Rossi Blog Reader

This website tracks recent postings to Andrea Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics, sorting the entries with priority to Rossi's answers, which appear under each question.

• Need more context? We also have Rossi's entire blog on a single page.
• You can also keep an eye on Defkalion's latest postings to their forums.
• Website comments to the Webmaster (who has no contact or connection with Rossi).
• Email to Andrea Rossi - Journal Of Nuclear Physics

  1. Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    I report a communication released today from Industrial Heat:
    “Recently we become aware of information being distributed offering ownership,shares or prepurchase agreements for Energy Catalyzers (E-Cat) with request of money in the following Territories: North America, Central America, South America, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Emirates. As the lawful holders of the E-Cat rights and Intellectual Property in the above specified Territories, we want to clearly state that no such agreements are being offered to the public. If you receive a solicitation, we strongly encourage the public not to respond, provide personal information, or commit any resources.
    John T.Vaughn, Vice President
    Industrial Heat”

  2. Wladimir Guglinski

    Explanation on cold fusion reactions in the eCat by considering the “hole” in the electric field of the nuclei

    Joe wrote in October 23rd, 2014 at 1:34 AM

    Wladimir,
    If the “hole” in the electric field really exists, would not scientists have observed LENR many decades ago by simply applying “an external electromagnetic oscillatory field” to particles as you state, along with other measures?
    ————————————————————————–

    Dear Joe,

    It is not so easy as you think.

    First of all, you have to remember that according to the scientific criterium, the physicists have to propose the most simple solutions (avoiding conjectures). So, in general they consider the most simple models (from the physical physical viewpoint), and they develop a mathematical theory by applying it on that model.

    But suppose that the physical structure existing in the Nature is no so simple as they consider in their simple physical model. Well, in this case there is no way to develop a mathematical theory 100% satisfactory taking the simplest physical model, and that’s why the theorist has to adopt some paradoxical assumptions, like Gamow did. He tried to solve a paradox (the emission of alpha particles with energy lower than that of the Coulomb barrier) but he introduced other paradox, as I explain in my book Quantum Ring Theory.

    Let me tell you my last conclusion on how the “hole” in the electric field makes possible cold fusion to occur in Rossi’s eCat.

    We have to begin by understanding that the “hole” in the electric field does not allow a “free” passage of a particle within a nucleus.
    In the case of the 92U238, the alpha particle exits the nucleus with an energy of 4,2MeV, while the Coulomb barrier has 8,8MeV, and so the energy necessary to cross the electric barrier of the hole in the electric field of the 92U is 48% of the total Coulomb barrier in the rest of the electric field of the nucleus.

    The Fig. 1 ahead shows the three fields of a proton, as proposed in my paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in the JoNP. In the paper it is shown that from the double-field structure of the Fig. 1 it is possible to explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.

    FIG. 1
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_1-_3_fields_of_the_proton.png

    As the radius of the electric field has the magnitude of the Bohr’s radius 10^-11m, and the radius of the nucleus is 10^-15m, of course the Fig. 1 does not show the real proportion between the fields. The Fig. 2 show a better proportionality (but of course not real yet):

    FIG. 2
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_2-_3_fields_in_real_proportionality.png

    The nuclei also have their 3 fields like shown in the Fig. 2 for the proton. Let us see how a proton can enter within a Ni nucleus via the hole in the electric field of the Ni, in the Rossi’s eCat.

    Suppose the 3Li7 loses a neutron, and after some minutes the free neutron decays in a proton and electron. In the Don Borghi experiment he used a emf oscillatory field, which produces the ionization of the hydrogen atoms, and avoids the free electrons to be captured by the protons within the reactor. Then suppose that in the Rossi’s eCat the oscillatory emf avoids the proton to capture electrons, and so that proton resulted from the decay of the 3Li7 stays free (if the proton captures one electron and they form a hydrogen atom, the electron will have Coulomb repulsion with the electrons of the electrosphere around the Ni nucleus, and then the proton would not be able to enter within the Ni nucleus).

    According to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the nuclei have a structure formed by hexagonal floors, as shown in the link bellow, for the 46Pd nucleus. The distance “d” between the hexagonal floors has dilation and shrinkage, in order that the nucleus works as the below of an accordion, along the z-axis direction. I called it Accordion-Effect:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig4-coldFUSION-pamelaMOSIERboss.gif

    When two nuclei are aligned along the same direction, their Accordion-Effect can resonate, and probably the resonance can help a particle to enter within one of the nuclei. I suppose the best nucleus to get resonance with the Ni in the Ross’s eCat is the 52Te, used as catalyst in his reactor.

    For the occurrence of cold fusion, two 52Te nuclei have to form a sandwich with a Ni nucleus, as shown in the Fig. 3. All the six hole in the three electric fields have to be aligned along the same direction. The resonance due to the Accordion-Effect between the two 52Te and the Ni will help the proton to enter within the Ni nucleus, as explained ahead.

    FIG. 3
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_3-_sandwich_formed_by_two_52Te_and_one_Ni.png

    Consider that the ionized proton is captured by the sandwich, as shown in the Figure 4. As the electric field of the proton (shown in red) is positive, and the electric field of the Ni nucleus has negative electrons (shown in blue), the field of the proton has attraction with the field of the Ni.

    FIG. 4
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_4-_proton_captured_by_the_sandwich.png

    Note that, in spite of there is also attraction between the proton and the electrons of the 52Te, however the proton is attracted by the electrons of the Ni and the other 52Te bellow the Ni, while in the other side the proton has attraction with the electrons of only one 52Te. Therefore the proton will be pulled by the Ni, and the positive electric field of the proton gets overlap with the electric field of the Ni, as shown in the Fig. 5. The Accordion-Effect helps the overlap to occur.

    Also note that the positive pole of the magnetic field of the proton has attraction with the negative pole of the 52Te, while the negative pole of the proton has attraction with the positive pole of the 28Ni. Therefore the proton is submitted to an oscillatory zig-zag motion along the z-axis, and such zig-zag motion helps the field of the proton entering within the field of the 28Ni (probably also helped by the Accordion-Effec of the 28Ni).

    FIG. 5
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_5-_overlap_between_the_fields_of_proton_and_Ni.png

    Obviously, not only a proton can enter within a nucleus via cold fusion, but also the deuteron without electrons in its electrospere.

    So, we realize that cold fusion can occur via two ways:

    1- with the help of a lattice. Because the alignment between the two 52Te and the Ni in the sandwich can be helped with a lattice.

    2- with the help of the kinetic energy in a gas. The hot fusion occurs when a nucleon perforates the Coulomb barrier of the electric field of a nucleus but without entering via the “hole” in its electric field. This requires a very big kinetic energy, under high conditions of pressure and temperature. However, there is a little chance of a nucleon to enter within a nucleus via the hole in the electric field of the nucleus. The chance is very small, but sometimes it occurs. So, probably cold fusion occurs together with hot fusion in the Sun, but cold fusion occurs in very small scale compared with the hot fusion reactions.

    Regards
    Wlad

  3. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Yes, you are right, but otherwise it is quite impossible explain the expansion of the Universe: you say Dark Energy, yes, but energy has to come from some foundamental force and in this situation the force can only be gravitational; then, vibration in a gravitational field can only be generated from matter, which, in this situation can (so far) be hypotised only in the form of the Dark Matter.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  4. orsobubu

    Andrea, I also saw the Hubble images, and there is a funny thing. When looking these incredible photos, one has to pay attention if they are real or fake. I’m a lot more skeptic about Hubble than about the Sword! For example, the real, original n.39 presents a totally black background. Scientists calculated the optical distortion (gravitational lensing) made by the galaxy cluster over other extremely far galaxies in the distance behind the cluster, which is already 4 billions light years from us. They transformed these map in blue pixels with a gradient of transparency and superimposed it to the original photo, theoretically supposing that it could be a representation of the invisible dark matter. So the image is more a statistical graph than a real one. To give you an example, the skeptics believe that the Professors made the same Photoshop trick over the photos in the TPR2 to fake the color temperature variance of the Sword hehehee … now after long, hard debunking work they are supposing a negative luminescence to explain the inexplicable…

    Even more impressive is photo number 34, and in fact it is a total fake. As soon as I saw it, I wondered how it could be that a telescope could see an asteroid so distant as Uranus with that level of detail, like our Moon. It turned out that it is a digital 2D painting superimposed over a 3D model.

  5. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    I hope you are wrong. It is a so beautiful !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  6. Andrea Rossi

    Daniel De Caluwé:
    Very interesting, isnt it?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  7. Daniel De Caluwé

    Here is an article about it:

    Hubble Telescope Finds Ring of Dark Matter

    It appears to be an exceptionel ring of dark matter, due to a collision between two clusters:

    The team created simulations showing what happens when galaxy clusters collide. As the two clusters smash together, the dark matter, as calculated in the simulations, falls to the center of the combined cluster and sloshes back out. As the dark matter moves outward, it begins to slow down under the pull of gravity and pile up, like cars bunched up on a freeway.

    “By studying this collision, we are seeing how dark matter responds to gravity,” said team member Holland Ford, also of Johns Hopkins University. “Nature is doing an experiment for us that we can’t do in a lab, and it agrees with our theoretical models.”

    Tracing dark matter is not an easy task because it does not shine or reflect light. Astronomers can detect its influence only by how its gravity affects light. To find dark matter, astronomers study how faint light from more distant galaxies is distorted and smeared into arcs and streaks by the gravity of the dark matter in a foreground galaxy cluster. This powerful phenomenon is called gravitational lensing. By mapping the distorted light, astronomers can deduce the cluster’s mass and trace how dark matter is distributed in the cluster.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news98450367.html#jCp

  8. orsobubu

    >if comments go beyond the first page they are lost

    Ok, now finally we know that Dark Matter is mostly made of my spammed messages. :) I changed the address.

    Daniel De Caluwé, you say that the Sword (Star Wars jargon for the revolutionary E-cat) could fit inside the Standard theory, reserving a new physics to other non-Rossi effects. I could be wrong but perhaps there is another diplomatic possibility to reconcile Rossi’s, Guglinsky’s and your views. It is known that for applications of gravity at non-relativistic speeds, the Newtonian theory gives satisfactory results. Might be the case that the phenomena that take place within the Sword, especially for what really matters to Rossi, namely patents, industrialization, replicability, etc. can be explained by dosing “with a degree of flexibility” the standard theory without getting rid of it? In the future, certainly will exist a more comprehensive physical theory than the Standard, may be the QRT or another one, in the same way that, for gravity, there is the theory of Einstein explaining the acceleration at relativistic speeds. Inside this new theory, LENR in particular and in general all the other contradictory observed physical phenomena, would be explained in a more complete (though never definitive) manner, as Wlad wrote in his last post; this would mean that even the complete description of the Sword physics would need a proper place inside the new theory but, from the point of view of the explanation of the supposed transmutations, etc especially in regard to their engineering optimization, today it would not be strictly necessary to dig further theories, while the subset tools in the Standard one remain permanently valid for the revolutionary annihilation purposes of the Sword. Only my 2 cents.

  9. Dear Andrea,
    Yes I saw the photo (after clicking 39 times..microsoft), it’s impressive, being made of so large structure. About your thought of vibrations: perhaps such vibrations, if they exist, should be observable as gravity waves. Unfortunately LISA gravity wave mission was postponed into far future.
    regards, pekka

  10. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Both your last comments have been retrieved from me from the spam, where the Dark Energy had pulled them: probably your address is taken as an advertising from out robot. Next time you better use another address, because the fact that I found your comments is very casual: I have time only to look the first page of spammed messages, if comments go beyond the first page they are lost.
    I thought the mass of the Dark Matter could be the source of the vibrations in the gravitational fields that make the pull responsible for the expansion of the Universe..
    Did you see the photo? What a magnificence!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  11. Dear Andrea,
    A pull which makes the universe expand at accelerating pace is called Dark Energy. Dark Matter is a different thing: in collaboration with normal matter, he wants to resist such pull.
    regards, pekka

  12. Dear Andrea,
    Concerning your earlier reply to Joseph Fine. A pull which makes universe expand at accelerating pace is called Dark Energy, which is different from Dark Matter. Dark Matter resists such pull, as does normal matter.
    regards, /pekka

  13. Joseph Fine

    Andrea and Giannino,

    Perhaps Giannino Ferro Casagrande meant the Bilderberg group.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

    Joseph Fine

  14. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    About the Dark Matter, I saw right now a fantastic photo made by Hubble Telescope .
    If you google to “Striking Images from the Hubble Telescope” and go to photo 39 you will se how the Hubble made a photography of the Dark Matter !
    Is really beautiful and interesting. It is a photo of a ghostly ring of DM in the galaxy cluster designated Cl 0024 17.
    Well, now is more difficult to say that the Dark Matter does not exist. Probably the expansion of the Universe is pulled by the DM. This photo is really impressive.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  15. Andrea Rossi

    Frederic Maillard:
    I am not in charge for the commercial issues of IH.
    Thank you for your kind words,
    A.R.

  16. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi and readers,

    I saw this reference on Vortex-l discussing the possible detection of Dark Matter coming from the Sun. I am not sure if Dark Matter particles (Axions?) are considered to be Standard Physics, or whether this is an experimental error.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/world/astronomers-claim-dark-matter-breakthrough-2014102211#ixzz3Gu8tGFYT

    I don’t know if you have a similar effect occurring within your CAT. But apparently, your CAT is not showing any ill effects.

    Keep on keeping on,

    Joseph Fine

  17. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Got it; Giannino: why should I be afraid of this enlightened people? Our work is made to upgrade the quality of life of the mankind they work for.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  18. Frederic Maillard

    Dear Andrea,

    Many thanks for mankind !
    It’s important your wonderful invention has been confirmed once again in its effectiveness by the recent ITPR.

    Is IH looking for any other 1 MW industrial customer in parallel to the one which you mentioned several times recently ?

    If so, do IH plan to get several in parallel ?

    And in different industries ?

    Best wishes
    FM

  19. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Calaon,

    You posted on 11 Oct — “If you want I can detail on the collapse mechanism.” Could you please illuminate me?

  20. Andrea Rossi

    Dima Redko:
    Between 6 months and 1 year, unless major problems rise.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  21. Andrea Rossi

    Giannino Ferro Casagrande:
    Thank you for your kind appreciation, but: what the heck is Bidelberg?
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  22. Giannino Ferro Casagrande

    Ringrazio !!! Resto sempre in attesa di una Sua eventuale apertura verso la mia persona !!! Sempre più faccia molta attenzione al circolo Bidelberg !!! Io sono uno tra i primi ad aver aderito alla possibilità d’acquisto di un E_CAT domestico ! Un caro saluto a tutta la Sua squadra ; buon lavoro e a presto Giannino di Udine !!!!!!!!!

  23. Dima Redko

    Dear Andrea!
    In your opinion, how long the fine-tuning of the 1 megawatt plant may take?

  24. Dear all,
    in my post of the October 11th I said that the LENR are reactions of the type:

    Nu(N) + electron + p/d/t -> Nu(N+1) + photons

    This expression is not correct. The correct equation is in fact (as probably someone already noticed :) ):

    Nu(N) + electron + p/d/t -> Nu(N+1/2/3) + photons

    where the 1/2/3 corresponds to the three possible reacting particles: p/d/t.

    This is important because if in the interstitial sites there are nuclei of deuterium or tritium, the LENR can cause an isotope shift of 2 or 3 mass units at a time.

    Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  25. Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    Again are around fake websites selling shares or devices related to the E-Cat: I continue, consequently, to warn everybody that we are not selling shares or participations of any kind, we are not seeking public money under any form of Investments and that domestic E-Cats are not for sale, pending safety certification.
    Any offer of these or similar things is a fraud. Before paying to anybody a single cent, please inform us about what has been offered to you, so that we will inform our attorneys.
    You can contact anytime
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    and I strongly suggest to you to contact us before spending a single cent of your money.
    Warm Regards,
    Dr Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corp (CEO).

  26. Joe

    Wladimir,

    If the “hole” in the electric field really exists, would not scientists have observed LENR many decades ago by simply applying “an external electromagnetic oscillatory field” to particles as you state, along with other measures?

    All the best,
    Joe

  27. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in October 22nd, 2014 at 4:47 PM

    Wladimir,

    1)===================================
    2. Do you not think that a “hole” in the electric field of a nucleus as proposed by QRT would have been conjectured many decades ago by scientists after having applied the simple mechanism of, as you state, “an external electromagnetic oscillatory field” to particles and witnessing strange new phenomena? Could they have not, like you, deduced that the particles’ “holes” were being aligned to each other’s “oscillatory motion”?
    =====================================

    COMMENT
    Joe,
    I think no,
    because I did not deduce the “hole” suggested by the phenomena mentioned by you.

    When I discovered my new nuclear model with the central 2He4, I tried use it so that to calculate the binding energy of the light nuclei. I was using a mono-field concept of field (a Coulomb field surrounding the 2He4).
    After a long attempt, I arrived to the conclusion that it was impossible to get theoretically the binding energies.
    So, after a long meditation, I had concluded that there was need another second field, and so I discovered my double-field concept.
    Later I imagined how those two concentric fields could be formed by the electricitons of the aether, and when I found the shape of the fields I realized that there was a hole in those fields.

    Going in my work, later I discovered that the hole in the electric field could be the explanation of other phenomena, as for instance the puzzle of the alpha particles emission by the 92U, solved by that unsatisfactory solution proposed by Gamow.

    Therefore I did not discover the hole in the electric field because I was trying to explain some phenomena. Unlike, after the discovery of the hole in the electric field, I had realized that from that model of electric field some puzzles could be explained.

    .

    2) ====================================
    3. Does QRT explain the null magnetic dipole moment of even-even nuclei of Z = N (eg 8O16) by saying that, although the inner electric fields (negative) of the protons are carried by the protons in their orbit about the central 2He4 inside the nucleus, the outer electric fields (positive) of the protons are stationed IMMOBILE outside the nucleus and are therefore responsible for that observed property of a null magnetic dipole moment?
    ========================================

    No, Joe,
    the solution is more complex.
    I show the solution in the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted to JoNP five months ago. I suppose it will be published in the upcoming one or two months.
    So,
    please be patient, and wait the publication. Then we will be able to discuss it, in order to conclude if my solution is satisfactory.

    regards
    wlad

  28. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    The Professors of the ITP are independent from us.
    Now we of IH are focused on the industrial plant and the related R&D.
    Our Team has to make sure that the performance of the 1 MW plant respects the contract IH made with his Customer. There is no room for anything else, at the moment. I think for us the time of tests is over, because from now on the Third Party becomes the Customer, whose validation criteria are substantially based on how much money they make with a plant, i.e. how much money they save making heat with the plant. They are not very much interested to technicalities, with one exception: the plant must not emit any kind of pollution. That’s all: make money, do not pollute. Numbers will be just numbers, not comments.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  29. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    The authors of the Lugano report conclude their report by saying:

    “Moreover, the E-Cat results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source. Further investigations are required to guide the interpretational work, and one needs in particular as a first step detailed knowledge of all parameters affecting the E-Cat operation. Our work will continue in that direction.”

    You have mentioned that this report was the last of its kind. I am wondering whether the authors be able to continue any kind of study of the E-Cat in the future.

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  30. Joseph Fine

    Koen Vandewalle,

    Thanks again for shedding some light on this matter.

    Joseph Fine

  31. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    The reference on Vortex is interesting. As a Dark Matter of fact, D.M. is a logical implication of the pull that makes the expansion of the universe, so it has right of citizenship in the Standard Model Country. I am pretty sure this has nothing to do with the E-Cat, though.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  32. Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. Congratulations on the longest comment in the history of the JoNP. You have outdone yourself.

    2. Do you not think that a “hole” in the electric field of a nucleus as proposed by QRT would have been conjectured many decades ago by scientists after having applied the simple mechanism of, as you state, “an external electromagnetic oscillatory field” to particles and witnessing strange new phenomena? Could they have not, like you, deduced that the particles’ “holes” were being aligned to each other’s “oscillatory motion”?

    3. Does QRT explain the null magnetic dipole moment of even-even nuclei of Z = N (eg 8O16) by saying that, although the inner electric fields (negative) of the protons are carried by the protons in their orbit about the central 2He4 inside the nucleus, the outer electric fields (positive) of the protons are stationed IMMOBILE outside the nucleus and are therefore responsible for that observed property of a null magnetic dipole moment?

    All the best,
    Joe

  33. Wladimir Guglinski

    Daniel De Caluwé wrote in October 22nd, 2014 at 7:07 AM

    And I believe dr. Rossi when he says that he didn’t (and probably will not in the future) need a new theory, and therefore you better just refer to the other (non Rossi-effect) phenomena, to prove that there’s a need for a new theory. (But it just is not needed to explain the Rossi-effect).
    ——————————-

    Dear Daniel
    the academicians always had an irrational resistance against a New Physics.

    When in the end of the 19th Century the radioactivity of some elements was discovered, some young physicists understood that a New Physics was required.

    But Lord Kelvin never accepted it. He refused to look at to the New Physics, because he loved so much the Old Physics.
    Such irrational resistance can be understood, since old scientists passed all their life dedicated to the Old Physics, and it is hard to them to accept that their theories were developed under wrong foundations.

    Even Planck did not understand well the repercutions of the discovery of his postulate. There was need a young mind to understand it, and finally Einstein interpreted the Planck discovery by proposing the idea of the quantum of light. However, Millikan spent 10 years trying to prove that Einstein’s idea of the quantum of light was wrong.

    Now we are seeing the birth of a New Era, similar to that when the young physicists like Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, started to develop the Quantum Mechanics.

    Along the last 5 years many new discoveries had pointed out that many phenomena are impossible to occur by considering the current principles of the Standard Physics.

    And many other discoveries are coming.
    Soon or later the physicists will realize that a New Physics is an unavoidable need, like in the beginning of the 20th Century the young physicists understood the need of the development of a New Physics, the Quantum Mechanics.

    regards
    wlad

  34. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in October 22nd, 2014 at 6:32 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    You made your point, I made my point.
    Prof. Focardi, by the way, never talked about new Physics, he Always invited to study better the existing Physics.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ———————————————-

    Dear Andrea
    there are some points I would like you explain to us, because the problem seems to lie in what Prof. Focardi had used to consider what is a New Physics.

    In their report, Giuseppe Levi , Evelyn Foschi , and Hanno Essén write the following:

    ”We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible.”

    So, there are two ways you may propose a theory:

    WAY 1- you have to propose that nuclear transformations can give neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation.

    CONCLUSION 1- in this case you are proposing a New Physics, since your proposal denies the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics.

    .

    WAY 2- you have to propose that there are no nuclear transformations in the eCat

    CONCLUSION 2- In this case your theory is according to the Standard Physics

    But in their report Levi , Foschi , and Essén say:

    page 26:
    “Even if taken from this extremely conservative point of view, the reactor lies beyond the limits of the above Ragone plot.”

    page 27:
    “The result from the heat measurement is remarkable by giving such a large amount of heat from the very small quantity of fuel powder used confined in the small volume of the reactor.
    This large amount of heat is, as pointed out above, way beyond what can be expected from chemical burning, which only involves rearrangements of the fuel material at the atomic scale, i.e. by transforming atomic binding energies to kinetic energy. Very large energy transformations can only take place when binding energies at the nuclear level are exploited,
    as in fusion reactions for light elements and fission reactions for heavy elements.

    Therefore,
    if you wish to propose a theory that there is no nuclear reactions, however your theory will be disagree to the conclusions of the Report.

    In order to have your theory agree to the Report, you have to propose the following conjecture:
    “a large amount of heat from the very small quantity of fuel powder used confined in the small volume of the reactor can be obtained from non-nuclear reactions

    But in this case you are proposing, again, a New Physics.

    .
    .

    FINAL CONCLUSION:

    Therefore,
    no matter if you develop your theory from the WAY 1 or the WAY 2, your theory will be based on a New Physics.

    .

    FINAL COMMENT:

    The dream of Prof. Focardi is unattainable. There is no way to conciliate the results of the eCat with the foundations of the Standard Physics.

    Einstein also had a dream: he wished to unify the gravity with electromagnetism, from the foundations of the Standard Physics (by considering the space empty, without an aether). Although he had tried along 40 years, he died without to achieve his dream.

    So, other dreamers have had unattainable dreams in Physics.

    But as I said before, the science is not a question of belief, it is a question of facts.

    And if the facts are not according to our belief, we have to abandon our dream, because to reject facts is against the scientific criterium.

    regards
    wlad

  35. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    As I said, I am studying with others on this. It is impossible to talk of this issue before we have completed our study. If we will deem our study worth , we will publish it, but until we do not arrive to that level, it is more correct not publish as a comment branes that could be wrong.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  36. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Friends,

    Suppose, for one time, that the supporters of Andrea Rossi’s invention, with unbiased altruism, have to evaluate and validate the possibilities of hot fusion.
    Because most of us have limited scientific background, sometimes from Youtube High-School and Google University, we have to be a little straightforward and must use some simplifications to start with. We all participate in a learning process, and if we get answers, some of the more specialized among us, will share and educate the rest if that can be done.

    First of all: the reactions:
    How much (net-) energy is produced by one D+T fusion ?
    At what temperature does this happen ? Before and after ?
    Can the reactions be controlled in a manner that we achieve more or less constant and controllable rate of “fusions per time-unit” ? Constant or intermittent ?

    Second:
    From the previous, we can calculate the energy flow that will be generated from the reactor.
    How do we harvest all the heat that comes out of this pressurized and very well shielded machine ?
    How is this heat transferred to mechanical or electrical energy ? If a stirling engine is found not to be fit for E-cat, then it may not be fit for a hot fusion machine neither. So how will the flow of energy push something mechanical ?
    Can an “internal fusion engine” in analgoy with “internal combustion engine” be made ? At what RPM ?
    From the ITP-II report on the E-cat we learn a lot about energy transfer by radiation and convection at high temperatures, and we also learn that all construction materials are sometimes very near to conditions where they overheat and go broke.
    So a computer simulation with 10.000°C gas that is driving a virtual turbine is not very likely to become common practice in reality. In the first prototypes of E-cats there might have been a lot of molten nickel. That was maybe a decade ago.

    Third:
    safety. Neutrons are generated. Where do they go ? They have to be shielded at least. This conflicts with the second issue: we have to evacuate heat, which demands thin, heat transfering, maybe IR-transparent(thanks to the critics that point out this important issues we learn from), finned walls. The ultimate solution could be a massive diamond reactor vessel for the superior heat conductivity ? Does diamond shield neutrons ? Does diamond break up in that condition ?

    Shiny pictures of enthousiast young people around an also shiny “artists impression” built with polished stainless steel, may be helpfull to convince public, political and financial “opinion” makers. If we start to ask some technical questions, the matters seem to be very complex and the results hard to achieve. It is to ask how the political and financial sponsors were informed about all this.

    So reducing this complex and very interesting scientific matter into numbers like in: “years to go” and “billions to spend”, goes past the technical complexities in this matter.
    One could ask on equal bases how much it would cost to refill the empty oilfields, based on experiments of making a hole in the ground (labour-hours + digging equipment) and pouring a gallon (auxiliary goods) of diesel-gas-mixture (price at pump) in it.

    As with all calculations, the result that is returned from the computer will be a number.

    As for the EROI of the concept of hot fusion, it might be in the numbers as if we have to suck the last drop of fossil energy from the hardest, deepest rock in the earth.

    Criticism has to be answered in both ways. All can learn from that.

    Friendly Regards,
    Koen

  37. Daniel De Caluwé

    Wladimir,

    I think dr. Rossi just does not want that you use his E-cat and his Rossi-effect, as an extra argument, that your theory could be right. He just says that he didn’t need a new theory to explain the Rossi-effect, and probably will not need a new theory in the future (to reconcile for the increase of the relative abundance of the NI62 isotope in the latest independent third party test).

    But this does not mean that your theory is wrong or not interesting, because you rightly refer to the other phenomena, that have nothing to do with the Rossy effect, and that show that, indeed, something could be wrong with the present nuclear physics theory.

    So, both could be right. And I believe dr. Rossi when he says that he didn’t (and probably will not in the future) need a new theory, and therefore you better just refer to the other (non Rossi-effect) phenomena, to prove that there’s a need for a new theory. (But it just is not needed to explain the Rossi-effect).

    P.S. You have to understand that, on this website of dr. Rossi, who can explain the Rossi effect with present physics, probably doesn’t want that people associate the Rossi-effect with exotic or still controversial science, but this does not mean that your theory is wrong, because it explains the other (non-Rossi-effect) phenomena.

    Kind Regards,

  38. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    “I am convinced that with good sense and an elastic interpretation of the results, we can explain everything with the Standard Model Theory.”
    “I think I have understood, but much has still to be studied.“
    “I am perfectly aware of the fact that a theory is made to be overcome, but I do not think this is the case.”
    Interesting but … it would be interesting to understand something about what you have understood.
    At the time of Focardi (Rossi-Focardi paper) you were making some assumptions:
    ————
    The proton capture process performed by a Nickel nucleus produces a Copper nucleus according to the scheme
    Ni(X) + p1 >> Cu(X+1) (3)
    Copper nuclei, with the exception of the stable isotopes Cu63 and Cu65, decay with positron (e+) and neutrino (nu) emission in Ni nuclei according to the scheme
    Cu(X+1) >> Ni(X+1) + e+ + nu (4)
    Subsequently, the positron annihilates with an electron in two gamma-rays according to the process
    e+ + e >> gamma + gamma (5)
    ————
    Now, without infringing the IP protection, what are in principle your ideas?
    Regards (restricted, classified),
    Giuliano Bettini.

  39. Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    when in the future you’ll release multiple industrial 1MW boxes and secrecy will not be so tight, do you think would be feasible and interesting to sell research boxes (barebone e-cat with control unit) to spread around labs and 3rd parties the opportunity to study and integrate e-cat in the world? It would be a kind of Arduino building module but for energy generation.
    Un saluto, Gherardo

  40. Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    That will be a possibility.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  41. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Interesting proposal.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  42. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    You made your point, I made my point.
    Prof. Focardi, by the way, never talked about new Physics, he always invited to study better the existing Physics.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  43. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in October 21st, 2014 at 9:02 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    You have worked for one hour to write this comment of yours: I was close to spam it, but my heart said “Andrea, don’t hurt him, this guy has sweated blood to write it” and so I published it. But I must say that I do not agree with it.
    In their Report the Professors of the ITP have written that mainly the 62Ni isotope shift is hard to reconcile, but this is not in contrast with the fact that an explication must be found inside the system of the Standard Model. I am working to reconcile and I must tell you that I am convinced that with good sense and an elastic interpretation of the results, we can explain everything with the Standard Model Theory. As Prof. Focardi teached to me, to understand LENR we have not to invent new Physics, we have just to study better the Standard Model.
    ————————————————–

    Dear Andrea,
    each one of us has the right to have his own believes.
    But science is not a question of belief, but a question of facts.

    Prof. Focardi believed that cold fusion can be explained without a New Physics.
    However there are many other nuclear phenomena impossible to occur, when we consider the foundations of the Standard Model. Here I had mentioned some of them:

    - the emission of alpha particles by the 92U,
    - the null magnetic moments of the even-even nuclei with Z=N,
    - the pear shape of the Ra224 (which inspired Prof. Butler to propose the z-axis of nuclei
    - the fusion proton-electron forming a neutron at low energy by the Don Borghi experiment.
    - and there are many other phenomena.

    The fusion proton-electron at low energy is impossible to occur, by considering the fundamental principles of the Standard Model.

    It is not the results of the e-Cat which are requiring a New Physics. Actually there are a lot of other nuclear phenomena requiring it.

    Therefore, the advise of Prof. Focardi loses its merit (of saving the Standard Model, avoiding the need of a New Physics), because many other nuclear phenomena require a New Physics.

    In order to avoid a New Physics, there is need to fulfil two requirments, as follows:

    1- You have to explain LENR from the principles of the Standard Model, as taught by Prof. Focardi

    2- To reject all the other nuclear phenomena and experiments which require a New Physics, as the case of the Don Borghi experiment.

    Even if you succeed to find a theory based on the Standard Model capable to explain the working of the e-Cat, there are other two steps to be filled:

    A- To explain many other experiments in the field of LENR

    B- To reject many other nuclear phenomena impossible to occur (according to the Standard Model).

    The task is very hard

    regards
    wlad

  44. Dear Andrea,
    If one shines a beam of gamma rays (collimated by a slit) through the reactor from behind, is their intensity reduced when the reaction is on? In other words, does the active material act as a gamma ray shield? This experiment would be relatively easy to do, I think, and it would answer the question if the absence of radiation is due to an ability of the material to remove it. It would constrain possible theories.
    regards, /pekka

  45. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    You have worked for one hour to write this comment of yours: I was close to spam it, but my heart said “Andrea, don’t hurt him, this guy has sweated blood to write it” and so I published it. But I must say that I do not agree with it.
    In their Report the Professors of the ITP have written that mainly the 62Ni isotope shift is hard to reconcile, but this is not in contrast with the fact that an explication must be found inside the system of the Standard Model. I am working to reconcile and I must tell you that I am convinced that with good sense and an elastic interpretation of the results, we can explain everything with the Standard Model Theory. As Prof. Focardi teached to me, to understand LENR we have not to invent new Physics, we have just to study better the Standard Model. I believe it will not take very much time before I will publish, in collaboration with other scientists, an explication of what happened. I think I have understood, but much has still to be studied. As I said, all the time left free from the work on the 1 MW plant is dedicated to this. I am deeply convinced that it is in the Standard model that we have to find a reconciliation.
    Obviously, as you know, I am perfectly aware of the fact that a theory is made to be overcome, but I do not think this is the case.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  46. Wladimir Guglinski

    On the report Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel, by Giuseppe Levi , Evelyn Foschi , and Hanno Essén

    In the item 9. Summary and concluding remarks at the page 30, the authors write:

    ”In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. ”
    ————————————————————————–

    COMMNENT:

    Dears Giuseppe Levi , Evelyn Foschi , and Hanno Essén

    According to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics, not only the cold fusion produced by the E-Cat is impossible.
    Actually according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics there are several nuclear phenomena impossible to occur, but the experiments show they actually occur.
    However, along decades the nuclear theorists have used to neglect them.

    And so, the fundamental question arises:
    As from the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics is impossible to occur several nuclear phenomena observed in the nature, it makes no sense to use such general knowledge in nuclear physics so that to conclude that cold fusion is impossible to occur.

    One among the phenomena impossible to occur is the emission of the alpha particles by the uranium nucleus. The nuclear theorists use to suppose that Gamow had solved satisfactorily the puzzle, but actually his mathematical solution is unsatisfactory, as is shown in the article Cold Fusion and Gamow’s Paradox:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Cold_Fusion_and_Gamow%27s_Paradox

    As shown in the article, Gamow solved the paradox of the alpha particles emission by 92U238 by introducing another paradox.
    Besides, it was experimentally observed that alpha particles exit the nuclei 92U along a radial direction. This is impossible to occur by considering the current nuclear models, because as the nuclei have spin, and the alpha particle moves together with the 92U nucleus, then the alpha particle would have to leave away the 92U by a tangential line.

    Therefore, the emission of alpha particles by the 92U238 requires another explanation, since the solution proposed by Gamow is unacceptable.
    But it is impossible, from the current nuclear models, to find another explanation for the emission of the alpha particles by the 92U. And therefore we conclude that the emission of alpha particles by the 92U238 is also impossible to occur, according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics

    Then another fundamental question arises: perhaps cold fusion occurs via the inverse the phenomenon which makes possible the emission of alpha particle by the 92U238. And such assumption makes sense, because:

    1) As an alpha particle can exit a 92U nucleus by a phenomenon impossible to occur according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics…

    2) … then a particle can enter within a nucleus by using the same phenomenon used by the alpha particle when it leaves away the 92U.

    Such hypothesis is just proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory, as follows:

    3) The alpha particle exits the 92U because there is a “hole” in the Coloumb electric field of the 92U.

    4) And so, under suitable conditions of low temperature, a particle can enter within a nucleus by crossing the “hole” in the electric field.

    But of course a nuclear theorist would immediately to claim:
    ”It’s hard to me to accept a conjecture of a hole existing in the electric field of the nuclei”.

    Well, I said the same to myself when I arrived to the conclusion on the existence of that “hole” in the electric field of the nuclei, 20 years ago (at that time I did not have knowledge on the existence of cold fusion, and my conjecture was consequence of other ponderations based on other nuclear properties of the nuclei). That’s why at that time I said to myself:
    ”The nuclear theorists will never accept this conjecture of mine”.

    But 20 years ago I also had arrived to another unacceptable conjecture (for the nuclear theorists): According to my new nuclear model, the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.
    According to the nuclear theorists, such conjecture was impossible 20 years ago, because:

    a) From the current nuclear models, an even-even nuclei with Z=N must have spherical shape (theoretical impossibility).

    b) A nucleus with non-spherical shape would have to have non-null electric quadrupole moment, but experiments do not detect it for those nuclei (experimental evidence refuting my nuclear model).

    However, in 2012 the journal Nature published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, in which the authors describe new experiments which detected that even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, destroying a dogma in which the nuclear physicists believed along 80 years, and therefore confirming the impossible conjecture of mine:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    But the authors of the paper published in Nature had to justify why the experiments had never detected the non-null electric quadrupole moment for those nuclei (a question faced by me 20 years ago). So, they proposed an explanation. And their explanation is the same proposed in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006, therefore 6 years before the paper published in Nature.
    So, the journal Nature published a plagiarism of my conjecture, supposed to be impossible by the nuclear theorists, 20 years ago.

    Other impossible phenomenon according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics is the pear shape of the nucleus Ra224, detected in 2013.
    In order to explain the impossible shape of the Ra224, the Professor Peter Butler (University of Liverpool) proposed the following conjecture (which is impossible according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics):
    The nuclei are divided by an z-axis:
    http://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/05/09/scientists-demonstrate-pear-shaped-atomic-nuclei/

    Well, the impossible conjecture on the existence of an z-axis dividing the nuclei is proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory.
    In the page 133 of the book it is written:
    The distribution about the z-axis is a nuclear property up to now unknown in Nuclear Physics, and…”
    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80549-missed-z-axis-in-the-current-nuclear-models/

    .

    As we see, many conjectures proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, considered to be impossible by the nuclear theorists 20 years ago, have been confirmed by experiments in the last 3 years.

    Concerning the conjecture on the existence of a “hole” in the electric field of the nuclei let us ponder about the following facts:

    1) According to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, the nuclei have two concentric fields. So, it is a double-field theory, and therefore it is rival to the Quantum Field Theory, which is a :mono-field theory.

    2) According to the Standard Nuclear Physics, it is impossible to explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.

    3) In September-2014 I had invited the Dr. S.Lakshminarayana (nuclear physicist) and Dr. U.V.S.Seshavatharam , authors of the paper Black hole Cosmos and the Micro Cosmos , published in the JoNP, so that to come here to explain us how is possible to explain the null magnetic moment of those nuclei, according to the current nuclear models. No one of them accepted to come here to explain it:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=859&cpage=6#comments

    4) Well, as the null magnetic field of even-even nuclei with Z=N is a phenomenon impossible to occur (according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics), but the experiments show that such impossible phenomenon really occurs, is it reasonable to consider that cold fusion is also impossible by considering the same basic general knowledge in nuclear physics ????

    5) The reason why the current nuclear models cannot explain the null magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N is because all they were developed from the initial premise of considering the mono-field concept of field used in the Quantum Field Theory.

    6) If by the double-field concept is possible to explain the impossible occurrence of the null magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, then it is reasonable to suppose that from the double-field concept is also possible to occur the impossible occurrence of the cold fusion.

    7) Therefore the conjecture of a “hole” in the external electric field of the nuclei deserves do not be discarded, because the existence of cold fusion requires new principles missing in the Standard Nuclear Physics. Without new fundamental principles (missing in the Standard Nuclear Theory), it is impossible to explain cold fusion, and the Rossi’s E-Cat.

    8) A particle can enter within a nucleus via the “hole” in the electric field of the nuclei under special conditions which promote its entry. Among of the special conditions, one of them is the alignment of two directions: the direction of the oscillatory motion of the particle and the direction along which all the “hole” of the electric fields of some nuclei are aligned via the application of an external electromagnetic oscillatory field (used in the E-Cat).

    .

    Concerning to your words ”but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding”, why do not apply them also to the experimental result obtained by Don Borghi ???
    C. Borghi, C. Giori, A.A. Dall’Ollio, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. At. Nucl.), vol 56, no 7, 1993.

    In his experiment, Don Borghi showed that one proton and one electron at low energy can be fused so that to form one neutron, a phenomenon impossible to occur according to the basic general knowledge in nuclear physics. That’s why the scientific community uses to reject (or to neglect) the Don Borghi experiment, like she also uses to reject the E-Cat.

    But as the results of the E-Cat are being accepted in the universities of Bologna, Uppsala, and Royal Institute of Technology, some questions must be put:
    Why do you accept the results of the Rossi’s E-Cat reactor, and do not accept the results of the Don Borghi experiment?
    What is the difference between the E-Cat results and the results of the Don Borghi experiment?

    Well, the difference is mentioned in your article, when you say:
    In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source”.

    This is just the point in which relies the difference between the results obtained from the Rossi’s E-Cat and from the Don Borghi experiment. While the E-Cat cannot be neglected, because a practical use can be extracted from its working, the same does not occur with the results of the Don Borghi experiment, because there is no way to develop a technology from which to extract a practical use of energy from the fusion proton+electron at low energy (at least in the present day).

    But it is an error to neglect a scientific discovery when we do not know how to use it in practical applications. In spite of we do not know what to do with the results of the Don Borghi experiment, nevertheless the experiment points out to us that some phenomena (considered impossible by the nuclear theorists) may occur under suitable conditions.

    Besides, as the fusion proton+electron at low energy is possible to occur, probably the fusion occurs in some cold fusion reactions. And therefore, by neglecting the Don Borghi experiment, the nuclear theorists are suppressing one of the most important mechanisms we have at hand from which we can be able to understand cold fusion.

    Regards
    Wladimir Guglinski
    Author of the book Quantum Ring Theory

  47. Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    Nevertheless, the “ghost” will pass to the history, here is the publication I received today from a Reader:
    http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1868
    Warm Regards ( Thank you)
    A.R.

  48. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 21st, 2014 at 3:14 PM

    Wlad said: “The issue is so trivial that it does not deserve any waste of time for explaining it.”

    Exactly! You’ve finally figured it out. Once you bother to learn the definition of a nuclear magnetic moment, it is so trivial that it doesn’t deserve any further discussion.

    Also, I agree that trying to explain things to you is a waste of time. But you can’t simply assume that’s the reason that they aren’t answering your emails. There are many good reasons to ignore what you say.
    ————————————————————-

    Mr JR does not know not only Nuclear Physics. He also does not know what is irony

    he he he

    And take care:
    never trust in a person who does not know irony

    regards
    wlad

  49. JR

    Wlad said: “The issue is so trivial that it does not deserve any waste of time for explaining it.”

    Exactly! You’ve finally figured it out. Once you bother to learn the definition of a nuclear magnetic moment, it is so trivial that it doesn’t deserve any further discussion.

    Also, I agree that trying to explain things to you is a waste of time. But you can’t simply assume that’s the reason that they aren’t answering your emails. There are many good reasons to ignore what you say.

  50. Giovanni Guerrini

    It is obvious that the E-CAT is vital for all, but not all are able to undertand the technitalities .
    Well,on one side there is a group of university professors who put their face and their career on the stakes, working to the best of human ability,on the other side there is a character who hides behind a nickname writing a lot of numbers and bla..bla..
    So, since I am a common man, whom should I believe to?
    Certainly not to the one who is hiding behind a nickname.
    I am only a common man, but when I adduce my ideas I put my face, name and family name.
    So I don’t care of a ghost.

    Regards G G

  51. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in October 20th, 2014 at 10:36 PM

    Dear Dr Seshavatharam, Dear Prof. Lakshminarayana:
    An answer from you to Wladimir Guglinski appears to be strongly called.
    We’d be delighted to receive it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ——————————————————–

    Dear Andrea,
    it seems they do not want to come here to explain the issue, because it is so much trivial, as claims Mr. JR.

    The issue is so trivial that it does not deserve any waste of time for explaining it.

    regards
    wlad

  52. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 21st, 2014 at 10:34 AM

    eernie,

    3)It’s simply wrong for Wlad to argue that he must be right based on the fact that people don’t respond to his often incoherent and insulting emails. In any case, it seems unlikely that a fourth (or 5th or 10th or whatever it is now) explanation of this trivial issue will convince Wlad.
    ======================================================

    In 24th September Dr. UVS.Seshavatharam wrote in the comments of the JoNP:
    ——————————————————
    Wladimir Guglinski Sir
    September 24th, 2014 at 8:16 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski Sir

    Please let me have a couple of days. I will forward the mail to my professor: lnsrirama@gmail.com

    yours sincerely,
    UVS.Seshavatharam
    ———————————————————
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=859&cpage=6#comments

    .

    Well, dear JR.,
    15 couples of days have passed, and nobody did come here to explain the “trivial issue”.

    So,
    that professor did not come here because he knows Nuclear Physics, and he knows that the “trivial issue” has not explanation by considering the Standard Nuclear Theory.

    Unlike,
    as you do not understand Nuclear Physics, is the reason why you suppose that the issue is trivial.

    regards
    wlad

  53. JR

    eernie,

    I am a big believer in the importance of making meaningful predictions and testing these against measurements. This is why I object to Wlad’s constant misrepresentation of the state of nuclear theory, the results of experiment, etc…. I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the physicist you mention (Smaller).

    As far as Wlad’s reply, it is wrong.
    1)It’s wrong to claim that the data can’t be explained when they are explained by multiple calculations shown in the very same paper.

    2)Nörtershäuser and I agree on 11Be – the results are difficult (or perhaps impossible) to explain within a purely classical picture of interactions, but are well understood in terms of quantum mechanics and modern nucleon-nucleon interactions. FWIW, I know more about some aspects of nuclear structure than he does, and he knows more about other aspects.

    3)It’s simply wrong for Wlad to argue that he must be right based on the fact that people don’t respond to his often incoherent and insulting emails. In any case, it seems unlikely that a fourth (or 5th or 10th or whatever it is now) explanation of this trivial issue will convince Wlad.

  54. Curiosone

    The clowns you have discussed yesterday with are just trying to hidden the fact that the COP has been calculated by the Professors of the ITP based on precise and certified instruments, not by formulas: the COP has been calculated measuring the consume of current with 2 PCE 830, put one between the plug of the grid and the control system and one between the control system and the reactor, and the results of the measurements have given the same consume measured by both instruments, and this demonstrates that the control system does not affect the measurement. The COP has been calculated making a ratio between the thermal energy produced and the electricity, whose consume has not been calculated with formulas, but measured with a couple of certified instruments !!! The attempt of your enemies is to blur the real data trying to pull the attention of the public into a mess of formulas that have nothing to do with the calculation of the COP. It is clear to all that the differences in the calculation of the energy dispersed by the copper cables are nothing respect the COP.
    They are stupid, we are not: Andrea, ignore these clowns and continue your precious work. You do not need to explain anything against them, we all have understood perfectly their agenda.
    W.G.

  55. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    I agree.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  56. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    Thank you, but: our Team is all.
    A.R.

  57. JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi, please ignore the skeptics like the ones of Yesterday: they only disturb your blessed work. Do not lose time with them. They are nothing, you are all.
    God bless you,
    JCR

  58. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    The Hot-Cat version of your device was tested by the TPR investigators at about 2500 watts output. Does that mean a 1MW unit would need approx. 400 units?
    Regards.

  59. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I’m glad to hear your work is progressing with the 1MW plant. I know that you are never satisfied with the state of your work (everything is epochè) — but at what point with this plant will you consider it ‘good enough’, and be ready to move on to the next project?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  60. Andrea Rossi

    Andre Blum:
    The 1MW plant is similar to the one tested in October 2012.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  61. Andre Blum

    Dear Andrea,

    In the Lugano report, I was (pleasantly) surprised to see a new device, smaller than we had seen before, and made of alumina. Is this new design what you are now using in the 1 MW setup at the customer? Or is that 1 MW plant still based off the older design; or perhaps an altogether new one? What does the 1 MW setup look like now? Are we still talking a 20ft shipping container form factor? Does everything fit inside the container now (nothing on the roof, etc?)? Presumably it is still used to heat water?

    Thank you for your answers, good luck with your hard work
    Andre

  62. Andrea Rossi

    Dear Dr Seshavatharam, Dear Prof. Lakshminarayana:
    An answer from you to Wladimir Guglinski appears to be strongly called.
    We’d be delighted to receive it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  63. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    I dedicate all my time to my 1MW baby and the connected R&D. I honestly am very positive: it is a magnificence, even if a lot of problems had to be resolved and probably will have to, but our model is NASA: how many failures before arriving on the Moon with the boots. “Non mollare mai” ( Never give up). Mostly all of my time goes to this, but also, in collaboration with nuclear physicists I am working on a theory that could explain the results of the report. I think that we will be able to reconcile everything with good sense and in full respect of the Standars Model. The dark side is that I have time for nothing else.
    Obviously this effort is shared by all the Team, in particular the electronic engineers, who are making a masterpiece to harmonize an orchestra of 103 E-Cats with a quite complex play of Cats and Mice; the control system is made by about 100 computers . This wonderful Team is writing a page of History; every component of this Team is working at the maximum of his capacity.
    Thank you very much for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  64. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 20th, 2014 at 12:57 PM

    Eernie,

    Wlad said: “Eernie, the existence of the halo neutron in the 11Be with orbit radius 7fm can be explained only by considering the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.”

    Slight correction: he forgot to mention that it can also be explained by any of the half-dozen or so calculations shown in the paper that made the measurement. Most if these were predictions made before the measurement, if I remember correctly.
    ———————————————

    yes,
    of course Mr. JR knows Nuclear Physics better than Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser of the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry, who wrote:

    “By studying neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics.”
    http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php

    And since it is impossible to find a coherent theory for explaining the halo neutron of the 11Be, that’s why Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser proposed that phantasmagoric solution:

    Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby inducing the expansive ‘heiligenschein’.”.

    Therefore,
    the neutron is like a rubber… or a ghost… he he he

    And Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser fails when he says the following:
    The riddle as to how the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus can only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics.”

    No,
    actually it cannot be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics, because the principles of quantum mechanics are wrong.

    If the principles of quantum mechanics were correct, the even-even nuclei with Z=N would have to have NON-null magnetic moment.

    Dear JR,
    I and the readers of the JoNP are waiting yet (since September !!!!) the Dr. Seshavatharam and the Dr. Lakshminarayana (a nuclear physicist) to come here to explain how the even-even nuclei with Z=N may have null magnetic moment (since from the principles of quantum mechanics they cannot have null magnetic moment).

    Dear Mr. JR,
    please ask to Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana to come here to explain it to us.

    If they do not come, I and the readers of the JoNP will start to think that quantum mechanics was developed from wrong principles.

    regards
    wlad

  65. eernie1

    Dear Wlad,
    One other idea I have been kicking around is the possibility of creating Rydberg atoms of Hydrogen or Lithium in Andrea’s device by the fields generated with his pulsed input power plus heat. The electrons in their large orbits contain relatively large energies and because of their orbit size, large electric dipole values. This makes it relatively easy to detach them from their parent nuclei and containing much energy, free to interact with the Nickel lattice. Perhaps with an assist from a magnetic field created by the Nickel nuclei at an elevated temperature. We can be talking about energies between UV and the lower x ray spectrum.
    Regards.

  66. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I am sure it’s been a busy time since the TPR2 was published. Are you able to devote much time to your 1MW plant project, and if so, how is work progressing with it?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  67. eernie1

    Dear JR,
    An interesting aspect of QM is that the basic equations were derived from mathematical relationships called Fourier series which described the relationship between frequency and time of a wave. By mathematically adding the simple sine and cosine series through a variation of phase and amplitude, both Schrodinger and Heisenberg concocted their equations which described the relationship between motion(energy) and time of individual particles. throw in a bit of field theory and you can( if you are a half way decent mathematician) predict all sorts of weird situations. With the aid of a bit of dimensional analysis you can also link the various universal constants together. This approach was used by people like Einstein and Dirac to predict various scientific outcomes such as antimatter and relativistic effects. My point is you can mathematically predict almost anything, but only direct observation of a result can give complete confidence. By the way, are you connected in any way with Argonne Labs? I did some work with a researcher named Smaller in the late 1950 which involved electron spin. He was quite a competent physicist.

  68. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    The robot,scared, obliged.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  69. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,

    This report is not for dummies.

    A lot of what was written, is meant also to explain to the intended public that good attention was made not to make measurement errors, while hiding important IP issues.

    We learn that the resistances are “coils” with Ni alloy. That was new. We don’t know their (individual) “coil-icity” nor each of their “resisanc-icities”. So any speculation may be wrong.

    I assume that you did not allow to use some endoscope, or to put some product in it to allow the professors to look through the walls and components of the E-cat, the way sometimes weldings are being checked. I would not allow that if I were you. So it is very normal that you were there when the device was opened. It is also very normal that the professors could not use pliers by themselves to open the device.

    The E-cat is not using DC nor sinewave 3-phase. E-Cat is not a 3-ph motor nor a transformer, nor anything else that is well known. So everyone should pay attention not to use simplified formulas from basic theory books.
    One can only use information that is for sure, and if in doubt, take the worst-case approach.

    The poweranalyser is basically a computer that interprets in a “state of the art”-way every signal of every probe connected to it. You just have to be sure that you don’t use signals that are out of range of the probes and the computer. For the rest: follow the manual. Amen.

    Kind regards,
    Koen.

    PS: If I ever meet your spam-robot in real life, he (or she) owes me a drink.

  70. JR

    Eernie,

    Wlad said: “Eernie, the existence of the halo neutron in the 11Be with orbit radius 7fm can be explained only by considering the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.”

    Slight correction: he forgot to mention that it can also be explained by any of the half-dozen or so calculations shown in the paper that made the measurement. Most if these were predictions made before the measurement, if I remember correctly.

  71. Andrew

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I believe that there are some clarification that either you, or the professors through you have to make, to justify the relevance of the TPRII.
    You have already commented on this but your answer was not satisfying at all.
    You stated that the behaviour of the resistances changes and it’s Not linear (in particolar behaving as a negative resistance from 500-1200 and holding constant from that temperature on) .
    But we all know that inconel has not that characteristic, with or without reactions involved.
    Therefore i believe that you can’t just state that you cannot comment further on this, especially being aware that through the report some fundamental mistakes are carried out such as :
    Page 14:

    ”Measurements performed during the dummy run with the PCE and ammeter clamps allowed us to measure an average current, for each of the three C1 cables, of I1 = 19.7A, and, for each C2 cable, a current of I1 / 2 = I2 = 9.85 A.”

    That is sistematically wrong since I2=I1/1.732

  72. Andrea Rossi

    Andrew:
    Your comment is a typical example of the effects of the stupidities made by fake experts like “Raman”, that act as Professors, but lack the foundamentals of Physics, Electronics and Electrotechnics. The effects are that persons like you, clearly missing a professional understanding of the matter, instead of reading seriously a Report written by 6 Professors with a life dedicated to Science and Physics in particular, read the stupidities of imbeciles with an agenda and make us loose time to answer to absurd objections. I am not angry at you, you are just a candid non-expert-person, I am angry because every stupidity gets attention and we, honestly, do not have the time to answer. As you have perhaps read, I already suggested as a reference the wonderful book “Electronics for Dummies” to the “Prof” you got inspiration from, but he does not listen to me and continues to repeat the same stupidities.
    Again:
    The coils of the reactor are made with a proprietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it. Your phrase “”with or without reactions involved” is pretty arrogant, and such arrogance, perhaps, forbids you to try to understand what I wrote. If you read carefully what I wrote and what is written in the Report, you will see that “with or without reactions” is a stupidity. The nature and composition of the coils are of paramount importance in our IP and for obvious reasons I will not give any more information, albeit you demand to me not to “state that (I) cannot comment further on this, ESPECIALLY BEING AWARE THAT THROUGH THE REPORT SOME FUNDAMENTAL ( SIC!) MISTAKES ARE CARRIED OUT, SUCH AS..” and at this point you add another titanic stupidity that the Readers can find in your comment: whom do you think you are talking with ?
    And here is the answer to your titanically stupid statement ( I know, you are not the author of the titanic stupidity, you are just parrotting the suggestions of “Prof” Raman): just, please read … I will write in very simple language, to allow you (and “Prof” Raman, who insists not to buy ‘Electronics for Dummies’ as I suggested him) to understand, with a small effort and some focus (to Raman I suggest not to chew a gum at the same time).
    THE ALIMENTATION CABLING OF THE REACTOR IS COMPOSED BY MEANS OF 2 PARTS FOR EVERY ROW:
    1- ONE PART FROM THE CONTROL SYSTEM TO THE JOINT (C); THIS PART IS NAMED C1
    2- AFTER THE JOINT C THE SAME CURRENT IS SUBDIVIDED INTO 2 ROWS HAVING THE SAME SECTION AND LENGTH: WE CALL THEM C2
    BASED ON THE KIRCHHOFF LAW ( ALSO CALLED KICHHOFF JUNCTION RULE) , WE CAN MAKE THE DEDUCTION THAT THE CURRENT THAT FLOWS THROUGH THE ROW C1 IS EQUAL TO THE DOUBLE OF THE CURRENT THAT FLOWS ALONG EACH OF THE ROWS NAMED C2.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  73. Andrea Rossi

    Tom Conover:
    Ms Vessela Nikolova ier referring to a book she wrote. Nothing to do with the Report of the ITP.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  74. Tom Conover

    Hello Andrea Rossi and Vessela Nikolova,

    Still hoping for published article, perhaps is that what Vessela Nikolova refers to when saying “The publication is a matter of days”? Your replies to our postings are treasures to store for us, we look forward to climbing the lattice with you into the new energy age of abundant, clean, and renewable power.

    Tom Conover

    ref: Vessela Nikolova
    October 18th, 2014 at 4:23 PM
    Hello Andrea, after about one year my book has come to an end. The publication is a matter of days… I wish you a nice day.
    Vessela

  75. JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi:
    Will the Professors of the ITP answer to the comments made about their report?
    Thank you,
    JCR

  76. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    The Professors told me that they are discussing the questions that merit an answer and that will answer to such questions by means of updates of the report published on
    http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-mattrapport-publicerad
    Their report will be then periodically updated with all the necessary answers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  77. George

    Dear Dr. Rossi, needs to be done soon with the hot cat or our planet because of oil and fossil fuels will have serious problems. See the video of NASA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk5FgtLBP8c

  78. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 17th, 2014 at 7:41 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    I have read much discussion by critics about the role of the independent test in verifying your device. They claim since the test was not 100% independent because of your minimal involvement, the whole test was not admissible as evidence.
    ———————————————–

    Dear Eernie,
    suppose that Rossi had invented the plane, and he invited you to test his invention, as follows: driving his plane, you would have to cross the sea between USA and Europe.

    But as you do not know how to drive his plane, the test started with Andrea Rossi giving you instructions on how to drive his invention.

    So, after some explanations, you did put the plane to fly, and you alone crossed the sea.

    But of course some people would claim:

    “The test of the Rossi’s invention made by Eernie is not 100% independent, because Eernie crossed the sea between the Europe and USA with the Rossi’s plane, however Rossi gave to him some initial instructions on how to drive the machine”

    I have doubt if such sort of critic is 100% reasonable.

    regards
    wlad

  79. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in
    October 10th, 2014 at 10:43 AM

    1) ———————————
    Dear Wlad,
    Since the Halo Neutron of the 11Be has been observed, the possible existence of a Halo Neutron in the 7Li cannot be ignored despite the theories of the SQM.
    ————————————-

    Eernie,
    the existence of the halo neutron in the 11Be with orbit radius 7fm can be explained only by considering the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.
    See 5- Halo neutron 4Be11 in the page 69 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    For supposing a 7Li with halo neutron would also require new foundations for Nuclear Physics, as those proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.

    My aim is just to show that there is no way to explain cold fusion by considering the current principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, since the current nuclear models are not able to explain even many other puzzles, like the halo neutron of the 11Be.

    2) —————————————–
    Assuming its existence and the looseness of its bond in the 7Li nucleus, there are a number of possibilities for creating and applying enough energy to allow the neutron to be expelled with added energy. One use for the hydrogen protons added to the device may be to create multiple microwave ovens in the cracks of the Ni complex. My reasoning is that the cracks contain a strong magnetic field created by the heated NI atoms which align the spins of the H protons inserted into the cavities of the cracks. Then with the influence of an applied RF field(pulsed) the ensuing microwave oven RF then causes the 7Li nucleus to release its Halo Neutron and the dance begins. I have other thoughts about the possible generation of stimulating energy, but I need more time to think about it.
    Wlad, Has Pandora’s box been opened?

    No if you keep the current foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  80. Andrea Rossi

    Patrik Wiksten:
    I do not know if you will read this comment, because probably you do not know we reported the link of your “Open Letter” published on LENR Forum.
    I just want to thank you for the paradigma you offered of a Galilean way of thinking opposed to a paradigma of “Sancta Inquisitio” way of thinking.
    The Professors just made measurements and, while I agree upon the difficulty to reconcile the 62Ni percentage shift – about which we are studying and I hope soon we will have a plausible answer, totally respecting the Standard Model – I did not see any serious critic of all the complex calculations made in the published Report, while I saw many mistakes, like ” the clamps have been swapped” ( false), ” the calculation of the resistances shows that the E-Cat does not respect the Ohm’s Law” ( false, the resistances do not have a linear response to the temperature in the coil of the E-Cat and the behavior is totally different from the copper cables, as well as from regular inconel), ” the color of the alumina at 1300°C is white heat” ( stupidity, Alumina becomes white heat only when it melts at 2070°C and compare it to the glass is an elementary mistake), “the multiplication of voltage time amperage gives an amount of energy superior to the one declared” ( yes, but the control system continues to change the phase angle, and this wrong calculation has been made assuming that the values are always at the peak, and this is obviously wrong) and so on, with an innuendo that the Professors of the ITP are not able to connect a Wattmeter, to measure a Temperature, and insulting them: exactly like the Sancta Inquisitio, who wanted to burn alive Galileo, just because he was discovering something that was different from the consolidated and universally shared knowledge of the time. Your open letter is very intelligent.
    About ” The Cat is dead”: I am sorry for Dr Pomp, but the Cat is very healthy and on the verge of a commercial breakthrough, because to make him alive or dead is not the Sancta Inquisitio of Dr Pomp, but is the market. If the Customer makes profits with the E-Cat, the Cat is alive, otherwise he is not: I can assure the Cat is pretty healthy: makes many exercise, does not drink alcohol, does not get illegal drugs and somebody recently has experienced he could become a tiger, if necessary, now and again. I also would like to underline the fact that the Cat has never, anywhere, used a single cent of the Taxpayer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  81. Andrea Rossi

    Henry Ethancourt:
    Thank you for the information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  82. Henry Ethancourt

    Hello Mr. Rossi,

    Surfing on the web yesterday, this link came to my attention: it is an open letter to Dr Pomp:

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/758-The-Pomp-factor-in-Cold-Fusion-an-open-letter-to-Stephan-Pomp

    Enjoy, :)

    Henry.

  83. Andrea Rossi

    Vessela Nikolova:
    Good luck!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  84. Vessela Nikolova

    Hello Andrea, after about one year my book has come to an end. The publication is a matter of days… I wish you a nice day.
    Vessela

  85. Andrea Rossi

    Gunnar Lindberg:
    Thank you for your kind words.
    About rumors, as I always said, I strongly suggest not to take them seriously. Real information is given in due time and it is given first time, when it is due, on this Journal. Until you do not read an information on this Journal, regarding our activity, just disregard it. Whatever it is.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  86. Gunnar Lindberg

    Dear Andra Rossi,
    The result of the third part evaluation is indeed very promising. From now, I´m sure, everything will happen fast.
    Can you confirm the rumor that Elforsk is buying one of your megawatt plants? This will undoubtedly speed up the certification of the domestic cats.
    Best regards
    Gunnar Lindberg

  87. Andrea Rossi

    Dear Ernie:
    Obviously you are right.
    Now, let’s go to make happy the Customer, aka let’s be able to make him earn money from the plant. If the Customer gets profits, the plant works well. If the Customer does not make money, the plant does not work well. With or without the contact with the inventor.
    Most of critics of the ITP report, as far as I could read, are of the genre that should they look at me and see me to walk upon the surface of a lake, they would say: ” Hey, look at that moron, at his age is not even able to swim”. Too much work to do: no more time to listen this blabla.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  88. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I have read much discussion by critics about the role of the independent test in verifying your device. They claim since the test was not 100% independent because of your minimal involvement, the whole test was not admissible as evidence. First of all using their criteria for independence, it is not possible to create an independent test because they claim there must be no contact by the creator of the device. Of course if you cannot have interaction with the inventor, how can you duplicate the device? At least the inventor has to give instructions on how to assemble and operate the device. When a device is submitted to Underwriters Lab (UL) they provide only independent testers. This is what your test reported. The argument can only be about the credentials of the testers which are better in my opinion than most tests of this nature.
    Regards.

  89. Paul

    Andrea,

    Thomas McGuire and his team at Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works have achieved a remarkable new magnetic configuration to contain a hot fusion reaction. They are still billions of investment dollars away from a practical solution to the worlds energy problems.

    http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

    Paul

  90. Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    Very interesting, thank you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  91. Andrea Rossi

    Jean Pierre:
    Yes, I have been told that other Professors, besides the ones that have signed the report and its Appendixes, have participated to the reviewing of the Report during its making and before the publication.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  92. Andrea Rossi

    Rafal Krych:
    Thank you for your suggestion,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  93. Andrea Rossi

    Christopher Calder:
    It does not work that way. First, we need the safety certification, then we can sell the domestic units. We need several years of proper operation of the industrial application, then there will be the base for a certification protocol. it is true that our 1 MW plants have been put for sale in the late year 2012, but the first plant that has been sold to an industrial Customer and that can generate statistics for the certification is quite recent.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  94. Dear Andrea and JoNP Readers,
    in this apparently calm period after the ITPR I will use the occasion to mention some other consequences of the “electron mediated LENR hypothesis” I mentioned in my previous recent posts. Always in the hope that someone will comment/criticize/suggest.

    Ni64 is the Source of Copper 65
    The experimental results say that Ni64 is depleted by the LENR. I therefore gather that Ni64 has a magnetic moment (quadrupole or higher) that allows it to react and become Ni65. Ni65 then decays beta to Cu65 (with a half-life of 2.517 [h]):

    16: Ni64+e+p ->Ni65+neutrino+ (max) 5.15 [MeV]
    Ni65 ->Cu65 + e- + antineutrino + (max) 2.138[Mev]

    I think this is the origin of the isotope shift described in the Rossi-Focardi paper “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”. In that report the natural isotope ratio between Cu63 and Cu65, equal to 2.24, was found to have shifted to 1.16 in the ashes. I suggest that that shift was due to the addition of Cu65, in an amount exactly equal to the Ni64 that reacted.

    Decay of Ni69
    Ni69 is radioactive, with a half-life of 76,000 years, and decays almost exclusively via electron capture. The branching to positron emission is only 0,000037%. Therefore if this isotope remains in the charge only as traces it will not cause significant gamma radiation (for a 0.55 [g] Ni charge …). A problem remains in the fact the that the X ray emissions (in the range of a few [keV]) that follow the electron capture should have been measured.

    Lithium Isotopic Shift
    The LENR I propose for Lithium, differently from what happens for Nickel, lead to an enrichment in Li6 only because the two become He4 at different rates. This means that the total amount of Li should decrease together with the Li7/Li6 ratio.

    Reactions that Generate Power
    It is interesting to note this: if the main source of energy of the tested Hot-Cat were the isotopic shifts of Nickel and Lithium, the net power should have decreased during the test, simply because the amount of reactants decreased progressively (confirmed by the isotope analyses). Instead the net power production remained quite constant, and even grew during the last 4 days. This fact suggests that a progressively growing part of the energy of the test came from reactions that are different from the isotopic shifts. I think that these reactions are the reaction 1-4 of my first post on this.

    Andrea Calaon

  95. Dear Dr Rossi:

    You have industrial use certification for the E-Cat. My suggestion is to design and sell a 10 kilowatt industrial use only portable space heater. That would prove the technology works, provide you with a stream of income, and over time convince the certification agencies that it was also safe for home use. That would require only one E-Cat unit to be used and controlled, and the reactor would only be heating air with radiant reflectors and a simple fan mechanism. You could design the unit then get a preexisting factory somewhere to build them for you by the thousands.

    Just a thought.

    Best Regards, Christopher Calder

  96. Rafal Krych

    Dear Andrea,

    After looking at recent 3rd party report I’ve noticed that Hot E-Cat can keep high temperature like 1400 °C for long periods of time.
    It actually makes it a perfect candiate to replace burners used in Lime Kilns:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_kiln

    The limestone calcination process requires temperature below 1000 °C and consumes around 20kWh of electric power per tonne of lime. The coal fired lime kilns produce additonally 259 kg/t of CO2 and natural gas fired produce 206 kg/t of CO2. The Hot E-Cat might be in form of hollow pipe (similar to October 2011 model shown in Bologna) throuh which air is being pushed and heated. This air can be then used to heat limestone inside kiln. Lime kiln example, just imagine that burner is replaced with Hot E-Cat:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU4KNV1hRiQ
    Usage of Hot E-Cat here will cut both heating costs and carbon dioxide emissions drastically. Sounds like good business oportunity when you finally start introducing your technology to market.

    Regards
    Rafal

  97. Hi, Andrea.
    Please correct me if my memory is faulty. I seem to recall that you said in the past that the current investigating team was enlarged and that there were professors who were representing the USA, Europe and the far East. Please indicate which of the team represented the USA and the far East. All the authors seem to be from Europe. Thanks for all your dedicated E-CAT work and the time taken to answer peoples’ questions.

    Jean Pierre

  98. Andrea Rossi

    John Atkinson:
    Thank you for your kind words.
    Our R&D continues , focused upon the 1 MW plant, I am not able now to know which information will be given day by day, but now we are working exclusively on the commercial breakthrough and the theoretical problems regarding the results of the Report. Anyway: any information that will be fit to be given, will be given to our Readers. This answers also to many other Readers that have commented on the same topic.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  99. Koen Vandewalle

    Joseph Fine,

    “Let there be light”. There seems to be proof of that : http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_16-5-2014-15-32-44

    A little further in the abstract (of the previous experiment that you mentioned), after a lot of subsequent details, is written that there are created “two lights”.
    At that time, they had no blogs to fill yottabytes with, so there might be some confusion about how to understand this concept of “two lamps”.
    But officially, there is room for a second lamp, independent from the bright and hot one.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen