«  
  »

Role of the binding energy of electron of the hydrogen atom in Ni-H cold fusion

.

by
U.V.S.Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE, Alakapuri,
Hyderabad-35, AP, India
Email: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University,
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
Email: lnsrirama@gmail.com
.
.
Abstract

During Ni-H collisions, proton (of the hydrogen atom) combines with the Nickel nucleus and electron (of the hydrogen atom) combines with the Nickel electronic shell and forms Copper with no emission of alpha or beta or gamma rays.
or mole number of such Ni-H atomic fusions, as hydrogen atom is losing its identity, binding energy of electron is converted into heat energy of ~1.3×106 joules.
As the temperature of the system increases, more number of hydrogen atoms may fuse with more number of Nickel atoms liberating more heat energy.
Selection of the target cold fusion atom seems to follow the condition: selected stable atom’s Z+1 is a new stable element with odd atomic number.
Fineness of the Ni powder may help H atoms to fuse with ease causing more number of Ni-H fusions.

.

July 13th, 2015 | Category: Publication

1,188 comments to Role of the binding energy of electron of the hydrogen atom in Ni-H cold fusion

1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 24
  • Paul
    August 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM

    Andrea,

    How many 250 kW Tiger e-cats have been built to-date?

    Paul

  • Kelly Lensington
    August 6, 2015 at 4:24 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    How is your health now? You had surgery on July 20, how are you after 18 days? We are worried because you did not any convalescence and returned to work the day after the surgery, which is crazy!
    Can you swim again half hour per day as you used to do?
    Cheers,
    Kelly

  • Joseph Fine
    August 6, 2015 at 3:10 PM

    Andrea Rossi and readers,

    Please look at the following article by David French from two years ago that discusses the power density of the sun.

    The Sun, of course, runs much longer than a year on a single charge, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    Please compare with the power density of the 1 MW plant (4 Tiger version).

    http://coldfusionnow.org/power-equivalent-to-the-sun-we-already-have-it/

    Very warm regards,

    Joseph Fine

  • Dan C.
    August 6, 2015 at 2:16 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    Of a 250 kW module, Are these of a single reactor core or is it an assembly of reactors somewhat like layers of fuel rods evenly spaced within.

    I see that you have been directing your followers to rossilivecat.com to see all posts & comments in 1 place.

    Something that may be of interest to some. On rossilivecat.com, you can click on the underlined date/time “August 5th, 2015 at 5:01 PM”

    This will take you to the original comment on JONP or you can obtain the link to do so if one wanted to embed it in their blog.

    Kind regards,

    Dan C.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 6, 2015 at 1:56 PM

    Frederic Maillard:
    This information is confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 6, 2015 at 1:54 PM

    Albert N.:
    1- two
    2- same
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • AlbertN
    August 6, 2015 at 12:33 PM

    Dear Dr.Rossi,

    I am glad to hear that the repairs have gone well and all is back to normal. I have a few questions.

    1- How many of your team had to be waken up? How many had to lose a good night sleep? Hehe.
    2- You have praised your team many times. In the last six months has it grown/reduced/same in size?

    Warm Regards,
    AlbertN

  • Frederic Maillard
    August 6, 2015 at 12:13 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Could you tell us the approximate mass of Nickel your 250 KW Tiger reactors consume per year?

    Best wishes
    FM

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 6, 2015 at 7:37 AM

    Perry Dalton:
    Now it’s 08.45 a.m. of August 6.
    All reparations made, now She is working regular, no troubles so far. Saturday we will re-start the “M.me Curie” version of the new Hot Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 6, 2015 at 7:30 AM

    Italo R.:
    The block of 4 Tigers can be reduced to the following dimensions ( in meters): 2.0 x 1.0 height 1.5.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 6, 2015 at 7:26 AM

    Ivan Idso:
    If I have understood, you are asking how many MW of power are necessary to produce 50,000 lbs of dry steam.
    If my understanding of your question is correct, to produce with our industrial E-Cats 50,000 lbs of steam we need 60 modules of 250 kW of power each.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Daniel De Caluwé
    August 6, 2015 at 6:05 AM

    @Joe

    You wrote:

    (August 5th, 2015 at 6:19 PM)

    One more question:
    If the lower concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the glacial periods only serve to amplify the cooling trends already started by extraterrestrial sources (Milankovitch cycles, etc), how can abnormally high concentrations of CO2, like we have today, prevent the onset of further glacial periods, since CO2, for whatever reason, is drawn down at the start of glacial periods?

    My answer:

    That’s just a matter of the influence of ‘radiative forcings’ on the energy balance of the planet. For a definition of RF (Radiative Forcing) and EFR (Effective Radiative Forcing, a new concept that they use since the latest report): see ‘Box 8.1 Definition of Radiative Forcing and Effective Radiative Forcing’ (in Chapter 8 of the latest Report):
    (P.S. this is the last time I copy a text out of the pdf-files of the report, because I cannot simply copy-paste, but have to edit, and this is too much time-consuming 😉 :

    Box 8.1 | Definition of Radiative Forcing and Effective Radiative Forcing

    The two most commonly used measures of radiative forcing in this chapter are the radiative forcing (RF) and the effective radiative forcing (ERF). RF is defined, as it was in AR4, as the change in net downward radiative flux at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, while holding surface and tropospheric temperatures and state variables such as water vapor and cloud cover fixed at the unperturbed values.

    ERF is the change in net TOA downward radiative flux after allowing for atmospheric temperatures, water vapour and clouds to adjust, but with surface temperature or a portion of surface conditions unchanged. Although there are multiple methods to calculate ERF, we take ERF to mean the method in which sea surface temperatures and sea ice cover are fixed at climatological values unless otherwise specified. Land surface properties (temperature, snow and ice cover and vegetation) are allowed to adjust in this method. Hence ERF includes both the effects of the forcing agent itself and the rapid adjustments to that agent (as does RF, though stratospheric temperature is the only adjustment for the latter). In the case of aerosols, the rapid adjustments of clouds encompass effects that have been referred to as indirect or semi-direct forcings (see Figure 7.3 and Section 7.5), with some of these same cloud responses also taking place for other forcing agents (see Section 7.2).

    Calculation of ERF requires longer simulations with more complex models than calculation of RF, but the inclusion of the additional rapid adjustments makes ERF a better indicator of the eventual global mean temperature response, especially for aerosols. When forcing is attributed to emissions or used for calculation of emission metrics, additional responses including atmospheric chemistry and the carbon cycle are also included in both RF and ERF (see Section 8.1.2). The general term forcing is used to refer to both RF and ERF

    This figure gives an overview of these ‘radiative forcings’ (in Watt/m², relative tot the pre-industrial situation in 1750), that influence the energy balance of the planet:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2008/Fig8-17.jpg

    And the whole of Chapter 8 is dedicated to it:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

    So, because of the presence of extra CO2 in the atmosphere (in the troposphere near the surface), and because of the enhanced greenhouse effect that is related to it (extra absorption of infrared radiation, that is otherwise reflected by earth to space, but is now captured by the CO2 in the troposphere), there’s a positive radiative forcing (in Watt/m²) attributed to it, and this compensates for the negative radiative forcing due to slow orbital changes of the earth (cycles of Milankovitch), so that a possible starting of an ice-age is inhibited (at least for a while), or even completely prevented.

    And there’s a lot written about it in Chapters 5 and 6 in the report:

    (the last time I copy out of these pdf-files, because it’s not simply copy-paste, but I have to edit it, and this is very time-consuming)

    From the ‘executive summary of Chapter 5’:

    It is virtually certain that orbital forcing will be unable to trigger widespread glaciation during the next 1000 years. Paleo-climate records indicate that, for orbital configurations close to the present one, glacial inceptions only occurred for atmospheric CO2 concentrations significantly lower than pre-industrial levels. Climate models simulate no glacial inception during the next 50,000 years if CO2 concentrations remain above 300 ppm. {5.8.3, Box 6.2}

    5.8.3 Next Glacial Inception (page 435 of chapter 5):

    Since orbital forcing can be accurately calculated for the future (see Section 5.2.1), efforts can be made to predict the onset of the next glacial period. However, the glaciation threshold depends not only on insolation but also on the atmospheric CO2 concentration (Archer and Ganopolski, 2005). Models of different complexity have been used to investigate the response to orbital forcing in the future for a range of atmospheric CO2 levels. These results consistently show that a glacial inception is not expected to happen within the next approximate 50kyr if either atmospheric CO2 concentration remains above 300 ppm or cumulative carbon emissions exceed 1000 PgC (Loutre and Berger, 2000; Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Cochelin et al., 2006). Only if atmospheric CO2 content was below the pre-industrial level would a glaciation be possible under present orbital configuration (Loutre and Berger, 2000; Cochelin et al., 2006; Kutzbach et al., 2011; Vettoretti and Peltier, 2011; Tzedakis et al., 2012a). Simulations with climate–carbon cycle models show multi-millennial lifetime of the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (see Box 6.1). Even for the lowest RCP 2.6 scenario, atmospheric CO2 concentrations will exceed 300 ppm until the year 3000. It is therefore virtually certain that orbital forcing will not trigger a glacial inception before the end of the next millennium.

    From Chapter 6 Box 6.1.

    Box 6.1 | Multiple Residence Times for an Excess of Carbon Dioxide Emitted in the Atmosphere

    On an average, CO2 molecules are exchanged between the atmosphere and the Earth surface every few years. This fast CO2 cycling through the atmosphere is coupled to a slower cycling of carbon through land vegetation, litter and soils and the upper ocean (decades to centuries); deeper soils and the deep sea (centuries to millennia); and geological reservoirs, such as deep-sea carbonate sediments and the upper mantle (up to millions of years) as explained in Section 6.1.1.1. Atmospheric CO2 represents only a tiny fraction of the carbon in the Earth System, the rest of which is tied up in these other reservoirs. Emission of carbon from fossil fuel reserves, and additionally from land use change (see Section 6.3) is now rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 content. The removal of all the human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take few hundred thousand years (high confidence) as shown by the timescales of the removal process shown in the table below (Archer and Brovkin, 2008). For instance, an extremely long atmospheric CO2 recovery time scale from a large emission pulse of CO2 has been inferred from geological evidence when during the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum event about 55 million years ago a large amount of CO2 was released to the atmosphere (McInerney and Wing, 2011). Based on the amount of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere after a pulse of emissions (data from Joos et al. 2013) and on the magnitude of the historical and future emissions for each RCP scenario, we assessed that about 15 to 40% of CO2 emitted until 2100 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1000 years. These processes are active on all time scales, but the relative importance of their role in the CO2 removal is changing with time and depends on the level of emissions. Accordingly, the times of atmospheric CO2 adjustment to anthropogenic carbon emissions can be divided into three phases associated with increasingly longer time scales.

    Phase 1. Within several decades of CO2 emissions, about a third to half of an initial pulse of anthropogenic CO2 goes into the land and ocean, while the rest stays in the atmosphere (Box 6.1, Figure 1a). Within a few centuries, most of the anthropogenic CO2 will be in the form of additional dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean, thereby decreasing ocean pH (Box 6.1, Figure 1b). Within a thousand years, the remaining atmospheric fraction of the CO2 emissions (see Section 6.3.2.4) is between 15 and 40%, depending on the amount of carbon released (Archer et al., 2009b). The carbonate buffer capacity of the ocean decreases with higher CO², so the larger the cumulative emissions, the higher the remaining atmospheric fraction (Eby et al., 2009; Joos et al., 2013).

    Phase 2. In the second stage, within a few thousands of years, the pH of the ocean that has decreased in Phase 1 will be restored by reaction of ocean dissolved CO2 and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) of sea floor sediments, partly replenishing the buffer capacity of the ocean and further drawing down atmospheric CO2 as a new balance is re-established between CaCO3 sedimentation in the ocean and terrestrial weathering (Box 6.1, Figure 1c right). This second phase will pull the remaining atmospheric CO2 fraction down to 10 to 25% of the original CO2 pulse after about 10 kyr (Lenton and Britton, 2006; Montenegro et al., 2007; Ridgwell and Hargreaves, 2007; Tyrrell et al., 2007; Archer and Brovkin, 2008).

    Phase 3. In the third stage, within several hundred thousand years, the rest of the CO2 emitted during the initial pulse will be removed from the atmosphere by silicate weathering, a very slow process of CO2 reaction with calcium silicate (CaSiO3) and other minerals of igneous rocks (e.g., Sundquist, 1990; Walker and Kasting, 1992). Involvement of extremely long time scale processes into the removal of a pulse of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere complicates comparison with the cycling of the other GHGs. This is why the concept of a single, characteristic atmospheric lifetime is not applicable to CO2 (Chapter 8).

    Box 6.1, Table 1 | The main natural processes that remove CO2 consecutive to a large emission pulse to the atmosphere, their atmospheric CO2 adjustment time scales, and main (bio)chemical reactions involved.

    Processes Time scale (years) Reactions

    Land uptake:
    Photosynthesis–respiration 1–102 6CO2+ 6H2O + photons →C6H12O6+ 6O2
    C6H12O6 + 6O2 →6CO2+ 6H2O + heat

    Ocean invasion:
    Seawater buffer 10–103 CO2+ CO3²- + H2O ↔ 2HCO3−

    Reaction with
    calcium carbonate 103–104 CO2+ CaCO3+ H2O →Ca2++ 2HCO3−

    Silicate weathering 104–106 CO2+ CaSiO3→CaCO3+ SiO2

    Box 6.1, Figure 1 | A percentage of emitted CO2 remaining in the atmosphere in response to an idealised instantaneous CO2 pulse emitted to the atmosphere in year 0 as calculated by a range of coupled climate–carbon cycle models. (Left and middle panels, a and b) Multi-model mean (blue line) and the uncertainty interval (±2 standard deviations, shading) simulated during 1000 years following the instantaneous pulse of 100 PgC (Joos et al., 2013). (Right panel, c) A mean of models with oceanic and terrestrial carbon components and a maximum range of these models (shading) for instantaneous CO2 pulse in year 0 of 100 PgC (blue), 1000 PgC (orange) and 5000 PgC (red line) on a time interval up to 10 kyr (Archer et al., 2009b). Text at the top of the panels indicates the dominant processes that remove the excess of CO2 emitted in the atmosphere on the successive time scales. Note that higher pulse of CO2 emissions leads to higher remaining CO2 fraction (Section 6.3.2.4) due to reduced carbonate buffer capacity of the ocean and positive climate–carbon cycle feedback (Section 6.3.2.6.6).

    I hope this explains enough.

    Kind Regards,
    Daniel.

  • Perry Dalton
    August 6, 2015 at 2:25 AM

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Can you give an update about how the E-Cats will be going in the moment when you will read this question?
    Cheers,
    Perry Dalton

  • Italo R.
    August 5, 2015 at 10:37 PM

    Dear Dr. Rossi, what size could have a future plant of 1 MW made with only 4 Tigers?
    You probably will not need to use a container like the actual.

    Kind Regards,
    Italo R.

  • Ivan Idso
    August 5, 2015 at 10:02 PM

    Dr. Rossi,

    My local utility has a contract to provide 50,000 pounds per hour of steam to a major medical center for heating and cooling. Can you relate this to MW from your plants?

    Keep up the good work!!!

    Ivan Idso

  • Joe
    August 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM

    Daniel,

    I thank you for the detailed response.

    One more question:
    If the lower concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the glacial periods only serve to amplify the cooling trends already started by extraterrestrial sources (Milankovitch cycles, etc), how can abnormally high concentrations of CO2, like we have today, prevent the onset of further glacial periods, since CO2, for whatever reason, is drawn down at the start of glacial periods?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 5, 2015 at 5:01 PM

    Frank Acland:
    Yes, because they will be born in that perspective. Probably, from now on the industrial E-Cat will be made by 250 kW modules, as a consequence of the tests on course, provided the same tests will give positive results at the end of this 350 days cycle.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland
    August 5, 2015 at 4:55 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for the explanation of the backup plan. Do you think in the future it might be easier and less complex to have one or more tigers as backups, rather than lots of smaller E-Cats?

    Kind regards,

    Frank Acland

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 5, 2015 at 4:44 PM

    Frank Acland:
    Yes, you got it: I try not to consume the reserves, to maintain them intact in case of serious failure of one or more “Tigers”. For short reparations it is not necessary to turn on the reserve. That is my safety boat if the ship sinks. This is the strategy. As a consequence of this strategy, we do not use the reserve together with the fighting “division”. We turned it on for several days at the beginning of the test, just to check it working, then turned it off and used only the 4 x 250.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM

    Anna Green:
    Thank you, I share your kind words with my Team!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM

    James Rovnak:
    Thank you for your insight and update,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland
    August 5, 2015 at 2:53 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    You have said recently that when one of the 4 tigers was shut down for repair, that the plant produced only 750 kW/h per hour. So it sounds like the smaller reactors did not come on automatically to supply the missing heat. Is this correct?

    Is there ever a time when the tigers (some or all) and the 100+ smaller E-Cats (some or all) are running at the same time?

    Thank you!

    Frank Acland

  • James Rovnak
    August 5, 2015 at 2:40 PM

    Andrea some thoughts & comments on (ssm) LENR today, especially of Bob Cook’s on Vortexl – Bob & I are headed in the same direction, be it right or wrong, you probably have a better idea with your many years of actually developing this wonderful new process/product:
    Comments on Peter’s blog today:
    I like Bob Cook’s ideas posted on vortexl today & our thoughts are much alike in this area of dynamic B fields initiating, spreading/or decreasing & controlling (ssm) LENR power generating spots in current Rossi & successful replicators work to date.
    Bob comment today on vortexl:
    “LENR on a ChipJones–

    The SSP’s are very exciting with their huge magnetic local B fields which can
    change, rapidly touching (creating) many different resonances influenced by the
    B field. It promises engineering control of the energy states of the local
    coherent system as a function of time–just what a good LENR device needs to be
    practical.

    And. IMHO, the changing B field creates the coupling associated with the
    coherent system’s spin state, all during the small time increment the
    appropriate resonances occur, to allow the transition of mass energy to phonic
    energy and/or low frequency EM energy.

    This is basically what NMR devices do with brut force—yet mundane–magnetic
    coupling to accomplish nuclear spin energy transitions of relatively small
    magnitudes AND CORRESPONDING SMALL MASS CHANGES OF A NUCLEUS UP AND DOWN.

    The small magnitude transitions are consistent with what is seen in LENR
    experiments, as well as, Rossi’S industrial device. Gammas from classic,
    uncoupled (except within a nucleus) nuclear energy transitions are not apparent
    in any significant quantity in LENR. Neutrons that have significant energy
    resulting from two or few particle reactions also are not evident, since
    conservation of linear momentum is not involved when spin mass energy and
    associated angular momentum are the parameters that are conserved, IMHO.

    Understanding the very short, if any, time constants for the coherent system
    will be key in designing useful systems. This may well be the crux of
    understanding the “new physics” of LENR.

    Bob Cook. ”

    Jim IMHO Axil

    Jim Very interested in what Axil will have to add to these thoughts also. Wish you were free to help in our thought process with your long experience in actually making things happen.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 5, 2015 at 2:37 PM

    Nils Fryklund:
    Your comment is not arrived to this blog, but to the email of the JoNP, anyway you asked if we have one container for the small E-Cats and one for the 4 x 250 kW.
    Answer: no, we have in the same container two sections, one with the small E-Cats and one with the 4 Tigers, each section with a power of 1 MW. The strategy consists in using the 4 tigers, maintaining as a reserve the small E-Cats.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Anna Green
    August 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I never have seen a man work as much as you and with so much dedication. If the test will end up positively, you will have merited it beyond any doubt.
    God be with you.
    Anna

  • Daniel De Caluwé
    August 5, 2015 at 1:01 PM

    @Joe,

    This is the second part of my answer to your question of August 4th, 2015 at 5:42 PM

    I first repeat you question:

    Joe wrote:

    Daniel De Caluwe,

    If having higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere of a planet results in higher temperatures; and, conversely, having lower concentrations of CO2 results in lower temperatures; how does Nature remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere to cause an Ice Age

    My answer: (second part)

    In my previous message (= the first part of my answer) I explained already that it is NOT the CO2 that ’causes’ an ice age, and I repeat that first (small) part of my previous answer, because it is most important of all:

    In my previous answer I wrote:

    First, and most important of all, it’s not the variation of CO2 concentration that causes the ice ages, no, the glacial/inter-glacial cycles are mainly (at least these of the last 400.000 years) caused by orbital variations (i.e. (slow) cycles of Milankovitch, that cause a change/variation in the incoming solar energy), and in these (slow) natural cycles, CO2 concentration changes (only) AMPLIFY (and not cause!) orbitally-induced climate changes on glacial/inter-glacial time-scales

    But I also promised you to give an update of my previous answer by referring also to the present (and most recent) 5th assessment report of 2013 (IPCC).

    Their answer to your question ‘how nature does remove CO2 from the atmosphere’ during an ice age can be found in Chapter 6 of the report, of which there is a direct link on their website:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

    And in that link, you should read chapter (sub-chapters included) ‘6.2.1 Glacial–Interglacial Greenhouse Gas Changes’ from page 480 to page 482 (figure 6.5 included!)

    And here is a separate link tot the important figure 6.5.: (It is explained in the text):

    http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2006/Fig6-05.jpg

    So that’s the answer to your question, and here I only copy their summary (included in the pdf-file of chapter 6 of the report (IPCC)):

    6.2.1.1.7 Summary

    All of the major drivers of the glacial-to-interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes (Figure 6.5) are likely to have already been identified. However, Earth System Models have been unable to reproduce the full magnitude of the glacial-to-interglacial CO2 changes. Significant uncertainties exist in glacial boundary conditions and on some of the primary controls on carbon storage in the ocean and in the land. These uncertainties prevent an unambiguous attribution of individual mechanisms as controllers of the low glacial CO2 concentrations. Further assessments of the interplay of different mechanisms prior to deglacial transitions or in glacial inceptions will provide additional insights into the drivers and processes that caused the glacial decrease of CO2.

    Because several of these identified drivers (e.g., organic matter remineralization, ocean stratification) are sensitive to climate change in general, improved understanding drawn from the glacial–interglacial cycles will help constrain the magnitude of future ocean feedbacks on atmospheric CO2. Other drivers (e.g., iron fertilisation) are involved in geoengineering methods (see Glossary), such that improved understanding could also help constrain the potential and applicability of these methods (see Section 6.5.2).

    But remember, in this case (glacial/interglacial cycles due to slow variations of the orbital parameters (eccentricity, obliquity and precession) of the earth in her movement around our sun (i.e. cycles of Milankovitch)), the change of the CO2 content in the atmosphere, is an amplifying consequence, but not a cause of these glacial/inter-glacial cycles.

    Kind Regards,
    Daniel.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 5, 2015 at 12:17 PM

    Domenico Canino:
    Thank you for the attention to our work.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 5, 2015 at 12:14 PM

    Italo R.:
    The problems were outside the reactors.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • domenico canino
    August 5, 2015 at 12:10 PM

    Please dr.Rossi, build two other tigers of 250 kwh/h and add these to the plant of the customer, with a system of automatic replacement, in case of failure of one of the original four. It’s a simple redundancy system. If and when there is a failure of one of the original four tigers, the ausiliary unit automatically starts and replace the one with problems. You and your team, have all the time to control the problem of the unit , while the plant doesn’t loose power. And so you can sleep all the night, because we need you to stay well.

  • Italo R.
    August 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM

    Dear Dr. Rossi, you recently have spoken about reparations of 250kW reactors.
    Can you tell us if these reparations were within the reactor or in mechanical / electrical / electronic auxiliary components?

    Kind Regards
    Italo R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 5, 2015 at 7:08 AM

    Alexvs:
    No, it did not. Nevertheless, I share your opinion: this paper is very interesting, written by two high profile nuclear physicists from India.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Alexvs
    August 5, 2015 at 2:04 AM

    Dear Mr. Rossi

    I have noticed that the comments have nothing to do with the matter to be commented. I use to read most of them with attention finding this one highly interesting. Did the theory exposed by the authors drive you to the New Hot Cat conception?

    Greetings

  • Daniel De Caluwé
    August 4, 2015 at 11:21 PM

    @Joe,

    You wrote: Daniel De Caluwe, If having higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere of a planet results in higher temperatures; and, conversely, having lower concentrations of CO2 results in lower temperatures; how does Nature remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere to cause an Ice Age, since the factors responsible for initially placing the CO2 in the atmosphere (eg biological activity, volcanic activity, fires due to lightning strikes) never cease to exist?

    My answer: As I was not involved anymore in climate-change discussions during the last 8 to 10 years, and as this is a very complex question in climate science, I normally should leave this question to experts in the field op paleo-climate, more precisely experts in the field of (variations in atmospheric CO2 during) glacial/inter-glacial cycles.

    Nevertheless, with some effort, and referring to the ipcc reports, I think I still can give a reasonable answer to your question, or at least an indication in what direction the answer can be found, and because I based my past climate discussions (already 8 to 10 years ago!) on the third assessment report of 2001, I will refer to that report in this message, but later, in another message, I will try to give an update to the 5th and last assessment report of 2013.

    Lets start:

    First, and most important of all, it’s not the variation of CO2 concentration that causes the ice ages, no, the glacial/inter-glacial cycles are mainly (at least these of the last 400.000 years) caused by orbital variations (i.e. (slow) cycles of Milankovitch, that cause a change/variation in the incoming solar energy), and in these (slow) natural cycles, CO2 concentration changes (only) AMPLIFY (and not cause!) orbitally-induced climate changes on glacial/inter-glacial time-scales

    Let’s look up in the third assessment report of 2001 what the climate scientists wrote about it:

    To start with a summary, read paragraph ‘3.3.4 Implications’ in this link:

    (See: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm#334 ):

    3.3.4 Implications

    The Vostok record of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic climate is consistent with a view of the climate system in which CO2 concentration changes AMPLIFY orbitally-induced climate changes on glacial/inter-glacial time-scales (Shackleton, 2000). Changes during the present inter-glacial (until the start of the anthropogenic CO2 rise) have been small by comparison. Although complete explanations for these changes in the past are lacking, high-resolution ice core records establish that the human-induced increase of atmospheric CO2 over the past century is at least an order of magnitude faster than has occurred during the preceeding 20,000 years.

    And to dig a little deeper, read paragraph ‘3.3.2 Variations in Atmospheric CO2 during Glacial/inter-glacial Cycles’ on this page:

    ( See: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/107.htm )

    ‘…the Vostok ice core is the best available for the glacial/inter-glacial time-scale and covers the past four glacial/inter-glacial cycles (420 kyr) with a resolution of 1 to 2 kyr (Petit et al., 1999; Fischer et al., 1999). The general pattern is clear (Figure 3.2d): atmospheric CO2 has been low (but 180 ppm) during glacial periods, and higher (but 300 ppm) during interglacials. Natural processes during the glacial-interglacial cycles have maintained CO2 concentrations within these bounds, despite considerable variability on multi-millenial time-scales. The present CO2 concentration is higher than at any time during the 420 kyr period covered by the Vostok record…

    and

    The terrestrial biosphere stores 300 to 700 Pg more carbon during interglacial periods than during glacial periods, based on a widely accepted interpretation of the 13C record in deep-sea sediments (Shackleton, 1977; Bird et al., 1994; Crowley, 1995). Terrestrial modelling studies (e.g., Friedlingstein et al., 1995b; Peng et al., 1998) have reached the same conclusion. Thus, the terrestrial biosphere does not cause the difference in atmospheric CO2 between glacial and interglacial periods. The cause must lie in the ocean, and indeed the amount of atmospheric change to be accounted for must be augmented to account for a fraction of the carbon transferred between the land and ocean. The mechanism remains controversial (see Box 3.4). In part this is because a variety of processes that could be effective in altering CO2 levels on a century time-scale can be largely cancelled on multi-millenial time-scales by changes in CaCO3 sedimentation or dissolution, as discussed in Section 3.2.3.1.

    and

    Orbital variations (Berger, 1978) are the pacemaker of climate change on multi-millenial time-scales (Hays et al., 1976). Atmospheric CO2 is one of many Earth system variables that show the characteristic “Milankovitch” periodicities, and has been implicated as a key factor in locking natural climate changes to the 100 kyr eccentricity cycle (Shackleton, 2000). Whatever the mechanisms involved, lags of up to 2,000 to 4,000 years in the drawdown of CO2 at the start of glacial periods suggests that the low CO2 concentrations during glacial periods amplify the climate change but do not initiate glaciations (Lorius and Oeschger, 1994; Fischer et al., 1999). Once established, the low CO2 concentration is likely to have enhanced global cooling (Hewitt and Mitchell, 1997). During the last deglaciation, rising CO2 paralleled Southern Hemisphere warming and was ahead of Northern Hemisphere warming (Chapter 2).

    During glacial periods, the atmospheric CO2 concentration does not track the “fast” changes in climate (e.g., decade to century scale warming events) associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events, although there are CO2 fluctuations of up to 20 ppm associated with the longer-lived events (Stauffer et al., 1998; Indermühle et al., 2000) (see Chapter 2 for explanations of these terms). During the last deglaciation, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to increase, by about 12 ppm, through the Younger Dryas cold reversal (12.7 to 11.6 kyr BP) seen in Northern Hemisphere palaeoclimate records (Fischer et al., 1999; Smith et al., 1999). Palaeo-oceanographic evidence shows that the Younger Dryas event was marked by a prolonged shut-down of the thermohaline circulation, which is likely to have been triggered by the release of melt water into the North Atlantic. Similar behaviour, with a slight rise in CO2 accompanying a major Northern Hemisphere cooling and shutdown of North Atlantic Deep Water production, has been produced in a coupled atmosphere-ocean model (Marchal et al., 1998). The observed CO2 rise during the Younger Dryas period was modest, suggesting that atmospheric CO2 has, under natural conditions, been well buffered against abrupt changes in climate, including thermohaline collapse. This buffering is a direct consequence of the large reservoir of DIC in the ocean.

    Also, an interesting study (July 25, 2006) about the same subject, was this:

    http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2006/20060725icesheets.html

    Ice Sheets Drive Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels, Inverting Previous Ice-Age Theory, New Study Shows

    In a later message, I will try to give an update of this from the 5th and last assessment report (IPCC) of 2013.

    Kind Regards,

  • Joe
    August 4, 2015 at 5:42 PM

    Daniel De Caluwe,

    If having higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere of a planet results in higher temperatures; and, conversely, having lower concentrations of CO2 results in lower temperatures; how does Nature remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere to cause an Ice Age, since the factors responsible for initially placing the CO2 in the atmosphere (eg biological activity, volcanic activity, fires due to lightning strikes) never cease to exist?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 4, 2015 at 5:39 PM

    Glenn Forrester:
    Too simple to be so simple, but just to give an idea: spontaneous break of Symmetry ( Global Symmetry) shows non zero values vacuum fields, among which there lurks the Higgs Field; Higgs Field breaks the Local ( Gauge) Symmetry: the Higgs Field is not supposed to interact with massless e.p. ( Bosons), but, concatenating Feynman diagrams, massive virtual e.p. fill up the gap between the Higgs Field and massless particles, which in this case are the Bosons W+, W- and Z^0, so that they are turned into Fermions.
    Note: I think Bosons and Fermions should have to be written with capital initial, because they come from Bose and Fermi, the Indian and Italian nuclear physicists respectively discoverers of Bosons and Fermions.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 4, 2015 at 5:24 PM

    This morning at 2 a.m. we had again a problem to one of the four 250 kW reactors. We lost the 25% of the production until 4 p.m. ( a couple of hours ago), when the reactor has been put again at work.
    Normal behavior regarding the rest of the plant. The “M.Me Curie” Hot Cat is not yet ready. In few words: a battle day. Now we are looking at the computers to check that all is set. The Murphy Law is enforced by the fact that problems happens always between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., when I am in the plant alone, apart the officers of the security. I spend the nights with the fatigue clothes to be ready to dive in the plant. Therefore for me is a sadistic solace to phone at 3 a.m. to my teamsters, saying ” We have a problem, please come here asap” ( he,he,he).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Brad Beaver
    August 4, 2015 at 3:39 PM

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Please give us an update! What happened in the last 24 hours?
    Cheers,
    Brad

  • Glenn Forrester
    August 4, 2015 at 3:36 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    Can you explain with your “in a nutshell” style how bosons are turned into fermions by the Higgs Boson?
    Thank you,
    Glenn Forrester

  • James Rovnak
    August 4, 2015 at 3:30 PM

    Andrea very interesting post on Padua Reheat test cool down period today by me 356 on persistent heat in last hot spot area – Think some persistent LENR showing up?

    “”It is great that Triac circuit worked that well and nothing really failed.

    Today there was a moment, when I started the cooling process, but hot spot on the left side didn’t changed temperature for long time as it was powered by something else. Everything including average of L decreased temperature by more than 100°C.

    So there were really interesting phenomenons, but we can’t still be sure what really happened.

    Cell is maybe little bit bent, wire at the ends seems to be good. There are no cracks visible. So it looks like before the run.”

    Hot spot persisting far into shutdown. I mentioned yesterday that hot spot was wandering during Padua Reheat testing from side to side on fuel element & that I thought (ssm) LENR was trying to take hold & possible grow, but the unidirectional current flow through the heating coil did not seem to be helping. I still believe that had it been possible to reverse power source leads to coil via solid state relays at various frequencies the test might have presented a replication of Lugano significance. The current pulses would look much like those shown in the Lugano report in the PCE 380 picture.

    Jim

    PS Hope you had a chance to via Smothers Brothers visit to the Boston Pops years ago!

  • Paul
    August 4, 2015 at 2:58 PM

    Andrea,

    With regards to retrofitting coal burning power plants, as long as the plant is still burning some coal, the current permits are valid. You are just adding technology to reduce the plant’s carbon emissions.

    Paul

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 4, 2015 at 11:18 AM

    Daniel G. Zavela:
    1- Leonardo Corporation
    2- the Board of Directors of Leonardo Corporation, in collaboration with the Licensees on the base of their specific agreements and Territories
    3- Leonardo Corporation and the Licensees that have also the manufacturing license
    4- Leonardo Corporation and the commercial Licensees in their Territories
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 4, 2015 at 11:15 AM

    James Rovnak:
    Thank you for the update!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 4, 2015 at 11:15 AM

    Frank Aclkand:
    Both modes are possible.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 4, 2015 at 11:14 AM

    Gian:
    The maintainance is the same between Cats and Tigers.
    M.me Curie is still in remaking process: by the end of this week we should have it in operation.
    Thank you for your kind words,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • gian
    August 4, 2015 at 11:05 AM

    Ringrazio per la tua cortese risposta.
    Mi attendevo che dopo la grossa rivelazione
    degli alti valori di COP raggiunti in regime SSM,
    tu potessi dare alle migliaia di tuoi sostenitori
    altre piccole ma preziose informazioni.
    Comprendo le tue buone ragioni.

    Senza voler infrangere i vincoli della riservatezza
    posso chiedere se:
    in questi giorni i grandi Hot Cats richiedono minor
    assistenza dei loro più piccoli, ma più numerosi
    fratellini?
    Madame Curie è tornata a dare le soddisfazioni del suo
    debutto?
    Con sempre viva simpatia e stima i nostri più cordiali saluti.
    _____________________________________________

    Thank you for your kind response.
    I expected that after the big revelation of the
    high COP values achieved under SSM,
    You could give tto the thousands of your supporters
    other small but valuable information.

    Without breaking the bonds of confidentiality
    I ask if:
    these days the great Hot Cats require less
    care of their smaller but more numerous
    brothers?
    Madame Curie is back to give the satisfactions of his
    debut?
    Always with great sympathy and respect
    our most cordial regards.

  • Frank Acland
    August 4, 2015 at 10:48 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    Is it possible for the 1 MW plant to be in ‘partial’ SSM — meaning that some reactors are in SSM, while other are in non-SSM?

    Or is it the case that in SSM, the whole plant is self-sustaining?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  • James Rovnak
    August 4, 2015 at 10:40 AM

    Andrea some nice work by Ecco at MFMP on finite element simulation of magnetic fields in & near their fuel elements. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/499-how-the-get-the-right-catalyst Note finite element anlysis by Ecco on magnetic fields in & around fuel elements. I believe their controlled oscillations lead to initiation & control of LENR process?

    IMHO Jim

    I think me356 unidirectional current in last test did not stimulate (ssm) LENR process to very observable levels. However hot spot was seen to shift many times during their long duration run. Just maybe local LENR was trying to take hold & if some solid state relays could have been programmed to switch polarity on coils at various frequencies they would have had a much more successful test. That would have better replicated square wave current pattern shown in Lugano report & which I believe are necessary to initiate & control & either spread or reduce LENR active areas in replicator’s expeeriments.

    Well have a nice day Andrea, in the 90 hear in Boston & if you care for a little Boston music try this performance from the past & pay close attention to the very end & piano players instructions to Tommy. https://youtu.be/FrU_C7toDJk

    Jim

  • Daniel G. Zavela
    August 4, 2015 at 9:56 AM

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    To avoid confusion:
    1- who is the owner of the Intellectual Property related to the E-Cat and the so called Rossi Effect?
    2- who will decide the global industrial and commercial strategy for the E-Cats?
    3- who will manufacture the E-Cats?
    4- who will sell the E-Cats?
    Wishing you good health and the best of luck with your important invention.

    Best Regards,

    Daniel G. Zavela

  • Andrea Rossi
    August 4, 2015 at 8:22 AM

    Peter Forsberg:
    I totally agree with this comment of yours,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 24

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>