Being old, I remember a computer company that came out when personal computers started becoming popular (before Bill Gates). They had the majority of the personal computer market until they announced that they had a next generation personal computer that was going to be far superior to their present model. But it was not quite ready for market.
Before they could get the next generation to market, their sales died up. No one wanted to buy their computer because the next generation was going to be so great. They went out of business before the next generation computer was ready for the market. “Grow like a weed, die like a weed”
It has just occurred to me that I should have qualified my earlier comment about the analogy between an internal combustion engine and Andrea’s Ecat, when I had said:
“October 23, 2019 at 5:52 PM
” …….. No one is claiming that an Ecat in SSM is a perpetual motion machine, any more than anyone imagines an internal combustion engine to be one.”
I now realize I should have added a qualification to the following effect:
“Unless, of course, the charge in the Ecat were to turn out to be not ‘fuel’ but ‘merely’ a catalyst, serving the purpose of accessing a previously unsuspected reserve of energy apparently located in a place beyond the detection capabilities of 20th century technology.”
This possibility seems unlikely. But so does the already-demonstrated performance of the Ecat. But were this to be true then the Ecat could indeed, for all practical purposes, be regarded as a perpetual motion machine, depending on the size of the energy reserve involved.
For example, were an Ecat in SSM determined to be deriving its energy from the quantum vaccuum, or some other equally esoteric source, then the reserve might as well be regarded as infinite: our universe is, after all, a rather large place.
I am not arguing that this is likely. But the very slow exhaustion rate of the tiny charge in the Ecat provokes suspicions that the charge may not be acting as fuel.
No doubt Andrea’s knowledge of nuclear physics, as demonstrated in his ResearchGate paper, and his experience with his Ecat experiments will, between them, enable him to rule out this possibility quickly.
Hello Andrea,
is it correct to say that the permanent SSM is mandatory to spread the ECAT in the automotive market, including of course trucks, boats and so on.
Best Regards, Giuseppe
I fail to see the need for an infinite COP, i.e., a self-sustaining eCat reaction. Using the gasoline internal combustion analogy, the gasoline engine is not self-sustaining except that it diverts a small portion of its energy produced to run a generator (or equivalent in piston aircraft). The generator provides the electrical power to control the gasoline engine. Likewise, a small portion of the light energy (including UV) could be used to generate electricity via solar cells or the equivalent to sustain the eCat reaction. Unless the achieved direct electrical conversion exceeds the efficiency in Carnot based solutions (nominally around 40%), what is the point? Can you clarify the issue? Is the issue reliability, cost, efficiency, or something else?
What do you think will be the development of your work over the next six months? Make a reliable forecast. In mid-2020, at what point will it be?
Thanks
Chuck Davis, Dan C, eernie1. I believe we are all on the same page but each of us have our own dialogue with regards our specialities but our page is the advancement of science and technology, so let’s, let go of old ideas. The E-Cat I believe will not use old technology to become self sustainable. The technology required will be that required for interplanetary communication and therefore, I believe, will be kept secret from the general public because it will be used to complete a necessary programme to exit from that which is old, into that which is new or it could be said ‘o dus’ it do that?. I believe it to be the final frontier in physics. Regards, Eric Ashworth
P.S. I am not saying it will not be used for clean energy but down the road it will be required to complete a programme.
Dan C’s analogy comparing the Ecat SK Leonardo with an internal combustion engine is very helpful. No one is claiming that an Ecat in SSM is a perpetual motion machine, any more than anyone imagines an internal combustion engine to be one.
The contrast between them is, of course, the difference in the quantity of retrievable energy per dollar spent between gasoline and the charge in Andrea’s Ecat.
Anonymous:
It is their problem, not mine. My problem is not the appointment of thousands of persons, my problem is to make a perfect machine for billions of persons. I am working for this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Chuck Davis,
I definitely would like to hear your side of the story. I might add that my experience with nuclear fission goes back to the 1950’s including direct contact with persons involved with the U of Chicago and Argonne national labs.
Curious regards.
Why we spend so much on Hot Fusion (ITER)
In the 70’s the U.S. & Russia had SALT treaty. An agreement on how many additional new nukes each would add to their arsenals. Ultimately the 2 had about 50K various nuclear weapons each. This requires a vast number of nuclear physicists & engineers to build and maintain.
In the 80’s, Reagan & Gorbachev brought about START (Strategic Arms reduction treaty). This lead to an agreement to reduce these arsenals by about 90%. This leaves a vast number of unneeded nuclear physicists & engineers unemployed with families to provide for. This was of great international concern as a portion of them may go to work building nuclear programs for other nations leading to nuclear proliferation. This was even discussed in the news media at the time.
Mostly facts from news articles & a little conjecture. There was a lot of international closed door discussions with agreement that many or at least 1 major project or both was needed to keep these people busy. Greatly increasing funding for Hot Fusion filled the bill. For the 2 primary parties this just involved redirecting a portion of what was previously spent building and maintaining their arsenals. No additional funds required.
That Hot Fusion was possible or not didn’t matter as long as it required decades of R&D. Thus the number of nuclear physicists and engineers could be reduced by natural attrition.(retired or died) Justification of these expenditures by politicians is that knowledge from the R&D may well apply to other fields of endeavor.
Unfortunately, attrition only works if you reduce supply. Academia saw Hot Fusion as a great opportunity. Universities get a very healthy chunk of R&D grants to spend as they see fit(free money). The incentive is for them to produce more graduates in the field. Thus, keeping the endeavor of Hot Fusion going indefinitely is in their best financial interests.
To the University’s money is all important.
Well, what about education and knowledge???
Hello A. Rossi
You said you still lacked watts.
I hope that you and your team will succeed in extracting these precious watts necessary to make your invention autonomous.
Can you tell us how many watts are needed?
All my best wishes for R & D success
Best regards
Raffaele
@Dan C.
We are in agreement in respect to the perspective!
If the SSM Ecat is successful, it will be a genesis for a new era.
@Eernie1,
Please don’t even get me started with the nuclear fission !
Warm Regards,
Chuck Davis
Keturah Ulmen:
I did not authorize it and that patent application is obviously a fraud, probably made to bamboolize some investor. Clearly, the patent application is a copy and clearly its date is after the date of our publication that is the paper on Researchgate dated January 14th 2019, while the photo on http://www.ecatskdemo.com has been broadcasted in direct streaming on January 31st 2019.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ed Darakjian:
I still believe that it is not impossible. We are getting closer by the day. We are continuing to buy new components and to make new inventions to get it. In Italy we say ” manca sempre 1 per fare 31 ” ( it takes always 1 to make 31 ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Heinz Souse:
Thank you for the information. In this moment, though, I am totally dedicated to the R&D to make the Ecat SK leonaerdo in permanent SSM.
In future, if they are interested, I will be delighted to be invited.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Watching http://www.ecatskdemo.com
I noticed that the photo of the spectrum in the 430-440 nm range has been copied in a patent application made after your publication from your competitors…did you authorize it?
Joseph:
I know about it. The Swedish scientific journalist Mats Lewan will present an interesting lecture, among other important scientists. I will not attend, because I am working 14 hour a day as an average on the Ecat SK leonardo with permanent ssm, but I will surely read the publications and also I wish good luck to the organization Team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
You said of SSM “I think that this is an achievement never reached in the history of mankind”
It’s a matter of perspective. An internal combustion engine is an SSM system. The engine attached to a fuel source is initially started by applying electrical energy supplied by a battery. It continues to operate in SSM by producing its own electrical input(alternator) and will continue to do so until the fuel is exhausted or we turn it off.
An E-cat reactor being an engine with self contained fuel is the same principle. Andrea ONLY needs to add a hardware device that serves a similar purpose as the alternator in an IC engine. Thus SSM will be achieved.
Dr Rossi:
The BEM Conference of November 9-10 2019 in the Netherlands will present many scientists talking about the new energies: will you participate or attend?
Dear Andrea,
in the German Ministry of Education and Research it was decided to set up a jump innovation agency in Leipzig.
Would you be interested to make an address about the Ecat ?
Best Regards,
Heinz Souse
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Can you tell us if you still believe that the permanent SSM Ecat SK Leonardo will be presented within this year ? We are approaching November…
Dear Chuck Davis
Nuclear fission is a developed self sustained process caused by reflected neutrons and controlled by limiting the number of neutrons involved in the process.
Self sustained regards.
Dear eernie1 I agree with everything you say but nuclear fission is old technology. I agree along with many other people it has many uses but it does have limitations and drawbacks. When Andrea puts his E-Cat into self sustain mode everybody will be surprised but none more so than those in academia. I would not be surprised that small nuclear fission reactors will still be around but not for producing industrial or household electricity but I believe, it will not happen overnight and who knows the technology may remain a secret for many years to come, even when it is being used. We live in very exciting times.
Regards Eric Ashworth
Dear Andrea:
Most bloggers are starting to think that you can reach the permanent SSM, but I think that this is an achievement never reached in the history of mankind and you could fail. Even so, I will remain always with you.
Warm Regards,
Chuck Davis
Dear Eric Ashworth,
At the risk of boring the readers of this site, I would like to present a few facts about fission energy devices. First, the reason spent fuel rods are not disposed of permanently(which can be done in a number of ways)is that they contain materials of high value. The reason they are stored and not refurbished at present is that it is cheaper to assemble and use new rods from available materials. When the required quantities of rods need to be increased, they will be refurbished. Second, the technology involved in using nuclear fusion as a source of energy is well known and able to be refined for use. Third, the products of used rods(radioactive isotopes) are used in medicine and detection devices in industry.
There are other uses for these materials and if you are interested I will try to explain them in future blogs. Until then I remain,
Your correspondent.
1) Perfecting your theory
2) Building some new apparatus/material
3) More trial and error experimentation
4) Getting more expert help
5) Something else
@Dr Accornero:
in your comment you bring the actual revolution to the point: independence from the grid System.
Tey will resist, but I remember Prof Vladimir Vysottskii: “The Ghost is out of the bottle and can’t be put back on it”
Dear Andrea,
It has been, what is it …3 months now? when you said that you were very, very, very close to SSM. Between that stage of development and the stage having reached SSM is very little space, maybe a micron?
Still you have not smoked the cigar of victory. Does this mean that you did not make any progress since?
Hope to hear from you how things go. Success!
Kind regards, Gerard
when you say you are “very close to SSM” do you mean a few watts are still missing or some other reasons, like reliability, prevent you from smoking the sigar.
Dear eenie 1. Thank you for your information Oct 19th. With regards your infinite COP, “if the fuel could be made infinite in supply”. I presume you are referring to the elimination of the entire amount of fuel. My reply is, in a perfected system this would occur and yes, I believe it possible. I must inform you that I am an independent researcher that has been acknowledged in scientific circles that what I have developed is categorized as before its time by some and by others as a destructive technology i.e. it supersedes a present day technology. I know very little with regards present day understanding of nuclear energy because I have no interest in a technology that is impractical and flawed. I am not denying that your technology is not producing energy but at what costs, one being the unavoidable pollution of an incomplete process and the other of being able to enter a runaway reaction. Both well known and documented. I believe that when a person has limited information it is natural and commendable for that person to hold dear to his belief because that is what he believes. Your desire is such and I respect your opinion but it is based on a limited amount of understanding. I do not intend this as a ‘put-down’ but as a truism that could be proven tomorrow, next week or next year dependent upon the present day circumstances by which I mean an acceptance to first understand then put into practice and finally prove a concept which at the moment appears impossible.
Regards, Eric Ashworth
Dear Dan C, Thank you for the link regarding the ITER project for it has answered my original question. The research physicist has explained the real reason for ITER which I now realize and makes sense, is a research experiment to achieve a phenomena and not the development of a method to produce unlimited quantities of cheap clean energy. It is basically a very expensive toy or as I think a distraction to keep experts away from the real quest which is and maybe Andrea will not agree with this but LENRs/Cold Fusion/ Long Range Particle Interactions, the label is totally irrelevant, in self sustain mode. People do ask, is self sustain mode that important. I believe it is because to produce electricity requires energy and to use energy produced by any other method, other than Long Range Particle Interactions, inhibits the purpose of Andrea’s project.
Regards Eric Ashworth
Dear Prof Neri Accornero:
Thank you for your intelligent, as always, analysis. I agree with you in toto.
We are very close to SSM, though, and I want it, dead or alive.
Thank you for your continue attention to our work,
Andrea Rossi
Dear Andrea
Politicians, economists and contractors, who cannot imagine a different future, continue to plan traditional, fossil or renewable energies. Now they do not talk about nuclear because the watchword is “green”, and they want to make people believe that cars, by the mere fact of being electric, they are. Nobody, however, talks about how batteries are built, recharged and disposed of. In Italy they have already filled almost all the mountains with a multitude of expensive wind towers, just because it was a big deal for someone…, certainly not for tax payers. The latest proposals, listen, are then to build huge photovoltaic systems in Sahara and transfer, necessarily with gigantic cables, the energy needed in Europe !! But can one be so stupid or in bad faith?
Even now no one has noticed your extraordinary invention, not a nod in the media for a long time now, I can understand that you want to proceed quietly before definitely entering the market, which you will surely upset, but the years pass quickly and the world is thirsty for energy with all the international conflicts that ensue. Your responsibility unfortunately increases from month to month, now I don’t allow myself to solicit you too much and I certainly don’t want to intrude on your industrial programs but allow me a consideration: delay the marketing until your system shows a stability in the direct production of electricity for SSM it does not seem so decisive. Given the high COP of your system and the inevitable surplus of available thermal energy, even an inefficient Peltier panel could supply enough energy to recharge a commercial battery, if I remember the energy for SSM is really minimal.
Excuse my outburst, but in addition to the epochal change you are about to propose, I would like to see your value publicly recognized and … the U-turn of all your detractors.
Best regards Andrea.
Hello DR Rossi
This is a link to an article about
Henry Ford and the V8 Engine
and bringing it to Market.
https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/articles/2018/10/22/henry-ford-produced-v-8-for-the-masses
Regards
Sam
Giuseppe:
Thank you for your sustain,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Rodney Nicholson:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
Intelligent meditation, but I will come out of the cage only when I will have the permanent SSM.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Being old, I remember a computer company that came out when personal computers started becoming popular (before Bill Gates). They had the majority of the personal computer market until they announced that they had a next generation personal computer that was going to be far superior to their present model. But it was not quite ready for market.
Before they could get the next generation to market, their sales died up. No one wanted to buy their computer because the next generation was going to be so great. They went out of business before the next generation computer was ready for the market. “Grow like a weed, die like a weed”
A word of caution.
It has just occurred to me that I should have qualified my earlier comment about the analogy between an internal combustion engine and Andrea’s Ecat, when I had said:
“October 23, 2019 at 5:52 PM
” …….. No one is claiming that an Ecat in SSM is a perpetual motion machine, any more than anyone imagines an internal combustion engine to be one.”
I now realize I should have added a qualification to the following effect:
“Unless, of course, the charge in the Ecat were to turn out to be not ‘fuel’ but ‘merely’ a catalyst, serving the purpose of accessing a previously unsuspected reserve of energy apparently located in a place beyond the detection capabilities of 20th century technology.”
This possibility seems unlikely. But so does the already-demonstrated performance of the Ecat. But were this to be true then the Ecat could indeed, for all practical purposes, be regarded as a perpetual motion machine, depending on the size of the energy reserve involved.
For example, were an Ecat in SSM determined to be deriving its energy from the quantum vaccuum, or some other equally esoteric source, then the reserve might as well be regarded as infinite: our universe is, after all, a rather large place.
I am not arguing that this is likely. But the very slow exhaustion rate of the tiny charge in the Ecat provokes suspicions that the charge may not be acting as fuel.
No doubt Andrea’s knowledge of nuclear physics, as demonstrated in his ResearchGate paper, and his experience with his Ecat experiments will, between them, enable him to rule out this possibility quickly.
Rodney.
Hello Andrea,
is it correct to say that the permanent SSM is mandatory to spread the ECAT in the automotive market, including of course trucks, boats and so on.
Best Regards, Giuseppe
Giorgio IV:
I do not have a cristal ball.
The potential scenarios are many.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N. Karels:
The issue is much more complicated and I cannot give these particulars.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I fail to see the need for an infinite COP, i.e., a self-sustaining eCat reaction. Using the gasoline internal combustion analogy, the gasoline engine is not self-sustaining except that it diverts a small portion of its energy produced to run a generator (or equivalent in piston aircraft). The generator provides the electrical power to control the gasoline engine. Likewise, a small portion of the light energy (including UV) could be used to generate electricity via solar cells or the equivalent to sustain the eCat reaction. Unless the achieved direct electrical conversion exceeds the efficiency in Carnot based solutions (nominally around 40%), what is the point? Can you clarify the issue? Is the issue reliability, cost, efficiency, or something else?
What do you think will be the development of your work over the next six months? Make a reliable forecast. In mid-2020, at what point will it be?
Thanks
Chuck Davis, Dan C, eernie1. I believe we are all on the same page but each of us have our own dialogue with regards our specialities but our page is the advancement of science and technology, so let’s, let go of old ideas. The E-Cat I believe will not use old technology to become self sustainable. The technology required will be that required for interplanetary communication and therefore, I believe, will be kept secret from the general public because it will be used to complete a necessary programme to exit from that which is old, into that which is new or it could be said ‘o dus’ it do that?. I believe it to be the final frontier in physics. Regards, Eric Ashworth
P.S. I am not saying it will not be used for clean energy but down the road it will be required to complete a programme.
Dan C’s analogy comparing the Ecat SK Leonardo with an internal combustion engine is very helpful. No one is claiming that an Ecat in SSM is a perpetual motion machine, any more than anyone imagines an internal combustion engine to be one.
The contrast between them is, of course, the difference in the quantity of retrievable energy per dollar spent between gasoline and the charge in Andrea’s Ecat.
Rodney.
Dan C.:
Intelligent insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Anonymous:
It is their problem, not mine. My problem is not the appointment of thousands of persons, my problem is to make a perfect machine for billions of persons. I am working for this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Raffaele Bongo:
Sorry, I can only say that we are very close.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Chuck Davis,
I definitely would like to hear your side of the story. I might add that my experience with nuclear fission goes back to the 1950’s including direct contact with persons involved with the U of Chicago and Argonne national labs.
Curious regards.
Dear Andrea,
Why we spend so much on Hot Fusion (ITER)
In the 70’s the U.S. & Russia had SALT treaty. An agreement on how many additional new nukes each would add to their arsenals. Ultimately the 2 had about 50K various nuclear weapons each. This requires a vast number of nuclear physicists & engineers to build and maintain.
In the 80’s, Reagan & Gorbachev brought about START (Strategic Arms reduction treaty). This lead to an agreement to reduce these arsenals by about 90%. This leaves a vast number of unneeded nuclear physicists & engineers unemployed with families to provide for. This was of great international concern as a portion of them may go to work building nuclear programs for other nations leading to nuclear proliferation. This was even discussed in the news media at the time.
Mostly facts from news articles & a little conjecture. There was a lot of international closed door discussions with agreement that many or at least 1 major project or both was needed to keep these people busy. Greatly increasing funding for Hot Fusion filled the bill. For the 2 primary parties this just involved redirecting a portion of what was previously spent building and maintaining their arsenals. No additional funds required.
That Hot Fusion was possible or not didn’t matter as long as it required decades of R&D. Thus the number of nuclear physicists and engineers could be reduced by natural attrition.(retired or died) Justification of these expenditures by politicians is that knowledge from the R&D may well apply to other fields of endeavor.
Unfortunately, attrition only works if you reduce supply. Academia saw Hot Fusion as a great opportunity. Universities get a very healthy chunk of R&D grants to spend as they see fit(free money). The incentive is for them to produce more graduates in the field. Thus, keeping the endeavor of Hot Fusion going indefinitely is in their best financial interests.
To the University’s money is all important.
Well, what about education and knowledge???
Uhh ahh, sure, ok, why not…
Warm regards,
Dan C.
Hello A. Rossi
You said you still lacked watts.
I hope that you and your team will succeed in extracting these precious watts necessary to make your invention autonomous.
Can you tell us how many watts are needed?
All my best wishes for R & D success
Best regards
Raffaele
@Dan C.
We are in agreement in respect to the perspective!
If the SSM Ecat is successful, it will be a genesis for a new era.
@Eernie1,
Please don’t even get me started with the nuclear fission !
Warm Regards,
Chuck Davis
Keturah Ulmen:
I did not authorize it and that patent application is obviously a fraud, probably made to bamboolize some investor. Clearly, the patent application is a copy and clearly its date is after the date of our publication that is the paper on Researchgate dated January 14th 2019, while the photo on http://www.ecatskdemo.com has been broadcasted in direct streaming on January 31st 2019.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ed Darakjian:
I still believe that it is not impossible. We are getting closer by the day. We are continuing to buy new components and to make new inventions to get it. In Italy we say ” manca sempre 1 per fare 31 ” ( it takes always 1 to make 31 ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Heinz Souse:
Thank you for the information. In this moment, though, I am totally dedicated to the R&D to make the Ecat SK leonaerdo in permanent SSM.
In future, if they are interested, I will be delighted to be invited.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Watching
http://www.ecatskdemo.com
I noticed that the photo of the spectrum in the 430-440 nm range has been copied in a patent application made after your publication from your competitors…did you authorize it?
Joseph:
I know about it. The Swedish scientific journalist Mats Lewan will present an interesting lecture, among other important scientists. I will not attend, because I am working 14 hour a day as an average on the Ecat SK leonardo with permanent ssm, but I will surely read the publications and also I wish good luck to the organization Team.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
1- No
2- Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
1. Are you sure now that permanent SSM with the SK Leonardo will work?
2. Is your work now mainly involved in building the apparatus that will make permanent SSM possible?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
@ Chuck Davis
You said of SSM “I think that this is an achievement never reached in the history of mankind”
It’s a matter of perspective. An internal combustion engine is an SSM system. The engine attached to a fuel source is initially started by applying electrical energy supplied by a battery. It continues to operate in SSM by producing its own electrical input(alternator) and will continue to do so until the fuel is exhausted or we turn it off.
An E-cat reactor being an engine with self contained fuel is the same principle. Andrea ONLY needs to add a hardware device that serves a similar purpose as the alternator in an IC engine. Thus SSM will be achieved.
Note that “ONLY” being a tall order.
Regards
Dan C.
Dr Rossi:
The BEM Conference of November 9-10 2019 in the Netherlands will present many scientists talking about the new energies: will you participate or attend?
Dear Andrea,
in the German Ministry of Education and Research it was decided to set up a jump innovation agency in Leipzig.
Would you be interested to make an address about the Ecat ?
Best Regards,
Heinz Souse
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Can you tell us if you still believe that the permanent SSM Ecat SK Leonardo will be presented within this year ? We are approaching November…
Dear Chuck Davis
Nuclear fission is a developed self sustained process caused by reflected neutrons and controlled by limiting the number of neutrons involved in the process.
Self sustained regards.
Dear eernie1 I agree with everything you say but nuclear fission is old technology. I agree along with many other people it has many uses but it does have limitations and drawbacks. When Andrea puts his E-Cat into self sustain mode everybody will be surprised but none more so than those in academia. I would not be surprised that small nuclear fission reactors will still be around but not for producing industrial or household electricity but I believe, it will not happen overnight and who knows the technology may remain a secret for many years to come, even when it is being used. We live in very exciting times.
Regards Eric Ashworth
Rod Walton:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
On Power Engineering issue of October 22 2019:
Missouri regulators approve Ameren plan for 1000-plus EV charging stations.
Rod Walton
Chuck Davis:
Thank you for your kind sustain, but I will do it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea:
Most bloggers are starting to think that you can reach the permanent SSM, but I think that this is an achievement never reached in the history of mankind and you could fail. Even so, I will remain always with you.
Warm Regards,
Chuck Davis
Frank Acland:
2
Warm RegardsA.R.
Dear Eric Ashworth,
I inadvertently used nuclear fusion instead of nuclear fission in my previous blog. Please forgive me.
Regards
Dear Eric Ashworth,
At the risk of boring the readers of this site, I would like to present a few facts about fission energy devices. First, the reason spent fuel rods are not disposed of permanently(which can be done in a number of ways)is that they contain materials of high value. The reason they are stored and not refurbished at present is that it is cheaper to assemble and use new rods from available materials. When the required quantities of rods need to be increased, they will be refurbished. Second, the technology involved in using nuclear fusion as a source of energy is well known and able to be refined for use. Third, the products of used rods(radioactive isotopes) are used in medicine and detection devices in industry.
There are other uses for these materials and if you are interested I will try to explain them in future blogs. Until then I remain,
Your correspondent.
Dear Andrea,
Does SSM success depend on
1) Perfecting your theory
2) Building some new apparatus/material
3) More trial and error experimentation
4) Getting more expert help
5) Something else
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Rick57:
Ehhh, very difficult to answer… couls say some Watts missing.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Gerard McEk:
We are very close to success. I cannot say more than this. We are working very hard, believe me.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Dr Accornero:
in your comment you bring the actual revolution to the point: independence from the grid System.
Tey will resist, but I remember Prof Vladimir Vysottskii: “The Ghost is out of the bottle and can’t be put back on it”
Dear Andrea,
It has been, what is it …3 months now? when you said that you were very, very, very close to SSM. Between that stage of development and the stage having reached SSM is very little space, maybe a micron?
Still you have not smoked the cigar of victory. Does this mean that you did not make any progress since?
Hope to hear from you how things go. Success!
Kind regards, Gerard
Dear Andrea,
when you say you are “very close to SSM” do you mean a few watts are still missing or some other reasons, like reliability, prevent you from smoking the sigar.
Best Regards,
Riccardo
Dear eenie 1. Thank you for your information Oct 19th. With regards your infinite COP, “if the fuel could be made infinite in supply”. I presume you are referring to the elimination of the entire amount of fuel. My reply is, in a perfected system this would occur and yes, I believe it possible. I must inform you that I am an independent researcher that has been acknowledged in scientific circles that what I have developed is categorized as before its time by some and by others as a destructive technology i.e. it supersedes a present day technology. I know very little with regards present day understanding of nuclear energy because I have no interest in a technology that is impractical and flawed. I am not denying that your technology is not producing energy but at what costs, one being the unavoidable pollution of an incomplete process and the other of being able to enter a runaway reaction. Both well known and documented. I believe that when a person has limited information it is natural and commendable for that person to hold dear to his belief because that is what he believes. Your desire is such and I respect your opinion but it is based on a limited amount of understanding. I do not intend this as a ‘put-down’ but as a truism that could be proven tomorrow, next week or next year dependent upon the present day circumstances by which I mean an acceptance to first understand then put into practice and finally prove a concept which at the moment appears impossible.
Regards, Eric Ashworth
Dear Dan C, Thank you for the link regarding the ITER project for it has answered my original question. The research physicist has explained the real reason for ITER which I now realize and makes sense, is a research experiment to achieve a phenomena and not the development of a method to produce unlimited quantities of cheap clean energy. It is basically a very expensive toy or as I think a distraction to keep experts away from the real quest which is and maybe Andrea will not agree with this but LENRs/Cold Fusion/ Long Range Particle Interactions, the label is totally irrelevant, in self sustain mode. People do ask, is self sustain mode that important. I believe it is because to produce electricity requires energy and to use energy produced by any other method, other than Long Range Particle Interactions, inhibits the purpose of Andrea’s project.
Regards Eric Ashworth
Dear Prof Neri Accornero:
Thank you for your intelligent, as always, analysis. I agree with you in toto.
We are very close to SSM, though, and I want it, dead or alive.
Thank you for your continue attention to our work,
Andrea Rossi
Dear Andrea
Politicians, economists and contractors, who cannot imagine a different future, continue to plan traditional, fossil or renewable energies. Now they do not talk about nuclear because the watchword is “green”, and they want to make people believe that cars, by the mere fact of being electric, they are. Nobody, however, talks about how batteries are built, recharged and disposed of. In Italy they have already filled almost all the mountains with a multitude of expensive wind towers, just because it was a big deal for someone…, certainly not for tax payers. The latest proposals, listen, are then to build huge photovoltaic systems in Sahara and transfer, necessarily with gigantic cables, the energy needed in Europe !! But can one be so stupid or in bad faith?
Even now no one has noticed your extraordinary invention, not a nod in the media for a long time now, I can understand that you want to proceed quietly before definitely entering the market, which you will surely upset, but the years pass quickly and the world is thirsty for energy with all the international conflicts that ensue. Your responsibility unfortunately increases from month to month, now I don’t allow myself to solicit you too much and I certainly don’t want to intrude on your industrial programs but allow me a consideration: delay the marketing until your system shows a stability in the direct production of electricity for SSM it does not seem so decisive. Given the high COP of your system and the inevitable surplus of available thermal energy, even an inefficient Peltier panel could supply enough energy to recharge a commercial battery, if I remember the energy for SSM is really minimal.
Excuse my outburst, but in addition to the epochal change you are about to propose, I would like to see your value publicly recognized and … the U-turn of all your detractors.
Best regards Andrea.