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 doctor rossi
estimated how long it will take to produce electrical energy.
Use a translator forgive only speak Spanish,
Congratulations on your invention and
thanks
Dear Bill Nichols:
1- I am not an economist, so I do not know, but good sense tells me that during an economical crisis cheaper energy can help
2- At the moment my task is to make good plants that work. Then, we will see
3- Maybe, but I have anyway to consolidate the engineering of this technology. So far I used only my money, and I have to stay focused on what I am making. Then, we will see: again, I think that cheaper energy helos to exit from a crisis, not the contrary, integrating itself in the existing system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Drear Levi Strauss:
Same answer as to Richard Hill few seconds ago.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Richard Hill:
Now we are ready for heating systems. For cooling systems we are very close, already found the Supplier and we are making tests with him. For the production of electric power we are not ready.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I want to wish Mr Rossi all the best. However, some of the commenters on this blog are extrapolating the E-Cat too far. They are assuming that from Nov 1, 2011 there will be free energy for every purpose. Mr. Rossi has always been careful to limit his claims to fairly low level heating at quite low temperatures. A new source of low level heat will not change the world dramatically. Low level heat is already available industrially at fairly low cost, eg waste heat from diesel generators, geothermal, etc. Most coal and oil is used at high temperatures, for metallurgical and power generation respecting the Carnot cycle. The E-cat as described will need to be developed to be a high temperature device to be a significant change agent. This might take decades. I think that is the reason that there is less interest from mainstream bodies than commenters here have been expecting.
Dr. Rossi, let me first thank you for your perseverance. But for you, my prediction in 1989, that LENR or cold fusion would be the greatest discovery of the 20th century, would not have come to fruition. I was aghast when the first article was published on page six of the newspaper in Idaho Falls, home of the National Engineering Lab. I’ve worked in power production in both the nuclear field and coal/bio plants and a small (35 MW) coal fired power plant here in California is being shut down due to the cost of coal and PG&E’s refusal of a contract other then “S” rack prices. What is the possibility this and several other 30 to 50 MW plants being converted, using your Ecat steam. Would the Ecat be able to produce sufficient temperatures and pressures with sufficient quality?
Mr Rossi:
Three questions.
With the increasing threat of the next leg of our ongoing worldwide financial crisis (banking solvency, non-liquidity and associated funding problems )…
1.) Would a financial crisis similar to or worse than 2008 impact you?
2.) Since highest quality private sources (institutions) could be the only available funding sources longer term; have you made these plans as large scale sovereign debt (world government funding…including USA) issues will be likely if not certain?
3.) Would another financial crisis (2008 or worse) impact your partners and threaten the commercialization of the E-CAT?
Note: You mentioned this was the reason for the divorce w/ Greek company (Defkalion).
Our financial system is inherently highly non-linear due to unsustainable levels of debt ranging from flawed, highly leveraged fractional lending practice to use of financial derivatives (similar conceptually to risk insurance) using even greater leverage. Be sure you understand this, plus the risks and realities as to why these two concepts are financially unsustainable.
Thank You for your time in answering these questions.
Kind Regards,
Bill Nichols
Keith Thomson, A.R.
the
X-Ray/Gamma Ray shielding is very important as are the laws that prohibit the use of Lead for many applications. Note that the melting point of Lead is only 327.5 degrees C. (Bismuth is even less.) So, the design has to keep the E-CAT fuel or ‘charge’ from melting while keeping the shielding from melting.
Here are some tables to evaluate the X-Ray absorption parameters for many elements and compounds.
http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/xraycoef/index.cfm
J.F.
Dear John L. Miller-George
We have received thousands of invitation requests, I didn’t expect it…For security and safety issues, it will absolutely not possible to invite all. We will make a direct transmission on You Tube.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hooray!!!
I think the logical inference to make from the announcement that folks can request “Visitors Passes” for the plant is that things are going very well — as no one in their right mind would invite members of the “interested public” to “come see the plant” after the first 1MW has been tested in front of the expert community without confidence to the point of certainty that everything WORKS!!!
To me, going to see the “First E-Cat Factory” is much like being nearly the first folks in line to see the place where the Wright Flyer was made.
And, to me, shaking the hand of Andrea Rossi will be like shaking the hand of Leonardo DeVinci in his own studio back in that century.
Humankind has reached the upper boundary of what we can accomplish with chemical combustion as our energy source. We need nuclear fusion to explore our solar system and beyond. I can’t speak for NASA, but I am sure that the presence of nickel in the asteroid belt and vast supplies of hydrogen in the “gas giant” and other planets is not lost on NASA scientists.
I have read science fiction since I was ten years old, this is like watching my favorite stories come true. Somebody has to invent the power source that makes first interplanetary flight possible in a reasonable time budget before we can go to the stars.
JLMGeo
Response to Mr. H. Hansson
Dear Hansson
I have no doubt that in the long run, e-cat will generate a stable power base and a more even distribution of power and wealth in the world.
However the discussion about the effect of the e-Cat on the world economy has started from these points of departure:
1- what Obama thinks about cold fusion
2- why he did not begin to encourage research on cold fusion in 2009 when the U.S. Navy successfully conducted cold fusion experiments, led by Pamela Mosier-Boss
3- Mosier-Boss technology was not economically advantageous. Now, as e-Cat is ready to market, will Obama surrender to this new technology ?
I think that either with Obama or without Obama the e-Cat will go on his successful way.
But obviously with the endorsement by Obama’s government the things would happen soon.
Response to Realist,
Dear Realist, you are partially right. To these days alternative sources of energy are not vastly superior.
Where you are wrong: All is about economics.
Imagine some airliners operator. They must order B-767 some 5 years upfront.
They ordered 40 jets, 2 years from now E-Cats or some other tech will developed to level of 50.000 kW of thermal output from one device (15.000 kW of mechanical output). 7 years from now first airliners with these advanced E-Cats (or some equivalents) will manufactured and sold.
Operating cost of these jets will around 35-40% lower then classic jets.
Heritage airline operators and even new operators, which ordered b-787 with standard GE or P&W engines will serially bankrupt.
All who will not operate new techs will bankrupt within next 2-4 years.
This is possible to analogize to every energy intensive sector: overseas shipping, bakeries, breweries, etc. etc. etc.
Horses and coaches operators was bankrupt OR adapted to cars. This same is applicable for new economically very effective energy devices.
Laws of Economy.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Good news to hear that you are investigating a replacement for the lead shielding of your E-Cat’s.
Currently many countries around the world are trying to remove or reduce lead content of products placed on the market, for example there is the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS) for electronic and electrical equipment placed on the market within Europe, this restricts 6 hazardous materials, lead is one of them.
For individual E-Cat units to be sold for use in cars or in the home as domestic boilers, many countries would require extensive periods of safety testing, with lots of official / political debate about the advisability of the general public getting access to this technology, (also how to tax it as there will be less cash revenue from fuel duties as petrol / diesel is gradually replaced by E-Cat powered cars). For both cars and boilers you can expect impact testing requirements with examination of what would be exposed to atmosphere / environment if the E-Cat was ruptured (toxic nickel particle powder), you can expect curious people to dismantle them to inspect / fix them themselves or for them to be stolen and opened up. The use of lead as part of the construction will just slow the progress of getting E-Cat units onto the market.
E-Cats or their descendants with or without lead shielding are likely to be readily adopted in industrial heating units, centralised power generation, shipping, trains and many other large regulated and controlled applications, but the uncontrolled use of individual E-Cats by the public in Europe and America may be delayed for a long time by safety / political concerns, things like use of lead will be one of the many excuses.
Higher density materials like carbon steel, stainless steel, copper, nickel, nickel alloys, cupronickel, could all be alternative gamma ray absorption materials for surrounding the pressurised active nickel particle core, they would require to be at least double and more the thickness of lead for the same gamma ray halving distance. Heavy wall steel pipes are commonly available; they can have wall thicknesses up to 25% of the pipe outside diameter, in Europe DIN 2448 is a heavy wall heat exchanger pipe available in a variety of pressure quality steel grades. Copper heavy wall pipe can be produced; it’s just an engineering / sourcing exercise. Copper and nickel could be recycled from E-Cat spent nickel powder.
The use of alternative shielding materials may be seen as expensive but you may find there are advantages, higher melting temperature for shielding with possibly higher operating temperatures, better heat transfer, combining the pressure containment component with the shielding, more readily available and acceptable materials to meet the market requirements.
Best regards, Keith.
Dear Mr.. Guglinski
Questions of a more existential nature (like: what happens to our jobs) seems to be more and more common in this forum. I think it is good that Mr.. Rossi responds to these concerns. Otherwise it could result in a negative sediment building up which can be used by opponents.
Often it is difficult to impossible to predict even a short scenarios. The Wright brothers could poorly dream in 1903 that their invention (the aircraft) would be used to drop bombs 11 years later.
Historically speaking, revolutionary inventions do not quickly create new positive scenarios, but accelerate already existing events. Today, much of international relations and the relative world peace we enjoyed after the Second World War, is based on oil politics, both current and future oil income is taken into account.
A rapid expansion of e-cat technology will likely create a form of political instability that is completely unpredictable. But in the long run, e-cat to generate a stable power base and a more even distribution of power and wealth in the world.
Dear Colin,
Yes this has been an issue. We have engineered a good common rail.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Caro Rodolfo:
Noi comunque abbiamo maturato la nostra teoria, anche se la Sua osservazione è corretta.
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.
Dear John,
No it does not work lioke that.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
~300 E-cats (serialized and/or parallelised) for the 1MW plan: what happens if 1 E-cat fails, do you monitor each of them, dont you fear a decline in reliability with time ?
Dont be displeased, probably i am wrong, but the 1MW plan make me think about the expression : “putting the “E-“cart before the horse” :))
In my humble opinion, i think it would have been more relevant starting with E-cat module, not only because it’s easier, but in order to evaluate the behavior of a large single reactors amount on a long time period before associating them.
Anyway and again, congratulations for your work !
Michel
Best mr Rossi!
when the temp inside the reactor is 1500 celsius degress
the nickel melts down is that “boosting” the effect?
best regards ! John
Carissimo Ing. Rossi,
lei non puo immaginare quante volte ho pensato a lei ed alla sua scoperta, io ci credo in pieno.Non sono uno scienziato ma so per certo che la termodinamica e’
stata codificata dopo aver inventato le macchine a vapore ed il motore a scoppio, quindi nessuna meraviglia se le sfuggisse ancora la teoria su cio che ha inventato. I miei complimenti, so che Lei si impegnera perche cio venga a vantaggio dell’umanita.Grazie e se posso collaborare in qualche modo….
Rodolfo Ragazzini (Faenza)
If I understand correctly the 1MW plant is constructed from a lot of smaller units. Will each have it’s own cooling pump? If not have you considered the difficulty of balancing the flow with such a large number of units in parallel?
Dear Greg Leonard:
We test every day our modules, when a test is not good we repair the module. So, at the end, we approve a module when the tests are OK.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing Rossi
I would like to thank you for your hard work and perseverance with this project.
The e-cat will be the main invention for this century.
Can you comment on how well this week’s tests have gone.
regards
Greg Leonard
Dear John L Miller-George:
Can you complete your comment?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hooray!!!
I think the logical inference to make from the announcement that folks can request “Visitors Passes” for the plant is that things are going very well as
Dear Ing. Rossi:
Looking back through history reminds me that we shouldn’t be surprised by the initial lack of acceptance of LENR. In a way, it reminds me of the development of the MASER.
“Applications of the research were not clear to everyone. Nobel Prize winner I.I. Rabi tried to kill the maser project before it was created, not from a belief that it couldn’t be made, but instead out of a belief that it was impractical and that resources should be diverted elsewhere.
Many prominent physicists thought it could not even work, based on their knowledge of physical principles. In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle developed by Einstein, says that the energy (and therefore the frequency, by E=hv) of a photon can’t be known to great precision in a short time. In masers, photons last for a very short time. Therefore, no less than Neils Bohr and John von Neumann thought it couldn’t work, even after it had been created. The solution to this apparent paradox is that, though the photons all have the same frequency and direction, which atoms do the emitting and when remains unknown. The emitting atoms maintain an anonymity that avoids uncertainty violation.”
http://www.ehow.com/about_5250763_laser-light-invented_.html
So, we shouldn’t be discouraged. We just need to be persistent and patient.
All the best,
Alan DeAngelis
Dear Timcelyn:
Our consume of lewad is anyway not enough to modify substantially the world consume of lead.
By the way: we are testing alternative materials for to screening.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Georgehants:
All the who have supported us since now are kindly invited to send an amail to
info@leonardocorp1996.com
to ask to be invited to visit our plant.
We will organize the visits.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
if some of the small websites who have supported you for the last 9 months apply now for invitations to your demonstrations, could you confirm their requests so that they have time to arrange things.
Best Wishes.
Mr. Realist wrote
”My opinion is that nothing will change in the near future. All of the known energy sources will exist for many years after the e-cat. Remember what happened with the other energy alternatives – they are here but their acceptance is quite low.
…
It’s interesting and exciting subject but comments like “will change…”, “will end…”, “will create…” are rather wishes than predictions.”
Dear Mr. Realist
your comparison is very unrealistic.
From all the alternative sources of energy existing up to now, no one of them can get the relation of energy Eout/Ein>1.
Up to now, only E-Cat gets Eout/Ein up to 400.
I would suggest you to change your understanding about what is realistic.
I’m not a physicist, but I’m very interessted in physics and I’m no fool. I’m a Realist. And this E-Cat is absolutly not realistic. It messes up with all my knowledge and information about nuclear physics. But I’m not bigheaded, so I studied all the blogs and informations and the history of the cold fusion. And now, many month later, I have to admit, that this E-Cat is true.
And yes, this is a miracle! It is a miracle like all big inventions in their time. And the effect of this invention will grow. Maybe slow, maybe fast, I don’t know. But one day we will look back at this last week of october 2011 and we will call it an energy miracle.
Here’s to a great future!
Dear Dr Rossi, regarding lead for screening. Do you forsee lead will always be needed for screening e-cats, or only while we are in the early stages of making these devices, with other screening options possible later?
My concern is that if you look up lead in Wikipedia, current world resources – without additional demand – will be used up in around 40 years.
My very best hopes and wishes for success!
Tim
Dear Burt (2nd):
Working on it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Burt:
…by several orders of magnitude…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
E-cat will need much more lead than nickel…
Dear Mr Rossi
What is the status for University of Uppsala in regards of E-cat?
Keep up the good work
Best Regards
Dear Shaloo:
We will not affect the Nickel quotations, because our consumes are very limited respect the Ni production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Many of the comments here are waiting for the end of October like a crowd waiting for some kind of an energy miracle to happen. My opinion is that nothing will change in the near future. All of the known energy sources will exist for many years after the e-cat. Remember what happened with the other energy alternatives – they are here but their acceptance is quite low. Some people has bought an electrical/hybrid cars but the majority of the cars is still fossil-based, some buildings has a solar panels but the majority of the buildings are using the existing power from the grid, the percentage of the global power production from a new and green sources is below 10% and those sources are around us since many years (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.). I really hope that e-cat will be included into the mix of current energy sources and widely accepted but even in the best case scenario, the miracle will not happen at once. It’s interesting and exciting subject but comments like “will change…”, “will end…”, “will create…” are rather wishes than predictions.
As the expected results of your E-Cat device are quite promising, won’t it be a great idea to start investing in nickel based companies?
Mr. tj wrote
”To Wladimir Guglinski — It is very doubtful that Obama would have seen your letter, and in any event there is no reason to think Obama is afraid of cold fusion.”
Dear Mr. tj,
I sent a private letter to President Obama addressed to White House, Washington DC.
He received the letter in his hand.
Later I posted my letter in the internet.
The question is not so easy as you suppose.
As wrote Hamdi Ucar here in September 9th, 2011 at 3:36 PM:
Frank Acland: “It’s very difficult to predict the effect that the E-Cat might have on the employment picture.”
Indeed, “the core issue” is it’s very difficult to predict the economy, business, actually the whole future when a radical technology arrives. This is the main argument IMO, the “System” try to avoid these things happens. The “System”, and also the nature (people, animals, etc.) does not like uncertainty, unstability, vagueness. Healthy systems would balance this conservative argument, with curiosity and with desire to reach new frontiers and resources. However stability become first.
Dear Alessandro Casali:
All is going on along the scheduled program. I cannot give more info.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
glad to know that your R&D with UNIBO is going to start soon!
Have you performed any preliminary test in front of the customer of your first 1MV plant yet? I’m asking as i presume they wanted to see something before October, if yes how did the test perform? what was the average I/O balance?
Warm Regards,
ac
Dear Mahler:
Not yet, but it is true that the R&D program with the University of Bologna is close to be started.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Salvatore Coraggio:
Yes, you can use also coolers different from water.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Paolo:
Maybe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Elena O.Pozzetto:
Maybe, yes. My attorney will study it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland: “It’s very difficult to predict the effect that the E-Cat might have on the employment picture.”
Indeed, “the core issue” is it’s very difficult to predict the economy, business, actually the whole future when a radical technology arrives. This is the main argument IMO, the “System” try to avoid these things happens. The “System”, and also the nature (people, animals, etc.) does not like uncertainty, unstability, vagueness. Healthy systems would balance this conservative argument, with curiosity and with desire to reach new frontiers and resources. However stability become first.
Dr. Rossi: I’m having difficulty getting past your spam program. I am hoping that you may be able to confirm that the reforms to the US patent laws, passed yesterday and now awaiting President Obama’s signature today, will expedite your application to patent to E-Cat in the USA. Thank you for any information you can provide. And, good luck! The entire world waits with bated breath.
BUONGIORNO son sempre io che lo ho scritto più volte e non è detto che non la disturbi ancora.
La mia domanda è : Se il protone dell’idrogeno passa nel nichel destabilizzandolo e rilasciando energia termica di natura nucleare forte, trasmutandosi in parte in rame; che nella scala degli elementi è quello successivo. Mi chiedevo se lei pensa che tale reazione, attivata, magari in modo diverso con parametri diversi, sia in futuro possibile anche per tanti altri elementi, a cui aggingendo un protone dell’idrogeno passerebbero a quello successivo ? Intuitivamente penserei di sì e che lei ha solo tolto il coperchio .
Lei ha trovato la strada maestra e che ce ne siano tantissime parallele o che si intreccino lo sento fortemente.
Sto dicendo delle cose prive di fondamento ? Saluti con simpatia, Paolo
Caro Sig.Rossi sarei felice di poter dare il mio contributo al suo lavoro , per questo mi sono impegnato a disegnare un motore ad aria calda ( tipo stirling ) , per questo le vorrei fare la seguente domanda :
Potrebbe il suo sistema funzionare in assenza di acqua ?
Cordiali saluti ed i più sinceri auguri
Aldo Salvatore Coraggio