by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, AP, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
With reference to the current physics concepts, implementing the gravitational constant in atomic and nuclear physics and studying its consequences is beyond the scope. 10 dimensional String theory is also not in a position to couple the nuclear scale and planck scale. Role of dark energy or dark matter is very insignificant in understanding the basic concepts of unification of fundamental interactions. Considering the atomic and nuclear physical constants till today cosmic acceleration is not yet verified.
.
Project summary
.
Project summary
Within the expanding cosmic Hubble volume, Hubble length can be considered as the gravitational or electromagnetic interaction range. Product of ‘Hubble volume’ and ‘cosmic critical density’ can be called as the “Hubble mass”. The three proposed assumptions are: 1) within the Hubble volume, each and every point in free space is influenced by the Hubble mass, 2) ‘molar electron mass’ can be considered as the rest mass of a new heavy charged elementary particle and 3) atomic gravitational constant is Avogadro number times the classical gravitational constant. This is a new approach and may be given a chance in understanding the four fundamental cosmological interactions. Approach may be different but involvement and encouragement may bring this subject into main stream.
.
Certo gli impegni sono tanti e devo dire che l’avevo immaginato ma, proprio perchè così a medio termine, sarebbe bello programmare e farci una “scappata”. Non pensa?
Approfitto della cortesia per chiederLe per quale ragione non abbiate previsto “pezzature” diverse da 1MW. E’ un po come dire “faccio solo banconote da 500 euro così i prodotti da vedere potranno costare solo 500 euro”. Come dire! Perchè non avete pensato, nella prima fase di commercializzazzione di fare pezzi da 200 – 300 – 400 – 500 Kw o da 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 Mw? Ho avuto modo di sentire un’azienda del settore cartario, la quale è in via autorizzativa per un impianto cogenerativo a metano (probabilmente CATERPILLAR) da 10 Mw. La spesa si aggirerebbe intorno ai 5 – 7ML di euro. L’eventuale impiego degli ECAT porterebbe la cifra a 10ML circa.
Il costo sarebbe circa il doppio. Cosa non indifferente in questi periodi dove il CASH è relativamente sparito.
Per quello sentito dire a Pordenone da Lei e gli altri la modularità doveva essere un punto di forza dell’E-CAT come dell’H-CAT.
Cosa ne pensa?
Grazie e buon lavoro
Dear Mark:
Thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Our future generation may call it, The Rossi effect (for catalyzed CF)
Dear Andrea,
this is not a torture,because if the machine works well (and it works VERY WELL!),they could not say that it doesn’t work. I am sure they are honest scientists.
Regards G G
Dear Frank Acland:
1- the sole restriction is that they cannot open the reactor and get information about what happens inside
2- yes
3- no, for safety reasons. They are measuring the efficiency of a Hot Cat working in a normal way, as it will do when working for a Customer
4- no. They will publish where they want, when they want, but surely will publish
5- there are no contracts, we do not pay them, they do not pay us, the pact is that they are free to publish the results, whatever the results are, just for scientific purpose. They want to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, if there is an effect that is not of chemical origin and if the energy at the input is less than the energy produced. This is their scientific goal and this is the reason they are making this test. About why I accepted this torture, do not ask me, because I don’t know: many times I make things against my will, as if somebody drives me like a resistance drives an E-Cat.
6- we have put at their disposal an assistant in case of necessity. The assistant does not participate to the data collection and to the discussions and cannot share with them papers and information. I do not participate at all and do not assist either
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear gini:
My work is extremely intense and unforeseeable: I do not know what I will have to do beyond the next week, and still there is a possibility that my programs for the next week will change dramatically upon a phone call for some emergency. I fly from a continent to another at least twice a month. To ask me what I will do during the next Summer makes necessary to provide me by a cristal ball. But since now I wish to all the attendants and the organization guys of the ICCF 18 the success they merit.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Everyone who is following E-Cat developments closely is of course interested in the 3rd party tests. If you don’t mind some questions:
1. What restrictions, if any, are the scientists under regarding what they can do with the devices they are testing?
For example,
2. Will they test in self sustain mode?
3. Can they push the E-Cat to its limits?
4. Do the testers have to publish their results within a specified time frame (if yes, what is the deadline)?
5. Is the contract with the testers covered by an NDA?
6. Do you have a representative or assistant present at the tests to help the scientists?
Many thanks and best wishes,
Frank Acland
Cortese Andrea,
parteciperà al ICCF 18 Conference?
Grazie
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear JJE:
Yes, your comment is intelligent. This is the reason why I am very worried, because the pact we made with the Third Indipendent Party is that they will pay all their expenses and will publish the results, whatever the result. They didn’t even want we to pick up them at the airport.
In any case, we are close to the conclusion. I do not know what will be the result, I am not participating personally to the tests and obviously I do not participate to the briefings of the professors that are working on this issue. But my Cats are good, I’m sure they are working well. In any case, should the results be negative, under a commercial point of view what will count will be only the tests made by our Customers on the plants they bought.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
A Third party has certified your device as safe and reliable.
Now, we await the certification of another Third party for the performance of the device.
You say that the conclusions of this Third party would have no impact on the continuation of your project.
But if the conclusions of the Third party are negative, how would you market a product which a Third party says about it that it doesn’t work ?
Regards,
JJE
Dear Andrea Rossi,
What Do We Know vs What Do We Think?
Sometimes it is good to state what we know versus what do we speculate or think. The following is a summary of what is known with some speculations added.
eCats come in at least two varieties separated by their output operating temperatures. A Thermal eCat outputs heat with the working fluid around the 110 degC range. A Hot eCat outputs heat in the 600 degC range. Generally, the eCats accept electrical power for both control and for heating of the internal reactors. The ratio between the output thermal power and the input electrical power, called COP, is specified at 6. Although it is possible for a reactor to be in a Self-Sustaining Mode (SSM) where no heating power is applied for some period of time (perhaps up to and including an hour).
Industrial versions come in an overall 1 MW output power rating. Currently, the Thermal eCat 1 MW unit is commercially available. It is reported to have a size of 1.2 meters in diameter and about 1 meter high. It is unclear if a separate control unit is needed. An internal working thermal fluid transfers the reactor heat to the outside. The thermal fluid is actively pumped.
The Hot eCat is presently in development. Also in development is a gas-fired eCat. It is assumed to meet the requirement where electricity is expensive or of limited availability.
The output of a 1MW eCat can be controlled in 1% steps. Each reactor unit can output nominally 10kW of thermal power. A 1MW eCat is comprised of around 100 10kW reactors. Each reactor can be on or off so thus the 1% thermal control. The control time on an eCat is relatively long. The time to raise the output of a 1MW unit from 1% to 100% is about two hours. The same time is needed to go from 100% to 1%. The time to go from a completely off eCat to 100% is four hours. Speculation: This suggests a two-stage architecture where one to nine reactors are in the first stage and the remainder are in the second stage.
The eCat reactor “fuel” consists of Nickel powder, Hydrogen gas and a proprietary catalyst. It has been speculated that the Nickel powder has an average size of about 1 micron diameter. The reported purpose of the catalyst is to increase the reaction rate to support the 10kW output level. There is speculation that the catalyst enables the production of mono-atomic Hydrogen which more easily supports the fusion process.
The principle reaction method is reported to be a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR). It was originally thought to be a Nickel + Hydrogen goes to Copper but it has been reported this is a secondary process. The primary process is reported confidential but the output product of the process has reportedly been observed. My speculation is that the primary reaction is Hydrogen + Hydrogen goes to Helium with the Helium slowly escaping the eCat reactor vessel via diffusion.
Gamma rays are reported generated during the fusion process but are absorbed within the eCat physical structure. No external gamma rays are reportedly observed.
Thermal runaway is not an issue because the reaction stops when the Nickel melts. Reaction time constants are so long that use of an eCat for weaponry purposes is not possible.
Industrial certification has been achieved for the Thermal eCat. The Hot eCat is in-process for its certification. Residential certification is a ways off so residential application is in the future.
There is a third-party scientific review, independent of Dr. Rossi’s control and it is anticipated to be published in a month or two.
Dear Giuseppe:
I think the applications will be developed in many directions. Obviously licenses will be given for particular applications.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear eng Rossi
you think this your new technology can open up new horizons and find, with the necessary adaptations, application in other branches of technology and therefore not only in the production of heat and energy?
I don’t know, maybe in microelectronics, in chemical or maybe medicine.
But this could only happen if the scientists around the world could know what actually happens inside the heart of your product, so do you think this will be able one day come true?
Giuseppe
Dear Steven N. Karels:
1,2- As I said, we will give these data when the gas fired plants will be ready for sale.
3- yes, plus the maintainance cost, plus the amortization ( expected life is now 30 years, even if I honestly think an E-Cat can live at least 50 years, with minor reparations).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
My question on the COP equivalent for the gas-fired eCats — Currently you have a COP of 6. So for a 10kW unit, you require an electrical power input of about 1.7kW (10/1.7 = ~6).
1. For the gas-fired eCat, I assume the same amount of applied power is needed?
2. Amount of consumed power should be equal to the applied power divided by the thermal efficiency?
3. Then the cost to power the eCat would be the consumed power times the price of the fuel per unit power?
Dear John:
I do not know. They are working by themselves. The tests were scheduled to finish this week, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Dr. Rossi,
Is the Third party test finishing this week? or they still need more time for more thoroughly study.
regards
John
Dear Steven N. Karels:
1- we have to complete the technology with the gas
2- see above
3- should be
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The COP of 6 generally, I believe refers to electricity as the input source compared to the thermal output of a Thermal eCat.
1. Is there a similar term for your gas-fired Thermal eCat?
2. Using gas or similar fuel can be more difficult to compute input versus output as there is an efficiency associated with combustion of the fuel and then thermal transfer to the eCat. Is there an assumed efficiency in your gas-fired COP estimates?
3. Is the gas-fired Thermal eCat more efficient, economical than an electric powered Thermal eCat or is the lack of electricity the primary driving force for such an eCat?
Dear Josh Greene:
The gamma rays do not exit from the reactors, as all the measurements made during hundreds of tests have given evidence for. The photons are turned into heat, therefore there are not long term effects, as well as there are not short term and middle term effects. By the way, the third party indipendent test in course is dealing throughly also with this item.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@ Steven Karels
Dear mr. Steven Karels,
thank you for your answer. I agree on electricity prices, but if we are talking about low-temperature heat generated by a hot-cat I believe that the cost benchmark should be lower than $100/MWh thermal. Many industries that need low temperature heat (food industry, dying industry, etc.) generate thermal energy in cogeneration units and they get natural gas at wholesale prices. So I suppose costs might be lower than $ 100/MWh thermal, particularly in the U.S. at current natural gas prices.
Anybdy out there working in an industry that uses low temperature heat?
Thanks
Daniele Poponi
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I have heard marvelous things about the E-Cat in Popular Science. Are there any long term effects, in terms of Gamma Radiation.
Signed
Joshua Greene
Dear Jane Gooders:
1- surely the hours of this plant will sum up to the statistics
2- no, not yet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Andrea,
I am continuing to enjoy the unfolding of this story, thank you for providing regular updates for us.
I have a couple of questions based on the recent comments about the original E-Cat plant installation:
1/ Have the 8000 hours recorded data influenced the certification timeline of the domestic E-Cat – you mentioned some time ago that one of the barriers to certification was the lack of historical information on this new method of energy production.
2/ Has any of the data from this original low temperature plant, or from the Hot-Cat, resulted in any refinement or changes to the proposed design of the dometic version?
Many Thanks
Jane
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
No, it is not.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: In my previous question I was referring to available money from any source. Is your research or E-Cat development hindered in any way because of the lack of money? Thanks.
Dear Julian Becker:
I do not think I will be able to attend the Conference on Cold Fusion at the University of Missouri, but I wish the best success to all the organization guys and the attendants.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I would like to ask if you plan to visit the Annual International Conference on Cold Fusion at the University of Missouri in July this year. Other leading researchers into LENR will also be most likely present (e.g. Dr. Hagelstein, Dr. McKubre)
Would this conference provide a good platform to present some findings to the public or would it be give too much details to your competitors?
Best regards,
Julian Becker
P.S. Any news regarding the Ecat in China? Any interest from potential customers there yet?
Dear danielpop,
The $100USD/MWhr is a typical number for bulk electricity costs for several different developed countries (US, Europe, Australia, etc). I have seen numbers ranging from $50USD/MWhr and up. This is about 10 cents per kWhr. At my home I pay around 20 cents per kWhr.
The assumption was for a Thermal eCat (110degC generation), not the Hot eCat with its own electricity generation capability. My analysis was attempting to show that the Thermal eCat would pay for itself in cost savings in a very short time (2 – 3 years) which is very good.
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
We never worked upon funding, our strategy has always been based upon making working plants with our own money and get the funding from the payments of the Customers. This has always been our policy, because I believe in my work.
Warmest Regards,
Andrea
Dear Steven Karels
“Assume $100USD per MWhr industrial cost. Saving realized = 5/6 * $800,000USD or about $667KUSD.”
Does your assumption of a cost of $100USD/Mhr refer to LOW-TEMPERATURE HEAT (Hotcat) or electricity (Ecat)? In the first case, is this estimate based of costs for a specific country/industry?
I thought that costs for low-temperature heat (e.g. generated from natural gas in a cogernation system) were lower than that in most OECD countries.
Best regards
D.
Dr. Rossi: Many LENR researchers are having funding problems. Are you and your research and/or your E-Cat development program being hindered in any way because of lack of funding? Thanks and remember three sets of tennis is great for the release of stress. (:
To the readers of Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics
CALCULATIONS WHICH GO TO THE TRASH
Look at the following calculations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_moment
They are beautifull, no?
And very impressive, isn’t true?
Well, unfortunatelly they will be thrown to the trash.
Those calculations had never worked well. They did never give good results, corroborated by the experimental data for the light nuclei.
This kind of calculation had worked for the atom. Because in the atom the electron moves with helical trajectory, and that’s why the equations of Quantum Mechanics work well in the atom.
But in the atomic nucleus the particles (protons and neutrons) are confined within an exiguous space, and they lose their helical trajectory, and the equations which work for the atom do not anymore, because the particles move through classic newtonian trajectories within the nucleus.
The calculations with clasic trajectories are exhibited in my paper
On the Stability, Magnetic Moments, Nuclear Spins, and Electric Quadrupole Moments of Light Nuclei with Z < 9 – Part One.
The paper had been declined for publication in the journals Nature, Science, European Journal of Physics, Physical Review, etc.
The calculations are reproducing all the nuclear magnetic moments of the light isotopes. The paper will be published perhaps in upcoming April or May by the Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics.
When the physicists finally will understand what is happening, they will understand the error they made when they started to use the mathematics without knowing what is happening physically within a system.
Galileo already had told to the scientists that the logic cannot be unlinked from the mathematics.
But they did not hear him.
When Schroedinger had tried to introduce the helical trajectory (zitterbewegung) concept in the atom (which would allow to develop the quantum mechanics compatible with the logic), Heienberg had rejected that way, by considering that it should be incompatible with the scientific method. The physicists had decided to adhere to the way pointed out by Heisenberg.
And the nightmare had begun.
Now they will curse the day when they decided do not follow Galileo’s advice.
regards
Wlad
Dear Claudio Ferrara:
I can assure you we are very much and well focused on our target. We are working very strongly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Doctor Rossi,
J have been following your wonderful adventure thru this last years and j have enjoyed a great existential relief after knowing the a new form of renewable energy was being invented. Your wonderful E-Cat.
Now j have the feeling that you, dear Andrea, are a little tired and that interior energies have been discouraged by all the difficulties that bureaucracy and other thieves are giving you.
Cheer up and be sure of you work, I am with you, and I am sure that hundreds of thousands of persons like me are with you, at you side, thoroughly sure of the effectiveness of your discoveries.
J wish you all the best ,and I wish the best future for all humanity.
Claudio Ferrara
Dear Steven N. Karels:
No, the COP has not been increased.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
A payoff period of 2 – 3 years is very good. Plus I assume this was the original 1MW thermal eCat and the actual COPs may have increased on later generation versions? Regardless of the actual COP, the Thermal eCat 1MW unit appears to be commercially viable. Please advise as new sales occur.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
I suppose you are right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
8000 hrs of operation in one year @ 1MW output = 8000 MWhr of energy
Requiring 8000/(COP of)6 MWhr of input electrical energy = 5/6 * 8000 MWhr of excess energy.
Assume $100USD per MWhr industrial cost. Saving realized = 5/6 * $800,000USD or about $667KUSD.
Acquisition cost: $1.5MUSD. Plant should pay for itself in 3 years of operation.
Dear Valac:
Mobile Platform
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Is this plant installed on a mobile flatform or inside a building?
Dear Frank Acland:
6
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for these very interesting numbers about the 1 MW plant. What is the average COP over the 8000 hours of operation?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Dear Andrea Rossi,
That is exceptionally good. I hope eCat meets or exceeds this level of performance.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
I have understood. The availability is about 90%, since the plant works about 8,000 hours out of the total of 8760 hours of a year.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Availability is a measure of the total number of operating hours divided by the total number of hours available to operate. A typical value might be 90% where the 10% is lost time due to maintenance, outages, etc. So if your customer intended or tried to operate it 8,000 hours, how many hours was he able to achieve operation within the nominal specified performance?
Dear vSteven N. Karels:
1- what do you mean exactly with “level of availability”?
2- 8 000
3- 100- 110 °C
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear vSteven N. Karels:
1- what do you mean exactly with “level of availability”?
2- 8 000
3- 100- 110 °C
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You stated “Yes, I am satisfied, it has teached to us an enormous amount of data.” 1. What level of availability did you eaperience? 2. How many operating hours per year did you observe? 3. What output temperatures were provided (e.g., 110degC)?