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 Prof. Joseph Fine:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Rossi,
If you remove the central cylinder of the Hot Cat ‘can-in-a-can’ configuration, it may be possible to reduce the maximum diameter of a module (typically 10 KW). I thought you were removing the central cylinder in order to take more accurate measurements of temperatures, power production etc.
As the surface area/volume ratio is proportional to k/R, where R is the Radius (which obviously can not be zero) and 2.0 < k < 4.0 , you may be able to produce the same power per module and use smaller diameter modules.
Have you considered this as a way to pack 100 modules into a smaller container than the present Hot Cat ( i.e. the rumored 1 MW 'Toy' or Kitty Cat)?
Curious and curiouser,
Joseph Fine
Dear Mr Rossi,
I was thinking for your hot e-cat because at 600 degrees, efficiency rates approach 60 percent.
Dear Lars Lindberg:
Thank you for your suggestion, I looked at it.
The efficiency seems to be very low.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi.
I read about this invention I think is perfect for you. Here’s how it works: Circulate hydrogen between two stacks of membrane-electrode assemblies. A jolt of electricity that acts like the ignition spark in an internal-combustion engine and the only input is heat. One stack is coupled to a high- temperature heat source and the other to a low-temperature heat sink (ambient air). The low-temperature stack acts as the compressor stage while the high-temperature stack functions as the power stage. Once the cycle is started by the electrical jolt, the resulting pressure differential produces voltage across each of the stacks. The higher voltage at the high-temperature stack forces the low-temperature stack to pump hydrogen from low pressure to high pressure, maintaining the pressure differential. Meanwhile hydrogen passing through the high-temperature stack generates power. This is invented of Lonnie Johnsson and is called Johnson Thermoelectric Energy Conversion System, or JTEC.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
It would seem that to control the Hot E-Cat with natural gas that the response time of natural gas may be a bit slow.
Does the Hot E-Cat also use electricity (other than measurement and control functions) as part of the energy management?
Best regards,
Hughd
Dear Hughd:
The reason why we are using also gas is that the thermal kWh made by gas costs 1/3 of the kWh made by electric power.
Yes, we are testing also it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
It is my understanding that the E-Cat can use natural gas for initiating and controlling the energy output of the Hot E-Cat. Since many commercial power plants are run (or partial run) on natural gas was this fact the driving force for considering using natural gas? Has this configuration been tested in a Hot E-Cat prototype form?
I can see that using natural gas as the energy source (rather than electricity) would provide a much better combination for economically generating electricity for the grid.
Best regards,
Hughd
Dear Mr. Lindberg and Mr. Rossi,
I just saw this this morning at http://www.iceagenow.info: “Queensland Gov’t to force PV owners to sell all their electricity to retailers”.
It might put a damper on the Aussies’ e-cat hopes.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Dear Lars Lindberg:
1- not necessarily, the temperatures are function of the flow
2- they are in the E-Cat Team in Australia
3- 30%
4- yes
5- probably
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
1) in your 1 MW plants the water temperature in is 85 degress C and the water out temperature is 120 degress C.
Could you comment on that please?
2) I have red that the Australian company with the website e-cataustralia.com have an expert in converting heat to electricity. Are they also involved in the development of the e-cat or is it just your team in the USA?
3) What efficiency do you think is acceptable of the electricity conversion to take it to the market? (I mean if you for example achieve 35 % efficiency would you take that product to the market?)
4)I have red you have a lot of coworkers in your team now, are they mostly for development of the product or mostly for other kind of work like administration and building the factory etc.
5)As I understand when the product develops a lot, the final design of the product is changing. If I buy a 1 MW plant now or in 1 year will the product I get look different?
Thanks 🙂
Dear Ray:
Thank you, I like these words in a moment of very hard work. We are in fron of very difficult things to resolve with the Hot Cat, strong difficulties practical and theoretical. But we are working, we are still able to work and this is a gift from God.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
I’m just a passerby with a concern for the future of my children. I’m sure you’re neck deep in old prototypes and calculations, wires, tubes and testing equipment! I would guess that this breakthrough is all very worn down for you, surrounded by sceptics, answering in-numberable questions, building and rebuilding; but this news is truly news to me. And if it is true, then I’d like to say a very sincere ‘Thank you’ from me for persisting with your work. Work which will benefit the lives of my children, their security and their well being long after I am gone. You can be sure that I will raise more than one glass of wine in your name when the announcements are made. Well done, Grazie, Ray
Dear Jasen Sanders:
I understand. Thank you!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Yes. My description of the reactor was generalized to simply to convey the concept articulately. The description is of course, fictional. (My description is based on the Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusor demonstration reactors that are so common.)
If the thermal feedback concept is sound, it might be useful to study. Element 6 makes synthetic diamond in many complex shapes, so it may be possible regardless of the specific reactor design.
Fun to think about anyway.
Warm Regards,
Jasen Sanders
Dear Hughd:
We have the shielding. I cannot give further information
About the Hot Cat of 1 MW, if the performance we are reaching in this period will be confirmed, we will have a surprisingly small machine.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Jasen Sanders:
Your proposal is intelligent, but the reactors are made differently.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Would a thermal feedback system be possible to increase COP? Not liquid or gas based, but one that uses a highly thermally conductive solid material. Element 6 is a company that makes this material. It is synthetic diamond and has a thermal conductivity at 5x that of silver. ~2000W/(m.K) If the distance between where the reaction takes place “the chamber” and where the gamma rays are turned to heat “the target” is short, less than 30 cm, It seems possible. It would seem that if 1.6kw of heat is required and you are making 10kw at the target. That the property of thermal conductivity would push the heat from the hot side (10kw) to the side requiring heat (1.6kw). Provided that the temperature at “the target” is hot enough for the temperature of “the chamber”
The would allow for infinite COP before having to solve the direct electricity generation puzzle. This will not help with starting the reaction of course.
The material is called TM200. Element 6 does allow for custom product orders. Here is the link:
http://www.e6cvd.com/cvd/page.jsp?pageid=426
This could be expensive, but maybe possible.
Worth looking into?
Thoughts for you to ponder,
Warm Regards,
Jasen Sanders
Dear Rossi,
In the Hot E-Cat report of Fabio Penon, when the prototype was disassembled, I did not see any lead shielding as part of the prototype. Was there lead shielding in the prototype assembly or some other material providing the heat capture?
The prototype outer cylinder was 33 cm long and 8.559 cm in diameter. The inner cylinder was 33 cm long and 3.385 cm in diameter. This provided a 2.58 cm space surrounding the inner cylinder. Was this size and configuration selected for providing best heat transfer or just for convenience in constructing the prototype?
What can we expect for the Hot E-Cat configuration and weight for use in the 1 MW version of the Hot E-Cat construction?
Best regards,
Hughd
…they know it works,but they don’t love the world.
Regards G G
Dear Francesco Toro:
At the end operating plants will be the final word.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
p.s. If they think this does not work, why are they wasting their time ? I never lost time with things that I think do not work, so for me is difficult to understand their behaviour, anyway.
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
1- we will do this
2- we will do also this
Besides, we are using a variac, so the issue of the waves is resolved.
The team has already an opinion about the publication, but I will forward your proposal.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Concerning on how to improve the test procedure, my priority list would contain mainly two items:
1) Verify that the measured output power is in the expected relationship to the measured input power by running the device with varying power inputs and with the active charge removed. In other words, do an end-to-end test of the input and output power measurement procedures, within a range of powers and temperatures. To do this is easy because no change of the setup is needed: only to run it once more with the active charge removed. Furthermore it is good if also high input power (higher than in the active run) is used in this test, because then the skin temperature gets to the same range as during the active run.
2) Use more than one IR camera to cover all sides of the device. To avoid having one camera directly on top (which might be problematic due to strong heat) one could have two additional cameras on the sides in 30 degree angle above horizontal, i.e., 3 cameras altogether in 120 degree mutual separation, one of which is down as it is now. (In addition, specific cameras for the inner tube endings, as you have already said that you are preparing to do.)
For the peer-reviewed journal where to publish the report, maybe the test team already has an opinion. If not, one possibility would be Review of Scientific Instruments.
regards, pekka
Dear Ing. Rossi
“”should they see me walk on the water, they would say “look, he can’t swim”.””
Ah!ah!… Good beat.
I read the comments about the test of some bloggers and I really enjoyed it!
All theorems built on your person are falling one by one.
Now they are inventing strange theories on the detected temperature with Thermo Camera I. R. and strange C. O. P. (COP 1 Bah! ).
They are obfuscating their views of the rest of proven and repeatable results.
From ridicule films have moved to be ridiculous! Eh!Eh!…
Warm Regards
F.T.
Dear Francesco Toro:
The report of Fabio Penon ( a nuclear engineer who is part of the Team that made the safety certification of our reactors) is making also many tests for the next certifications of the Hot Cats, the Domestic E-Cats etc. Also for him is valid what I said for the third party indipendent test: the work is in progress, therefore the report is valid only if you remember that all the data are under review day by day. By the way, we are collecting all the suggestions and the critics we are receiving, to improve the test procedure. The results we will get at the end will be unattackable from any goodwill person. Badwill persons are useless to us: should they see me walk on the water, they would say “look, he can’t swim”.
By the way: the hot cat is working well, I think.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing Rossi
Forgive me if I write frequently, but i do because if i speak directly with you who are the inventor, i have news more reliable than those published in various blogs on the E-Cat that exist on the Internet.
Also I think that your answers are of much more interest in certain stupidities that frequently read, written by incompetent persons and prevented, if not paid to say lies.
That said, just wanted to say that I have downloaded a technical report of a certain Fabio Penon, from which it is drawn many details which, before now, i were unknown.
I can’t comment on the test because i did not yet examined the report carefully and the attached photos. For the moment I only have one question for you: is a reliable test?
Thank you for your patience
Warm Regards
F.T.
Dear Francesco Toro:
1- No
2- never: see the descripton we made of the control systems of the 1 MW plant presented at the Zurich convention
3- see above
4- no
Thanks to you for your attention
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. A. Rossi
Thanks again for your last answer dear Engineer.
I Try again to get some questions that occurred spontaneously to me:
If after the start and the starting up of the reaction the E-Cat is left permanently in ‘self sustain’ what happens?
Let me explain with 4 still points:
1) The reaction turns off by itself?
2) The reaction becomes uncontrolled and therefore dangerous?
3) If, as in point 2) can happen the simple damage of the device, but without consequences for operators? OR Another?
4) The reaction can continue indefinitely without power?
Here’s dear engineer!
To these questions i think you can answer, without violating the secret industrial about the inside of the reactor.
Thanks and.. Warm Regards
F.T.
Dear Francesco Toro:
I think that the indipendent third party tests in course will end within two months. There will be reported also a campaign in self sustained mode.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pietro F,mi prendo la libertà di rispondele dicendo la mia opinione (mi perdoni dott Rossi),sono d’accordo,ma non prima di aver esteso i brevetti.
Cordiali saluti G G
Dear Ing. Rossi
In reference to your last response inherent certifications i seem to have realized that to make electricity we need to work permanently in ‘self sustain mode’ .
I also understand that this mode of operation, for the moment, has not yet been perfected for safety reasons.
So now I ask you:
We are close to the resolution of the problem or already able to operate exclusively in ‘self sustain’? (This last way it would be fantastic!)
Thank you for the possible welcome response.
Warm Regards
F.T.
Forse é arrivato il momento di incaricare un università, o meglio più università, di studiare l’ecat.
Dear Francesco Toro:
You have understood perfectly; tomorrow, after the Zurich parenthesis we restart the work with the certificators and the validators, and we now will focus on the electric measures. I will maintain our readers informed of the follow up of this validation, which is so important because you all understand that to make electricity means to make thermal energy in permanent self sustained mode of the system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Rossi
Thanks to you for the prompt reply to my question.
Excuse me because I hadn’t realized that Hot_Cat was only a prototype.
I also take comfort that the declared C. O. P. 3 Is the minimum: from what
it seems to me, to push the C. O. P. beyond this value 3 (up to a maximum of 6) it takes a certifying agency that verifies the conditions of security and allows the quiet marketing of the product.
Us dwindle away if i’m wrong!
Good job Engineer.
Warm Regards
F.T.
Dear Francesco Toro:
COP 3 is the minimum COP, the maximum COP has still to be estabilished, and we will estabilish together with the certificator too.
Again: the Hot Cat is a prototype under R&D, not a product.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giovanni guerrini:
Yes.-
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear dott Rossi,will you develop plants able to produce electric power smaller than 10 MW size? It could produce job and for banks it could be an investiment better than bonds.
Regards G G
Dear Ing. Rossi
I saw the presented brochures of Zurich, inherent AND-Cat fed with gas.
I am baffled by the performance stated that translates into a C. O. P. 3.
I was expecting a C. O. P. middle 6, as well as always from you said.
Why is that?
Warm Regards
F.T.
Dear Vitale ing. Adolfo:
Yes, it is our intention to arrive to smaller E-Cats to allow mini-modulation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Egr. Dott. Rossi, seguendo la conferenza di zurigo ho appreso che vi sono difficoltà nella modulazione dei piccoli e- cat mentre per quelli di grande potenza, un sistema di controllo elettronico consente di accendere o spegnere gli e-cat componenti. Non sarebbe allora possibile seguire lo stesso criterio anche per gli e-cat di potenza ridotta. Ad esempio realizzare un e-cat da 20kw mediante miniaturizzazione di ecattini (!!!)ad esempio 5 ecattini da 4 kw ? Saluti. Vitale
Dear Rossi,
The development of the Hot E-Cat physical design and its thermal capabilities has no doubt changed your approach to the market entry of the E-Cat.
The ability of the Hot E-Cat to provide stable operation at temperatures of 600 degrees C (and higher) and its physical configuration as expressed in the 1 MWt (barrel shaped 1.2 m diameter, 0.4 m height) should allow it to provide the thermal source to compete in the central power station class (coal, gas, nuclear). The 1 MWt H E-Cat has a volume of 0.452 cubic m and provides 2.2 MWt per cubic meter.
How close is the H E-Cat to competing as the thermal source in markets like the Westinghouse SMR class?
Best regards,
Hugh DeVries
Hi
Why countries don’t buy 1MW ecats?
This can ruduce energy costs.
Thanks
Dear Emidio Laureti:
Yes,
Thanks to you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Piero:
Our plants have been made with all the necessary attention to safety. They will be operated only by persons that will have to sustain an exam with us after studying the manual during a course of certification. We will respect all the requirements put by the certificator. And we have a throughly knowledge of our plants, with which I work every day for many hours.
Of course our plants will be given only to Customers with the necessary safety structure and culture. Obviously I am not talking of domestic apparatuses, for which the way to a certification is still long.
About the shape: you were right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi
On August 29th, 2012 at 3:05 you wrote: ” we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder …….Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so.”
I believe that the rational development of form and distribution of functions could easily/only lead to a similar shape, last year I wrote you (with no answer)
“Piero September 16th, 2011 at 6:08 Dr. Rossi
I’m following you from a long time on 22passi with high hopes. I congratulate you on this new model 1 MWt …….. I wrote this note to say you that I do not think rationally correct the “distributively” positioning and connections of the new a-cat with all these connecting tubes. If it were possible I would see more suitable a single large boiler proper cylindrical or cylindrical crown by which scroll through the rifregerante while the a-cats are inserted into files accessible from the outer surface might alternate. On the surface,…, electricity and may also suggest a circuit of sensors and relays for the automatic control of single a-cat. One shirt of lead ecc.However, a module ….greetings”
I hope that will be developed large and medium-sized power plants in isolated buildings, protected and well controlled; the spread of a large number of 1 MW all over the world statistically could result in death or serious injury among the population. Your enemies might take advantage of these in the early years to slow or stop the spread.
Best regards, Piero from italy
Dear Mr. Rossi
At Zurich will be given information about the period in which in your opinion E-Cats producing electric energy will be marketed ?
Good luck for your enterprise
E.Laureti
Dear Gianvico Pirazzini Architetto:
I swear I am going to Zurich at my full expenses, to meet our Licensees and some public to give information. I will not get a single cent. I ignore how much costs to attend, honestly is not my business, probably there are hotel and restaurant expenses, I do not know. I told to my wife that there is people paying 300 Euro to listen to me: she said she would not listen to me even for free: “nemo propheta in patria sua est”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear dennis lynn:
Yes, the E-Cats are now perfectly reliable and their process is a normal operation like the operation of a normal boiler. Safety is our primary goal, as well as efficiency.
About your children: you can tell them that if they study as well as they can, they will be able to give to the world an important contribution in the field of new energies, the ones they will deem more promising or important. They must be free to choose . Our field is too difficult at their age, and possibly could expose them to criticism. Let them in peace and encourage them to study what their teachers ask them to study: education is the most important thing for them now, so is much better for them if they stay focused on their school duties.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Are you able to control the Ecat “process” in a predictable and reliable way?
Finally, I have 2 school age grandkids (9 and 11) and I am constantly talking to them about future energies. If you had 30 seconds to speak to them, what would you want them to know about you and your technology?
Dennis Lynn
Dr Rossi, è vero che per venirLa ad ascoltare a Zurigo, questo fine settimana, si devono spendere trecento euro di biglietto ?
Dr Rossi, is it true that to attend your conference of Zurich is necessary to pay a ticket of 300 Euro?
Regards/Saluti
Gianvico Pirazzini architetto Bologna IT