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
Carissimo Andrea,mi permetta di rivolgermi a lei con questo epiteto,ma ho molto a cuore lei e le sue ricerche,volevo avere una piccola conferma sull’importanza del suo nuovo partner.
Professionalmente parlando, potremmo paragonarlo ad una Carrier?
Ogni riferimento a
http://www.carrier.it/default.asp?alte=1500&pagina=prodotti/prodotti2011/RE_POM_RAFFREDDATI_ARIA/30AWH%20004-016.htm
è puramente voluto;)))))
[…] http://ecat.com/ ==> the E-Cat inventor's official website: selected news in FAQ. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510 ==> Scientist Andrea Rossi's Journal Of Nuclear Physics (JONP), where he's posting his messages. […]
Dear Pietro S.:
Let me dedicate your artwork to all our Readers!
Merry Xtmas and a peaceful and operous 2013 to all,
Andrea Rossi
Caro ing. Andrea Rossi buone feste e un ottimo anno all’insegna di un futuro promettente.
…………(¯`O´¯)
…………*./ | \ .*
…………..*♫*.
………, • ‘*♥* ‘ • ,
……. ‘*• ♫♫♫•*’
….. ‘ *, • ‘♫ ‘ • ,* ‘
….’ * • ♫*♥*♫• * ‘
… * , • Feliz’ • , * ‘
…* ‘ •♫♫*♥*♫♫ • ‘ * ‘
‘ ‘ • . Navidad . • ‘ ‘ ‘
‘ ‘ • ♫♫♫*♥*♫♫♫• * ‘ ‘
…………..x♥x
…………….♥
Dear Tommaso Di Pietro:
Yes, the third party test has been completed on December 17th.
The report is supposed to be published, after peer reviewing, on the first week of February. The publication is indipendent from us, so I have not further information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
did the thirdy part finish the hot cat test?
If I remember well they had to complete the test on 16 december…
Best Regards e tanti auguri!
I had not encountered this article before today, but am pleased to see that it supports a hypothesis that was published in 2008. Here is an overview of that hypothesis. Enjoy!
Dear Joseph,
We contacted them, but we did not receive a proposal for a plant ready to be tested, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
In the Netherlands there is a companie that has a steam generator at 200° celsius already certificatet.
You have the cheap steam, so, maybe it took not that long to bring the home-cat to the market?
http://www.greenturbine.eu/en/home.php
The GREEN TURBINETM 1.2 kW is now available for sale.
The weight of a GREEN TURBINETM of 1,2 kW output is approximately 8 kg, The length is 28 cm, diameter is 19 cm.
Steam pressure is 5,2 bar absolute, condenser pressure is 0,1 bar.
A higher condenser pressure (0,25 bar) is possible but output and efficiency will be lower.
Temperature of the steam is 200 C.
The generators deliver 3 phase AC, frequency 1000 Hz. After rectification the power is fed to a DC/AC converter, capable of conversion to the desired output (e.g. 120 VAC/60 Hz). The smallest size of the GREEN TURBINETM will deliver 1 kW, the largest size 15 kW.
The modern design (patent pending) does not need guide blades and gears, increasing reliability and efficiency. Losses are further reduced by using a near vacuum for the turbine wheels and generators.
The main advantages are:
Low weight
Low cost
Low maintenance
Long life
Low noise, low vibration
Dear Tommaso Di Pietro:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Roberto Muncibi:
I will!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi, i really believe in your job, please make ecat for us and for our children auguri per il brevetto europeo
Dear Andrea…I ‘d like to know a little but for me interesting thing.
Did your new important partner provide to leonardo corp. its reserchers and scientists to develop the e cat technology?
Thank you in advance!!!
Dear Pietro F.:
I have very few time: I use this blog of the Journal Of Nuclear Physics to pass allmy information, then everybody is free to use all these comments where and how he wants.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ha mai pensato di usare twitter per farci partecipi delle piccole cose che le accadono nella giornata?
Buon lavoro!
Dear Pietro F.:
We didn’t yet produce electricity.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Buongiorno ingegner Rossi,
é riuscito a produrre abbastanza elettricità per alimentare autonomamente un’ ecat?
Grazie e buon lavoro.
Dear Hughd:
1- basically, yes, but evolution did happen
2- no, but from the experiments we are doing the response time is similar
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andre Rossi,
I believe your focus on the 1 MW Hot E-Cat for commercial applications is a good product choice. The selection of the natural gas fired 1 MW unit seems to be a natural for providing commercial co-generation of heat and electricity at very low cost.
Was the prototype test of the gas fired 10kW module done using the same prototype unit as the one tested on July 16th, 2012 by Fabio Penon?
For the gas fired E-Cat module it would seem that the temperature control response would be slower than the electrical controlled one. Is any electrical heating of the reactor chamber used to help fine tune the gas fired module output temperature?
For the gas fired module is the hydrogen still supplied from heating a hydride in a chamber separate from the reactor chamber?
I wish you success with your “mammoth contract”.
Best regards,
Hughd
dear Andrea,
thank for the effort in this new tech.
Can I suggest you a marketing idea for a new name of one of your product ?
it could be named : RED-CAT reminding your surname : REDS !!!
it could be the name of the hot cat because the red color is really red inside the e-cat ! probably for the house version…
of course all the staff around it must be RED : container, computer, valve,…
ciao
Dear Francesco Toro:
1- No
2- Confidential
3- No
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
three questions still to which I ask you to respond, if you allowed:
1)THE system that you installed with Hot Cat produces electricity?
2)The contract is made with a large holding company in the energy field?
3)We can know the name of the holding company?
For the first and the second question I think is not costing you anything reply … The third … Ehm… see you. Eh! he!
Warm Regards
F.T.
Caro Andrea
Tre domande ancora alle quali ti prego di rispondere, se ti è consentito:
1)L’impianto che hai installato con Hot Cat produce elettricità?
2)Il contratto è stipulato con una grossa holding nel campo energetico?
3)Possiamo sapere il nome dell’holding?
Per la prima e la seconda domanda credo non ti costi niente rispondere…la terza…Ehm… vedi tu. Eh! he!
Caldi Saluti
F.T.
Dear Greg Leonard:
We will continue to produce electric powered plants: the choice of fuel depends on specific situations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear AR
I hope you are still also designing an electrically heated hot-cat.
I expect that it would be more compact than the gas powered device.
It would be useable in places where air is not freely available to burn the gas – such as in a submarine, or outer space.
I understand that the gas powered device will certainly be essential where there is not available 50 kW (maybe) to power the heaters. It would also go someway to placating the fossil fuel lobby, as your 1MW device would still consume vast amounts of natural gas – helping them to keep in business.
I know I must be patient, but your work is so exciting and important that I want to know every development as it happens. Every small piece of information is very gratefully received.
GregL
Dear Francesco Toro:
We are making a gas fueled, 1 MW Hot Cat that will be installed in a world class Major Company, after a huge contract made between Leonardo Corp and this Company. The contract has been made after a test campaign made in the USA. The plant is made in the USA. I am not allowed, so far, to give more information. Information will be released after the plant will have been operating for enough time to consider it consolidated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Rossi
Rose two weeks from my last post that i wrote on your newspaper. You mentioned that a titanic work was running but everything is silent. Also observing the necessary restraint, if possible, could you please give us a few preview?
As always I thank you and I pray thee yet not keep us too on the pins.
Warm Regards
F.T.
Dear JYD:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear AR
Another idea: publish a list of all comments of the JONP sorted by date, with the corresponding link.
This will avoid the permanent reordering of the paper’s list.
Dear Greg:
I pass your suggestion to the IT Guy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear AR
Perhaps one simple solution would be to reorder the list of papers according to the most recent posting in the comments.
GregL
Dear Greg Leonard:
Hmmm, you are raising an issue that other Readers have raised before, which means we have a problem to resolve: I pass this to our IT guy.
Suggestions welcome.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dir Greg Leonard
I think, that always the newest are on top.
Dear AR
Firstly, continuing many thanks for your inspirational work and your answers to our questions.
This question is not related to e-cat, and perhaps other readers may be able to help.
Is there a quick way of discovering which papers on the JONP have new postings.
Currently I open up all the papers down to this one (currently sixteen of them), and look at each one to see if there is a new post. This feels quite inefficient, hence my question.
GregL
Dear Shafter Siler:
The domestic E-Cat, for which you made a pre-order, will not be available until the certification will not be completed. I cannot make any anticipation regarding when it will be certified, because it does not depend on us, but it will take time.
Only the industrial E-Cats have been certified.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I signed up last year for information and to buy a unit for home use and research. I have not heard anything but continue to wait. I`m not rich or a scientist but a person who wants to go forward with research on uses for this technology. You know how much we need this technology these days.
Please respond as I need some encouragement.
thanks
Shafter Siler
Dear Omega Z:
Paralleled and single, mainly but not exclusively wholesalers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi:
Will this new partner be using single 1Mw units or paralleled for large generating capacity.
Will they be System Distributors or Energy wholesalers.
Keep up the good work. Good Luck to you in this new adventure.
Dear Herb Gills:
I think that the victimism is the syndrome of the losers. Mass Media are not demons, they need facts. When we will invite them to see working plants they will report what they will see.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Certainly cold fusion (LENR) has a lot more evidence to back it up than does the theory of “man made global warming”! But the mass media and science media ignores the former and supports the latter. This bias is clear, but the reason for it is not.
Dear Daniel G. Zavela:
I think that Jennifer Oulette is right, as well as are right the Journalist of Forbes et Al: they are just saying: ” please do something that really works, and we will be happy to know”. I would say the same thing at their place.
This is why I think chatters are useless. We have to put plants in operation. The sole plant we made cannot be published, but soon we will deliver civil plants. Why lose time in chatters? The attention of professional scientific Journalists is anyway positive, they are giving us attention. Obviously they want to have evidence and evidence can come only from plants in operation, because theoretical chatters and laboratory results can only raise confusion. “All we need is plants” ( eventually love will be granted).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi:
The magnitude of your work is second only to the magnitude of the power of nature.
The lack of vision on the part of the government to fund “Cold Fusion” research is shameful.
Yet, the US Press, such as the Scientific American magazine, seems to miss the point that 1,000+ excess heat experiments have been documented.
We all wish to see your data published to counter this claim of “scientific method” used to blindly ignore unpopular facts. It’s frustrating.
Wishing you well.
Best Regards,
Daniel G. Zavela
Jennifer Ouellette – Scientific American magazine – October 29, 2012
“I well remember the [Cold Fusion] controversy, and have followed it off and on over the years. So I readily admit to getting a little rant-y when I encounter insufficiently skeptical reportage on this topic. It’s prime ground for wishful thinking: who wouldn’t want a source of cheap, limitless energy? I sure do! But wanting something to be true isn’t the same as something actually being true in the rigorous experimental sense of the word.”
“None of this amounts to a cabal-like conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment — a notion that provides the linchpin of an emerging “cold fusion mythology” that has little basis in reality. The scientific community as a whole has not unfairly dismissed the claims: it simply remains unconvinced by the erratic evidence that has been presented to it.”
“Should cold fusion advocates one day beat the odds and provide truly reproducible, compelling evidence for low-energy nuclear reactions, the stodgy old scientific establishment might grumble a bit, but ultimately it will accept those findings and alter its theories accordingly. Because that’s what the scientific method is all about.”
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
Yes and yes,
Warm Regardsm
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Has some customer plant already been run for full 6 months and then have its powder changed, so that the same reactor has continued to run with new powder? If so, did the powder change operation go well?
regards, /pekka
Dear Luigi Sandri:
1- it is false that any of our patent applications has been rejected. The process of patent pending is long and complex and goes through series of discussions between the Patent Office and the Attorneys of the Inventor. This is true for normal patents, you can imagine how complex is in this case.
2- the fact that the patent is accepted or not will not affect at all our production and the diffusion of our plants. Simply, we will have to defend the Intellectual Property in other ways. Actually, we are manufacturing our plants and delivering too.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi, is it true that your patent request has been rejected?
I think that you’re fight against big problems and I can’t see a happy ending of your Invention…Please give us a hope for a better future !
Dear Italo R.:
We will answer only with facts, when we will be allowed to make them public.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Alessandro Ghio:
We use simulation programs.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Rossi, just a big “in bocca al lupo” from another Engineer that hope have soon big news about our exclusive technology. As I suggest you time ago did you use some simulation programs for understand better your researches? thanks for your work!
Dear Dr. Rossi, you have written:
“…here in the USA we are making a titanic work, but the results will be really important.”
If I’m not too indiscreet can you tell us some details?
Thank you
Italo R.
Dear Francesco Toro:
Yes, here in the USA we are making a titanic work, but the results will be really important.
Warm Regards,
A.R.