by Ioannis Xydous
Elecronic Engineer, Greece
Abstract
It is a fact that a great number of scientific papers and patents have been published related to Quantum Gravity, Unified Field, Space-Time Engineering, Gravity Control, Propulsion without the need of a propellant, Instantaneous Telecommunications, Warp Drives, Over Unity devices est. Most of them have a complicated theory or unclear results which makes the scientific community to have doubts if they are feasible. The Author starting from the known Electron-Positron pair creation phenomenon, will reveal the entire matter creation process which will lead to the discovery of the Aether and ultimately to the topology and the properties of our universe. A simple experiment which was carried out successfully by the Author agrees with the findings of the proposed theory. A part of this work is inspired by Rhythmodynamics of Dr. Y.N.Ivanov.
Good day Dr. Rossi,
I was wondering if you have completed more of the 1 MW units, other than the first one back in the fall of last year. I realize that you are under non-disclosure agreements, but any details that you can give on the status of your high end product line would be very welcome information indeed. You had mentioned each unit takes a few months to create, have you been able to speed up the cycle time on manufacturing the 1 MW units? Hearing your backlog is great news also, without naming the specific customers, can you give a rough estimate on how many different customers have placed orders, and how many total orders have been placed. I was also interested on the order for 13 units from last year, if there are other customers do you build first come first serve, or try to fill the first piece of each order to give the technology time to mature for the higher end customers. Of course, any information that you are willing to share is great for us who follow your progress. I wish you all the hope for your continued success.
Good Luck,
Alex
[…] it might take to start producing domestic E-Cat units once safety certification was granted. Rossi replied: Dear Frank Acland: We have already made all the engineering of the production line in the two […]
Dear Frank Acland:
We have already made all the engineering of the production line in the two factories we will set up (one in the USA, one in Europe) and we will have just to set up the software of the robots and fix the drawings after the requirements of the Certificators. I think that it will take from 6 to 12 months afer the certifications will be done to start the production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Once certification is secured for the domestic E-Cats, how long do you estimate it will take before you are able to start manufacturing the units?
Thanks, and best wishes,
Frank Acland
Dear Jan Srajer:
I am not aware of what DARPA can do with us, but if they want they can contact us anytime. About the proliferation: at the moment, we have not competitors, so long there are not products on the market competing with ours, but I am sure in future there will be competition. This is why it is important we put our products on the market. It will not take 2 years, my friend: our 1 MW plants are already in the market, while the small ones are just waiting certification. We are so competitive economically, anyway, that for our competitors, when they will exist, the life will not be easy.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Actually, we are seriously working on your suggestion right now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Very good. I’ll have some egg.
Please have the bacon.
Joseph
Mr. Rossi
I admire your bussines potentiality.Your are in the point the technological proliferation. It will be requires 2 year work.
Ask:Would be possible scoop the resources from DARPA?
Dear Prof. Joseph Fine:
I want you to know that I have summoned our engineers this afternoon to study immediately your comment, maybe you gave us the “Columbus Egg”.
Let’s see if we can put the bacon.
Thanks,
A.R.
Dear Prof. Joseph Fine:
1- yes
2- yes
Your suggestion is very smart. We will work on it.
Thank you very much.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Daniele Poponi,
I agree with you.
The certification process is going on. By the way, yesterday I spent all the day with the certification engineers and we made substantial progress. In this very moment I am working at my desk to make the paper work they asked me yesterday. It will take all today (Saturday) and tomorrow (Sunday), just to give you an idea of our endeavours on this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Have you tested and/or integrated different size subunits (energy ratings) and numbers of modules per stage in (multiple-stage) Series-Parallel E-Cats? (SePaCat??)
If you use multiple stages, do you still need heating elements in the intermediate or final stages as well as in the primary low temperature stage?
That is, the primary stage output should heat the (higher temperature) upper stages.
For example, assume that the output power of a multi-stage Series-Parallel CAT module is 24 kW.
Each stage delivers ~24 kW (more or less) to either the next stage or to the output.
(The specific number of stages or number of modules per stage is not important.)
As an example, the low temperature first stage may be partitioned in 2 subunits of 12 kW each. The low temperature subunits can be larger since probably are more robust to thermal transients. (????)
The intermediate temperature second stage could be divided into 4 subunits of 6 kW each.
The high temperature final stage might be divided into 6 subunits of 4 kW each.
Each of the subunits are controllable.
The high temperature units are smaller in power output to make it easier to replace a single 4 kW subunit (3rd stage) vs a 12 kW subunit (in the 1st stage).
Perhaps, you can switch out any high temperature sub-unit at or near a thermal (or pressure) limit.
Maybe you can design-in a bypass valve to skip the intermediate stages and supply the high temperature stages with lower temperature coolant to keep it within limits.
If the total number of 24 kW modules needed were 50, the maximum energy delivered would be a total of 50*24 kW total (1,200 kW or 1.2 MW).
But since 1/6th of the units are spare, a variable number of 1st, 2nd or 3rd stage units could be switched out off for tests, repairs, etc.
I was wondering if this approach has merit.
I also apologize if this is sounds amateurish. I never designed an E-Cat before.
Have a great weekend.
Joseph
Dear dr. Rossi,
I am a Ph.D student in Energy Policy at the University of Delaware and I have been following both the blog and the articles on JNP. I am convinced that your technology will be one of the breakthroughs technologies of the 21st century. Looking at the current status quo of the energy industry prevents us to realize that the history of technology is made of discontinuities. Breakhtroughs have occurred in the past so why shouldn’t they occur now and in the future? We should start to think about the economic and geoplitical implications of the diffusion of LENR technologies which could be significant. I sincerely wish that the certification process gets finalized quickly and that the commercialization will begin as soon as possible. All the efforts that you put on the e-cat deserve the highest reward. With my best regards. Daniele Poponi
Dear Andy H.:
I want to add that we are setting up a division to produce and sell thermal energy, in future electric energy. We are in contact with Companies selling thermal energy to put our plants adjacent to their network to produce energy, inject it in their grid.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andy H.:
We are working with Siemens on the issue, mainly, and we also are glad to check all the proposals we receive.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi,
I was wondering if the feedback you’re getting via this site costs you your valuable time.
Things like low-temp turbines, Stirling engines etc. will be a natural thing to put together with your E-Cat and the industry will find the best solutions in no time (of course paying you your licensing dues!). They need your generally available units out the door for the anticipated and unavoidable huge energy revolution to ignite. This is the priority for you and for everybody. Some of the postings seem to contain some nonsense and there is hardly anything sensible and new that could be proposed. Perhaps your time is way better spent getting your devices to the market.
Cheers!
Dear Prof. Joseph Fine:
I think we will reach the 260 Celsius, and I think think that we will reachhigher temperatures with not changing phase heat vectors.
The instability happens along the series when the temperature rises. It does not depend from the power of the plant, so far the power is increased by parallels.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
What options are there that would enable an E-Cat to produce heat at 300 degrees C (or higher) versus the announced output temperature of 260 degrees C? (Industrial E-Cat only.)
For a 1 MW reference plant, could the output temperature be increased by allowing a reduction in the required Coefficient of Performance (COP)? If a COP of 4 or 5 were used instead of a COP of 6, the required (average) electrical input power would increase to 200-250 KW per 1 MW. While this is a reduction in efficiency and/or increased cost, many applications can use higher temperatures to advantage.
Other possibilities have been discussed – such as different Heat Transfer Fluids, metallic ceramic materials etc.
Is there a maximum temperature that can be achieved with an “optimum” number of cores connected in series before the energy delivered is very low (say 50 KW vs 1000 KW) or the system is unstable? Or are you already at the optimum?
While there may be many choices, as in baseball, before you can get a Home Run, you have to get up to bat.
Joseph Fine
Dear Mark Saker:
You are right: very much is going on behind the scenes, because in this matter is best first do things, then talk of them.
We will give due information of all the facts we will have made, while during the making of them we prefer to work in silence, to work better.
The 1 MW plant is for military purpose, it cannot be seen, but when we will have (soon) a plant in operation that will be visitable, People like you, who have helped us, will be invited to visit it.
Very important things are in the making, but, again, I prefer making before talking.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
This is such a quiet time, I hope there is much going on behind the scenes that you cannot tell us. I wonder if there is any new information you can give to satisfy curious minds, and to repay those you mention have given you helpful information via your blog?
Any indication from UL as to certification of the home e-cat?
Any dates you can commit to that invited parties will see a working plant – who can then report back via the Internet?
Any pictures or video of a home e-cat working or connected to a home central heating system? The picture does not have to show inner workings or give any indication as to where it is located.
Any pictures or video of the 1MW system that we have not seen?
What about some pictures from earlier versions of the e-cat – perhaps early experiments from a few years ago?
We are all eager for any information you have no matter how big or small especially information which shows progression from the October test.
Many Thanks
Mark
Interpretation of John Arrington’s experiment according to Quantum Ring Theory
See the first figure in the link that describes Arrington’s experiment:
Link 1:
http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=nova-imagem-nucleo-atomo&id=010115120324
That figure shows the beryllium nucleus, with a nucleon which distance to the central 2He4 is 7fm.
In the link 1 they say about the beryllium nucleus:
“The surprise came with the beryllium.
Unlike the other nuclei, it has two clusters of nucleons, each resembling a nucleus of an atom of helium-4.”
According to Quantum Ring Theory, all the nuclei with Z >2 have a structure with radius in order of 7fm.
Then why does Arrington says “unlike the other nuclei” ?
Why beryllium is an exception ?
Let’s see why.
According to QRT, the hexagonal floor begins with the isotopes of 3Li. In the link 2 ahead we see the structure of 3Li6, shown in the page 230 of the book QRT:
Link 2:
http://hexfloor.blogspot.com.br/
3Li
The 3Li6 has a nuclear spin about the z-axis (vertically upward in the page 230). The z-axis crosses the center of the central 2He4. As the 3Li6 has an unpaired deuteron, it has a strong trepidation.
Then in Arrington’s experiment, due to such big vibration, the unpaired deuteron appears as a clould about the central 2He4 (the same happens with all the 3Li isotopes).
4Be
The next nucleus is the 4Be8.
Look at its structure in the page 230 shown in the link 2, beside the 3Li6.
The two nucleons 1H2 of 4Be8 occupy two positions diametrally opposed regarding to the central 2He4, and so the three nucleons (1H2 – 2He4 – 1H2) form a straight length 14fm.
Looking at the structure of 4Be8, we realize that it has no trepidation, because the two nucleons 1H2 are distributed symmetrically about the central 2He4, and so their masses are distributed symmetrically regarding to the z-axis, about which the nucleus gyrates (that’swhy the 4Be8 has null electric quadrupole moment, because it has also null nuclear magnetic moment, as shown in the book QRT).
Therefore, when the two deuterons gyrate about the z-axis (because of the nuclear spin about the z-axis which crosses the central 2He4), they appear in the Arrington’s experiment as a straight line very well defined, 14fm long.
5B
The next nucleus is the 5B. It has one unpaired deuteron, and so it has a big trepidation. Due to the nuclear spin, its image in the experiment appears as a cloud about the central 2He4
6C
The next nucleus is 6C. In the detail of page 231 shown in link 2 we see the structure of 6C12. The four deuterons 1H2 form a cube (with diagonal of about 14fm) having the central 2He4 in the center of the cube.. So, in spite the 6C12 has no trepidation, however due to the nuclear spin the four deuterons 1H2 appear in the images of the experiment as a cloud about the central 2He4.
7N
The next nucleus is the 7N. As it has one unpaired deuteron, its image shows in the experiments a cloud about the central 2He4.
80
The next nucleus is 80.
The structure of 8O16 is shown in page 144 of the book QRT, shown in link 2.
The structure of 8O16 is NO flat. Because due to repulsion between the 6 nucleons 1H2, they oscillate about the central 2He4. This is shown in the Fig. 1.2 of the page 144 (see detail of page 144 in link 2).
So, in the image captured by the Arrington’s experiment, the 8O16 shows a cloud distributed about the central 2He4.
9F
After the nucleus 8O, a new hexagonal floor beggins, with the nucleus 9F18. As it has an unpaired deuteron, its image shows a cloud about the central 2He4.
All the other nuclei exhibit a cloud about the central 2He4.
That’s why Arrington’s experiments showed the beryllium as a surprise. Only its image shows a straight line of length 14fm.
That’s why beryllium is an exception.
EQM of beryllium in Arrington’s experiment contradicts Nuclear Physics
See the the first figure in the link that describes Arrington’s experiment:
Link 1:
http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=nova-imagem-nucleo-atomo&id=010115120324
That figure shows the beryllium nucleus, with a nucleon which distance to the central 2He4 is 7fm.
From experiments, it’s known that beryllium 4Be8 has null electric quadrupole moment, Q(b)=0.
But from current Nuclear Physics it’s impossible to explain how the structure detected by Arrington’s experiment may have Q(b) = 0.
Let’s see why.
A spherical distribution of electric charge has Q(b)=0. But looking at the beryllium’s structure detected in Arrington’s experiment we realize that, from the nuclear models of Nuclear Physics, that structure cannot have Q(b)=0, because that distribution of charge in 4Be8 is not spherical, since there are three positive charges aligned along a straigth line, and therefore such structure of 4Be8 could not have Q(b)=0.
Let’see how to explain why 4Be8 has Q(b)=0 by considering the hexagonal floors model of Quantum Ring Theory.
The structure of 8O16 is shown in the page 144 of the book QRT, shown in the link:
Link 2:
http://hexfloor.blogspot.com.br/
The nucleus 8O16 has Q(b)=0 , and its nuclear magnetic moment is also null.
If the hexagonal floor formed by six nucleons 1H2 around the central 2He4 in the 8O16 was flat, it could not have Q(b)=0, because its charge distribution would not be spherical.
But look at in the link 2 the detail of page 144 showing the Fig. 1.2, where we see what happens with the nucleons 1H2 of the hexagonal floor of 8O16:
a) the nucleons 1H2 have oscillation
b) in the SIDE-VIEW of that figure we see that they oscillate about the x-y plane (which is orthogonal to the z-axis, about which the nucleus gyrates, performing its nuclear spin).
c) so, due to the oscillation of the six deuterons 1H2, the z-axis is changing continously its direction, chaotically.
As the nucleus 8O16 has null nuclear magnetic moment, there is no way to get its alligment along a direction, by applying a strong external magnetic field. So, even within a strong external magnetic field to be used in experiments, the z-axis of the nucleus 8O16 continues always changing its direction.
Therefore, in average, the nucleus 8O16 behaves as if should have a spherical distribution of charge. In another words: when the researchers measure the electric quadrupole of 8O16 in their experiments, they get Q(b) = 0 because in average its distribution of charge behaves as a spherical distribution.
This is explained in the book Quantum Ring Theory, in the chapter “Electric Quadrupole Moment”, at the page 136, where it is also shown why the isotope 8O18 has an anomaly that cannot be explained from the models of Nuclear Physics.
The same happens with the nucleus 4Be8. It has null nuclear magnetic moment. It’s easy to realize why, by looking at the structure of 4Be8 shown in the page 230 of QRT (see the link 2), because:
a) the central 2He4 has null nuclear magnetic moment
b) the two deuterons 1H2 gyrate about the z-axis, and each magnetic moment of them cancell one each other.
c) the two deuterons 1H2 also have oscillation, due to repulsion with the central 2He4.
Therefore, when the researchers measure the electric quadrupole moment of 4Be8 by experiments, they get Q(b) =0, because the z-axis changes its direction everytime, (since they cannot align the nucleus 4Be8 by applying a strong external magnetic field) and so in average its distribution of charge takes the spherical shape.
As we realize, John Arrington’s experiment contradicts the models of Nuclear Physics in many aspects.
Finally, we have to consider the following:
1- In general, the quantum theorists reject to consider a New Physics for explaining cold fusion because they want to keep their current Theoretical Physics.
2- However, we realize that, even if we do not consider the cold fusion experiments, there is no way to keep the current Physics, because there are many other experiments which result are requiring a New Physics, and the Arrington’s experiment is one among them.
3- Therefore, as there is no way to avoid to start to take in consideration a New Physics, it makes no sense such their attempt of trying to keep the current Physics for explaining cold fusion. It is not cold fusion, itself, which requires a New Physics. It is, in general, several new experiments which are requiring it.
Errata:
in my latest commment, instead of: “The structure of 9O16 is not flat”
please read: “The structure of 8O16 is not flat”
Dear Franco:
I confirm, in due time invitations will be issued.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Here is me again trying to find suitable donors for ECat’s electricity generator.
I have found this demo video on the Youtube:
http://youtu.be/dTX7R0Uehlg
Apparently this technology was interesting enough to be bought by GE and now they offer it for sale here:
http://www.geheatrecovery.com/
Take a look at the pdf specs sheet. According to it, this integrated unit will happily run off a saturated steam source.
There is one more company that manufactures a similar system. The company is based in the UK:
http://www.verdesis.co.uk/organic.html
Dear A.R.
very interesting topic:
Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space topical meeting. http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html
“ADVANCED CONCEPTS: LENR, ANTI-MATTER, AND NEW PHYSICS”:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf
Warm Regards LENR4you
Dear Ing. Rossi,
during last interview by Oliprice.com You spoke about the possibility that a 1MW plant could be “soon opened to public”.
If possible, can You confirm this and, in case, to give us news about?
Thank You, good work and Happy Easter!
Kind Regards
Dear Felize:
Please go to
http://www.ecat.com
to get information about our 1 MW E-Cat.
To receive an offer, you can email to
info@leonardocorp1996.com
We will forward your request, with all the specifications of your needs data, to the Licensee for your Territory.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Could you provide us an update about the specifications of the industrial e-cat? In particular about maximum output temperature and the time necessary to range from the minimum to the maximum power after the start up by keeping constant the output temperature to the maximum value.
Thank you.
Best,
Felize
Dear Steven N. Karels:
No, if T goes above the allowed limit, Ni melts and thr E-Cat stops because molten Ni is not powder.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Is there need a New Physics for explaining cold fusion ?
It seems the most quantum theorists believe that there is no need a New Physics for explaining cold fusion occurrence.
For instance, the Widon-Larsen theory considers that there is no need a New Physics for explaining cold fusion.
Several times told my opinion herein: cold fusion requires a New Physics.
The experiment made by John Arrington shows that I am rigth.
His experiments are showing the internal structure of nuclei:
http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=nova-imagem-nucleo-atomo&id=010115120324
The berillyum nucleus defies what we know from current Nuclear Physics.
Look the first figure in that link. In the berillyium nucleus the central 2He4 and the other nucleons are separated by a distance of 7fm.
But the strong force actuates in distances shorter than 2fm. Therefore, according to Nuclear Physics, the structure of berillyium is IMPOSSIBLE to exist.
In another words, the berillyum nucleus destroys the current nuclear models of Nuclear Physics.
According to the nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, in the ligthest nuclei the distance between the central 2He4 and the other nucleons is between 6fm and 7fm.
In the page 232 of the book QRT is calculated the nuclear magnetic momentum of the nucleus 3Li7, in which a deuteron gyrates about the central 2He4 with radius 6fm. Look at the link:
http://hexfloor.blogspot.com.br/
So, the structure of berillyum shown by Arrington experiments is proving that the nuclear models of Nuclear Physics are wrong. The nuclei existing in the nature have a structure that it is impossible to be explained by the laws discovered up to now in the field of Nuclear Physics (the strong nuclear force, itself, cannot keep the cohesion of the nuclei).
Therefore, as the nuclear model of Nuclear Physics is wrong, (as the structure of berillyum nucleus is pointing out) it makes no sense to try to explain cold fusion by keeping such a wrong model.
There is need a new nuclear model, as it is proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I was wondering, if you increased the hydrogen pressure to a very high level, and then initiated a rapid temperature increase greatly above the ignition temperature, do you think a military-type reaction would result, assuming the enclosure could contain the reaction for some period of time?
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thank you, we will go through this information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Ioannis;I took your advice and read version 3. I agree V3 is a much better paper then the early version. I down loaded the V3 paper for further examination off line. On my blog you can see my efforts to create test devices out of my own small pockets to test theories hinted at by the works of Biefield/Brown, Hutchins, Tesla and others that there is an Electro-Motive-Force component to mass, inertia and gravity. Good luck to all of us that try to expand knowledge in spite of the closed minds of the establishment. pg
Dear Dr Rossi,
I will continue to bore you with the final batch of links re: electrical generator for the Ecat. This time around, the demoed engines look a bit “better engineered”.
1.
http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/ORC_Waste_Heat_Turbine.html
and their youtube channel showing the technology in action:
http://www.youtube.com/user/InfinityTurbine
– They focus on the technology based around “Geothermal and Waste Heat Organic Rankine Cycle systems”
– Seems like the temperature of the heat produced by the current Ecat is more than enough for the efficient run
– Company is based in the US – in Wisconsin (http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/Contact.html)
2.
http://www.energent.net/Technology/Euler-Turbine.html
– Large generator; may be suitable for the 1MW plant
3.
http://www.technopa.eu/index.html
– Large generator; may be suitable for the 1MW plant
4.
http://www.transpacenergy.com/About_Us.html
– This looks like some sort of a technology demonstrator
5.
http://www.cyclonepower.com/whe_video.html
and their youtube channel showing the technology in action:
http://www.youtube.com/user/wilsonmcqueen2000
– Their waste heat system may be suitable for the Ecat
– Company is based in Florida (simplified logistics (?))
– The company looks quite large; they employ a large number of executives, favorable licensing terms may be difficult to negotiate.
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
I have found yet another potentially suitable technology for a power generating module of the home Ecat.
Advantages are:
– Modern design
– Compact
– Scalable ( from 1.2 KW to 15 KW)
– Steam Turbine tech
– Operates on a 200 degrees C steam (!)
– Developed in Belgium (EU laws apply)
– System integrators welcome
Please take a look at the following link:
http://www.greenturbine.eu/en/product.php
Regards,
Adam
Dear Mr.Sharrow,
Thank for your interest to my work! For what is claimed on the first version of my work, I would not like to disclose further information. Instead of this I encourage you to visit my web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
and to download the 3d version (SEPPv3.pdf) where there are much more regarded to the Aether as also experiments of how the Aether can be detected. The Experiment #1 is the simplest from all since it does not need a setup. You only need to download some Earth’s Magnetic Field Data (The link is provided in my Web site) and to put them on the Excel Application. But before you do this you must read the corresponding part of my work.
The suggested Experiment #2 is probably what interests you where the Electric Engergy that is given to a system for the polarization of the charges is transformed to rotational Energy (probably this is the connection with the Biefeld-Brown effect, which I do not mention in my work. Conclusively the topology of the system plays an important role to transform the rotational motion to linear motion.)
Best Wishes
http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Switzerland (Living the last 6 years)
@Ioannis Xydous; I read your paper. I find a number of your points an improvement on present accepted science. Your view of vortex connections may well be correct from apparent energies, although 3 vectors instead of 4 may be the correct view as EMF acts in 3 dimensions and not 4.
The view that Aether is the stuff that has many faces, due to its’ charge being in motion in 3 dimensions that presents different faces or signals to detection devices, is one that I hold to due to my research. I would like to know more about your experiment as it may hold clues to my own high energy experiment. pg
Dear Steven N. Karels:
As you know, we cannot give information regarding what happens in the E-Cat’s hearth.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Veronesi:
I have passed your complaint to our IT Guy: within one day the problem will be resolved.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joannis:
Thank you for your interesting article, just published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Good Day everyone!
My great thanks and gratitude to the Journal of Nuclear Physics for the interest to publish my work!
Additionally I wish all the best for the efforts of Mr.Rossi to bring this revolutionary new energy source to the market!
This version as it is published on the Journal, is the 1st version. Please visit my web site: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/
and download the latest version (SEPPv3.pdf) where there are corrected some misconceptions and errors.
I know that my work (SEPPv3.pdf)will irritate much, but please give it enough consideration since it questions the entire physics from its foundations by proposing completely new formulated answers on the most pressing issues of Quantum Physics.
Best Wishes
Ioannis Xydous
Electronic Engineer
Switzerland (Living the last 6 years)
Dear Ing. Rossi
I’ve tried many tymes to download this full article : The secret of the Electron-Positron pair; but it stops after the first page.
Do you have another addres for downloading?
Thanks
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Thank you for your clarification on the use of regular Ni. This eliminats some of the LENR theories that rely on nano-sized particles to deal with the nuclear barrier effect. Although a different form of LENR reaction might occur with nano-sized particles than what appears to be happening with eCat.
Dear Adam Lepczak:
Thank you for this useful information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
We use regular Ni, then we make series of treatment. The cost of treatment is irrilevant compared to the energy produced.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear A. R.
Is nanopowder sized nickel required for the reaction or is it more economically and more readily available nickel powder that can be used? My concern is the amount of energy needed to prepare the nickel.
Dear Dr Rossi,
I have found another, somewhat low-tech steam engine technology that could be direct -“bolt on” and immediate application for the home ECat.
Please checkout this site:
http://www.greensteamengine.com/
And possibly study the examples that they feature (2, 3, 4, even 8 “cylinder” wet steam engine designs).
http://youtu.be/ZEnqQxFeS74 -> Youtube video demo
http://youtu.be/ENsnutreEjQ -> Another video demo (generator runs off the pressure cooker (!))
http://youtu.be/guGa7cHZML4 -> Seems very quiet for a “V8” engine 🙂
In addition, you can buy inexpensive plans for their 2 cylinder design for around $130.00 (some parts + design plans):
http://www.greensteamengine.com/products.htm
This technology is so simple, it is almost…elegant…If you have access to a skilled machine shop, you could “make” the required power generating module in few weeks time. Get the engine, connect it to the small car alternator, and finally charge a stack of car batteries that will supply electrical power back to the Ecat (for the starting phase).
I agree that this looks very “DYI”, but it could provide for an immediate proof of concept of a “closed loop” Ecat that could be ready in few weeks time – and you could build it in your garage too.
In addition, that steam engine design would haply run on a 260 degrees C steam (specs call just for a saturated steam).
Last but not least, with this technology you are going to be dealing with the inventor directly and he is based in California. Please take a look at this page:
http://www.greensteamengine.com/licenses.htm
and scroll down for contact information.
Regards,
Adam