato informativo ritengo sia la chiave politica di completamento della già ottima strategia.
Saluti G G
Dear Antonella, Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
The false statements contained in the answer that the Italian Government guy ( a deputy minister !!!) has given are a clear signal. If you analyse the language and compare the evident lack of specific information of this guy with the arrogance of his conclusions ( for example: “the patent will not be granted in Europe”, and he knows nothing of the pending patents, or ” Rossi in some occasion said his apparatus emits radiations, in other occasions said the contrary”, which is false because I always said that no radiations are emitted to the external of the apparatuses from the E-Cats, and I always said that the low level gamma rays inside the E-Cat are turned into heat) and compare the arrogance of the statements with the evident lack of information,as I was saying, the signal is clear: lobbies bound to the government have acted. Add the fact that a person, financed by the taxpayer, is blowing on the fire to try to stop us to promote more public funding to state owned companies that produced only chatters in 20 years of work, shake the all and the resulting cocktail is: better we stay away from there, if I want not to get stuck in the mud. We will sell in Italy our production, but will work safe in the USA and, probably, in Sweden, where we are organizing a strong organization.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Robert Curto,
you say “I was expecting to hear about Factory number 3,4, etc. in other Countries.”
I think that Giovanni Guerini gives an answer when telling Dr Rossi “Do not forget that the significance of this discovery is not only ecological, but also and not least to change the power structures of the system.”.
It means that it is better to start in one specific Country; if a new technology starts in the USA, all other Nations will follow. It would not be very wise to start in a less advanced place.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
…e aggiungo,se una legge antecedente alla comparsa di una tecnologia completamente nuova ne vietasse l’applicazione,sarebbe sensata una analisi approfondita di questa ed un adeguamento della norma e le leggi le fanno i deputati eletti(più o meno)dalla gente.La diffusione su larga scala di questa tecnologia è condizione essenziale affinchè essa possa cambiare il mondo e questa credo sia la motivazione intrinseca alla sua comparsa sulla scena.
Non dimentichiamo che la valenza di questa scoperta non è solo di carattere ecologico,ma anche e non di meno per modificare gli assetti di potere del sistema.
Ieri,ad esempio,abbiamo visto come milioni di persone siano scese in piazza con questa richiesta,quindi direi che questo apparecchio dovrà essere catalizzatore non solo di energia,ma anche di libertà, benessere e maggiore equità sociale.
Saluti G G
E qui temo arrivi la fase più difficile,il confronto con la politica.A mio parere serve tanta,tanta informazione affinchè si crei una richiesta da parte di un numero cospicuo di persone che porti ad una naturale risposta rappresentativa da parte di una forza politica.Le persone si consapevolizzano più velocemente di quanto i regnanti si rendano conto e il voto è uno strumento formidabile.
Mi permetto di consigliare di potenziare il lavoro sulla informazione,affinchè si creino le condizioni sopra descritte e si eviti che certi personaggi,non potendo più dire che le lenr sono una chimera,giochino la carta di generare paure riguardanti la sicurezza del dispositivo sfruttando la disinformazione.
Stiamo vivendo un momento storico di straordinaria presa di coscienza collettiva e questa tecnologia,non a caso forse direbbe Einstein,casca proprio a fagiolo.
saluti G Guerrini
Dear Iggy Dalrymple:
As I repeatedly said, the certification process is in progress and we cannot foresee how much time it will take.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Italo R.:
Yes, I did. Interesting, but we go on along our path, as well as our patents and our certifications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Antonella:
No comment. We go on along our path.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Andrea,
il sottosegretario De Vincenti ha risposto all’interrogazione parlamentare del Ministro Passera
http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/05/risposta-del-sottosegretario-claudio-de.html
Vorresti commentare?
Good afternoon Dr. Rossi, have you read this link?
It is about the “interrogazione parlamentare” on cold fusion and E-Cat:
http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/05/risposta-del-sottosegretario-claudio-de.html
Kind regards,
Italo R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
Earlier today, you replied to Pietro F., “For the domestic E-Cats we have the necessity of the certification made. The industrial plants will get the necessary certification within weeks.”
Are you saying that the domestic E-Cat has now received UL certification?
Sincerely,
Iggy Dalrymple
Message to all the interested persons:
the mail
info@leonardocorp1996
is not working, it says that the mail box is saturated, but it is not true, therefore out IT Guy is working to resolve the problem. All the persons that have sent messages will have to re-send the emails after the reparation, which we think will be fixed in the next hours.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
p.s. for very urgent messages, please email to
info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
The messages will be forwarded to my box.
A.R.
Dear Pietro F.:
I have been authorized to give the following information.
The 1 MW plant has been delivered and is working in a military concern. It has been made in the USA, after the October test of the prototype made in Italy; such prototype will be delivered, with the modifications which we will complete based on what we learnt from the model at work, to a European Customer in July. I have not been allowed to give this information until now.
We are working very much and very hard to be as fast as possible. For the domestic E-Cats we have the necessity of the certification made. The industrial plants will get the necessary certification within weeks.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Buongiorno sig. Rossi,
so che sarà dura avere la risposta ma lo chiedo ugualmente:
il primo impianto da 1mw é definitavamente in funzione ed ha lasciato l’Italia?
Grazie comunque.
Ps: faccia in fretta abbiamo un terribile e urgente bisogno dell’e-cat!!!
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Correct,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A.R.
….change places not plans
J.F.
Dear Carlo Salvi:
We work also along this thread. Let’s see what happens.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
1- It’s smaller, the charge is 1.5 grams, but it has more shielding
2- Not so far
3- yes, this is a revolution in the revolution ( it is true that 180 + 180 equals 360, but if the axes change plans you don’t return to the starting point…
Warm Regards,
A.R.