Rossi Blog Reader

This page contains all the postings to Andrea Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics, with the entries sorted so that Rossi's answers appear under each question (where possible).

This page is generated once a day.

Back to the most recent entries.

Comments to Webmaster

  1. Observer10

    Dear Mr. Rossi I have a question for you.

    Students like Oscar-Gullstrom publish these theories based on “published” test results. If you notice the paper talks very little about any other possible Ash products such as Helium, etc. which has been shown to be present in other LENR experiments.

    This paper that you were pleased with could be better if more of us had the opportunity to replicate the basic so called “Rossi Effect.” However, we all have very little recent empirical public data to go on.

    I fully understand and value the requirement for not publishing certain data.

    My question is simply this: Could we get an idea from you as to when, be it by patent disclosure, or commercial product, when us younger aspiring scientists can have a full disclosure of the “Rossi Effect?” So that we can actually study it without stumbling around in the dark?

    A timeline would be important so that we can plan accordingly. If you think about what it takes to get a PhD, you will understand what I mean.

    Thank you for your time.

  2. Andrea Rossi

    Observer 10:
    Thank you for your opinion, but, as I already answered many times to this kind of comments, to give away for free the IP would stop the real investments necessary to develope this technology. Our comercial breakthrough, obviously, should help.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  3. bertoldo

    It is a visual similarity. The effect of compression – release or better visual peaks that can be seen in the minutes indicated may be related with the tunneling resistance of the wire that you use? Obviously in this thread is at the nanoscopic level.

    Si tratta di una similitudine visiva . L’effetto compressione – rilascio o meglio i picchi visivi che si notano nel minuto indicato possono essere correlati con l’effetto tunnel del filo della resistenza che Lei usa ? Ovviamente nel filo questo avviene a livello nanoscopico e le “valli” sono molto più profonde dei picchi .

  4. Andrea Rossi

    Bertoldo:
    No, it is a totally different thing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  5. sebbie

    Andrea Rossi:
    Are you aware that the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is starting a “replication” project based on the Lugano report?

    What do you think would be their chances of succeeding in building a working prototype within a year? By working prototype, I mean one that can replicate the excess heat produced at Lugano.

    Warm Regards,
    Sebbie

  6. Andrea Rossi

    Sebbie:
    We never comment the work of our competitors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  7. Joe

    Pekka,

    I forgot to mention that plasmon-polariton waves are a type of evanescent wave. And that, in quantum mechanics, the evanescent-wave solutions of the Schrödinger equation give rise to the phenomenon of wave-mechanical tunneling about which Dr Rossi was inquiring a few days ago. In fact, Prof Meyl, even though he is an electrical engineer, still had the prescience to mention tunneling at the very end of his article to which I linked in my last posting to you. And this was back in the year 2001. Maybe the explanation of the Rossi Effect lies somewhere in this area.

    All the best,
    Joe

  8. Joe

    Pekka,

    It is interesting that you mention plasmons because they are associated with antenna technology, and Dr Rossi was inquiring about this some time ago. I gave him this link to a paper by Prof Konstantin Meyl:

    http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/Wireless-Energy-Transfer.pdf

    The paper mentions a COP of about 3 which I found interesting in light of the newly discovered Rossi Effect.

    All the best,
    Joe

  9. JR

    Joe,

    A quick response to your two points:

    1. The Schrodinger equation tells you how an object’s wavefunction evolves over time, and it can include mass, external potentials, etc…. It’s true that it does not tell you where the mass comes from, but that’s not what it’s meant to do. Where mass comes from is a remarkably difficult question and investigations of this need go well beyond non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

    2. It certainly doesn’t require a human to look at it. The wavefunction evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, and for an object sitting in a fixed potential, you can have a case where not much is happening and so the evolution of the wavefunction doesn’t do much of anything. But if it interacts with other potentials or other objects, the wavefunction will evolve based on it’s interactions.

    In addition, it may or may not ‘collapse’. When we say it collapses when you look at it, it (basically) means that if you measure it’s position very precisely, then the wavefunction becomes localized in that region where you observed the object. If one is talking about a binary system (Schrodinger’s cat – alive vs. dead, spin-1/2 particle – spin-up vs. spin-down), then the observation can collapse the wave function into one of the two states. But if you’re talking about a continuous variable (the position or momentum of an object), it doesn’t have to collapse down to a single point.

  10. James Heath

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    Without giving any proprietary information can you answer my following question? How important is the atmosphere of the reaction, is a specific amount of multiple elements needed or just a certain amount a specific one? Do you believe the reaction could be versatile enough for it to occur suspended in a liquid with the right catalysts present?

  11. Andrea Rossi

    James Heath:
    Sorry, I cannot give this kind of information, positive or negative as it might be.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  12. Andrea Rossi

    Bertoldo:
    Really interesting under a scientific point of view. Spectacular.
    Obviously it has nothing to do with the E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  13. bertoldo

    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152540866371083&set=vb.215052536082&type=2&theater Di questo video cosa ne pensa Dott. Rossi . minuto 0:25 – 0:30 . L’utilizzo delle frequenze ha questi risultati anche nella sua macchina ?

  14. Joe

    JR,

    I thank you for your response.

    Two more points if I may:

    1. An example of a particle property is mass. This property pre-exists within the Schrodinger equation in the variable m. Therefore the need to derive this property by way of the Schrodinger equation is voided. If particle nature is truly ultimately wave nature, the Schrodinger equation should be able to derive mass instead of pre-establishing it within its structure. But it can not derive it. And I contend that the reason is that particle nature is foreign to the Schrodinger equation.

    2. Why would the wave function collapse only when we humans interact with it (by way of measurement, etc) and not when anything else in the Universe interacts with it, which actually happens at every moment? What if many humans looked for the object simultaneously, should not the collapse of the wave function happen in many places accordingly and all at once, or maybe not happen at all?

    All the best,
    Joe

  15. Wladimir Guglinski

    The mystery on the electric quadrupole moment for the deuteron

    Dear readers of the JoNP.

    In order to understand why from the Standard Nuclear Physics is impossible to get the electric quadrupole moment Q(b) of the deuteron, first of all we have to understand what is elec. quadr. moment Q(b).

    Electric quadrupole momnent is concerning the distribution of electric charges.
    We have:
    1) An elipsoidal distribution of charges has Q(b) different of zero
    2) A spherical distribution of charges Q(b) = 0.

    The deuteron is formed by proton+neutron.
    The proton has a spherical distribution of charge, and therefore it has Q(b)=0.
    The neutron has charge zero, and therefore the neutron has Q(b)=0.

    So, a deuteron formed by p+n would have to have elec. quad. mom. Q(b)=0.

    Therefore one of the biggest and harder dramas of the Standard Nuclear Physics was born in 1939 when the physicists discovered that deuteron has non null electric quadrupole moment, as expected from the Standard Nuclear Physics, but actually it has Q(b) = +0,028

    The paper was published in the Jornal Nature:
    The Electric Quadrupole Moment of the Deuteron and the Field Theory of Nuclear Forces
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v144/n3645/abs/144476a0.html
    —————————————————————-
    “THE discovery by Rabi and his collaborators that the deuteron in its ground state possesses an electric quadrupole moment is of considerable theoretical importance, since it clearly shows that the forces acting between a proton and a neutron must to a quite appreciable extent depend on the spatial orientations of the spins of the heavy particles.”
    ——————————————————————-

    Along 66 years the theorists tried to solve the mystery.
    But of course they did never succeed, because the model of neutron considered in the Standard Model is wrong.

    In 2005 (therefore 66 years after the publication of the paper by Nature in 1939), the puzzle of the nucleon-nucleon force was not solved yet, as we realize from the paper published by the Tukish Journal of Physics:

    Electron-Deuteron Tensor Polarization and D-State Probability
    http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-05-29-3/fiz-29-3-1-0408-3.pdf
    Page 129:
    —————————————————————-
    ”One of the main hopes of electron-deuteron scattering experiments have been to measure certain features of the deuteron wave function and to use these properties to determine unknown properties of the nucleon-nucleon force”.
    —————————————————————-

    Thirty three models were proposed along 65 years, as we see in the page 129 of the paper published in the Turkish Journal of Physics:
    —————————————————————-
    ”So, in our investigation of deuteron tensor polarization we employ thirty-three local potential models of the nucleon-nucleon force.”
    [...]
    “These thirty-three potential models have different deuteron properties, such as deuteron quadrupole moment Q , D-state probability P , asymptotic D-state amplitude A and asymptotic ratio E. The values of these properties are not equal, but have wide range of values in all potential models.”
    [...]
    ”To discuss the properties of various wave functions of these potential models, the deuteron radial wave functions u and w of fourteen selected local potential models among the above mentioned 33 potential models (i, c, f, GK3, TSC, r6, RSC, RHC, r7, HJ, PARIS, MHKZ, 2 and 4) are chosen. “
    —————————————————————-

    Of course the nuclear theorists may continue to try to solve the puzzle of the elecrric quadrupole moment of the deuteron along 660 years, or 6600 years, or 66000 years, but they will never succeed to solve the puzzle if they continue keeping the model of neutron considered in the Standard Model. They can propose 330 models, 3300 models, or 33000 models, and they will never succeed to solve the puzzle.

    There is only one way to solve the puzzle: it is by considering the new model of neutron formed by proton + electron, n=p+e, proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    The electric quadrupole moment Q(b) of the deuteron is calculated in my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron, published in the JoNP.
    See page 43, equation 15:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Anomalous%20mass%20of%20the%20neutron.pdf

    The theoretical value calculated in the paper is Q(b)= 3×10^-31m² , while the experiments get Q(b)= +2,86×10^-31m².

    My paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron was submitted to the Chinese Journal of Physics in 2002, and the referee rejected the paper because in my paper it is considered that the radius of the proton is R= 0,275fm, while in the Standard Model the proton’s radius is R= 0,8fm (obtained by experiments via scattering proton-electron).

    However, in 2011 new experiments, made with a different method, had measured the proton’s radius to be a little shorter than R=0,8fm.

    And the question now is: is that result either due to errors in the measurement or due to the fact that the proton’s radius can be shorter than 0,8fm.

    My opinion is that proton’s radius has a shrinkage when it is bound with other particles heavier than the electron.. A free proton has radius R=0,8fm (as measured in the scattering proton-electron experiments), but when it is bound with heavier particles its radius is very shorter than 0,8fm

    In order to eliminate the controversy on the proton’s radius, in 2015-2016 other experiment will be made so that to measure the proton’s radius via scattering of the proton with mesons.
    As the meson has mass 200 times heavier than the electron, I expect that the new experiments to be made between 2015 and 2016 will measure the proton’s radius very shorter than 0,8fm (probably between 0,3fm and 0,6fm).

    Now we have to wait the results of the experiments

    regards
    wlad

  16. Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Some ideas for possible LENR theories. Maybe the effective electron mass becomes zero or very small for some reason. This is not principally impossible, since a similar thing happens in graphene. Then the electron plasma frequency which is proportional to sqrt(n/m) [n is electron density, m is effective electron mass] becomes high. In other words, electron plasma oscillations (plasmons) acquire high energy. Maybe such high-energy plasmons can then couple to nuclear degrees of freedom and explain why no radiation is emitted. Maybe this also helps explain why reactions happen in the first place, by making new reaction exit channels available.

    Some weeks ago I suggested to you an experiment where a gamma ray source is put behind the reactor and then one checks if the ability of the reactor to suppress and/or scatter the gamma rays increases when the reactor is turned on. If it would happen, it would be consistent with the above picture i.e. presence of energetic plasmons.

    Some people have earlier pondered about the possibility of increasing the effective electron mass and thereby to more easily overcome the Coulomb barrier, i.e., a similar thing which happens in muon catalysed fusion. However, in that case I don’t know how radiation would be suppressed. My suggestion above is the reverse: instead of making the electron mass higher, consider what happens if one makes it lower. Then the agents to enable the reaction wouldn’t be electrons (as particles), but plasmons (as collective oscillation modes of the electron fluid).

    To explain LENR (chemical environment assisted nuclear reactions), somehow one has to build a bridge from low-energy chemistry to high-energy nuclear phenomena. All particles in chemical systems have low energy, so the task appears difficult. But maybe some collective wave modes (such as plasmons) can have high energy. It is a possible loophole that looks interesting to me.

    regards, /pekka

  17. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Thank you for your insight.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  18. Tom Conover

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    For readers seaching for the replication of the death ray used against the fleet of the enemies assailing Syracuse using mirrors that reflected the sunrays that you referenced perhaps they can see the flames created at:

    http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/deathray/10_ArchimedesResult.html

    Too bad M.I.T. couldn’t replecate the Pons and Fleishman experiment in 1989 – eh? Thank you for sharing your thoughts about your work with us on this web site, Andrea!

    Tom Conover

  19. Andrea Rossi

    Tom Conover:
    Sharing my thoughts in this blog is an enrichment for me ( and a precious source of corrections too). I hope the same for our dear Readers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  20. Wladimir Guglinski

    REPLY Nr. SEVEN

    Ab initio calculation of energies of light nuclei with the Hybrid Multideterminant scheme
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepja%2Fi2006-10214-6
    Abstract.
    We use the AV8′ nucleon-nucleon potential renormalized with the Lee-Suzuki prescription with the Hybrid Multideterminant scheme to evaluate energies of some light nuclei. The Lee-Suzuki prescription is used to evaluate the the two-body matrix elements up to 6 major oscillator shells in the lab frame. The Hybrid Multideterminant scheme is used to deal with the nuclear-structure problem. The results obtained for 6Li, 12C and 16O are compared with the results obtained with other methods. The results suggest a reasonable convergence of the renormalization prescription for 6 major shells.
    =================================

    COMMENT

    1) Ab initio ???
    Actually ab initio would be to solve the primordial puzzle on the nucleon-nucleon force, not solved yet.

    2) Nothing concerning why 8Be is unstable.

    3) However, we see one more method, the Hybrid Multideterminant sheme, and so we go back to what we said in the REPLY Nr. ONE: Why so many methods ???

    The puzzle of the nucleon-nucleon force in the deuteron (the most simples nucleon formed by p+n) was not solved yet, in spite of along 66 years 33 theories were proposed.

    But in the Abstract the authors say:
    We use the AV8′ nucleon-nucleon potential.
    First of all, we realize that the AV8’ nucleon-nucleon potential is not quoted in the paper published by the Turkish Journal of Physics. So, while those 33 nucleon-nucleon potential mentioned in the TJP were conceived so that to satisfy the nuclear properties of the nucleon-nucleon potential existing in the deuteron, we don’t know if the AV8 was conceived in order to consider also the puzzles of the deuteron.

    4) So, a fundamental question arises: by considering the principles of the Standard Model, as the primordial puzzle of the nucleon-nucleon force in the deuteron (formed by proton+neutron) was not solved yet, then does it make sense to hope to solve the puzzles of the light nuclei ??? (since they are composed by proton+neutron).

    .

    Finally,
    I would like to say that I am very thankful to you, Mr. JR, because you promoted to me the opportunity to show how the current nuclear theories are full of unsolved puzzles.

    Regards
    wlad

  21. Wladimir Guglinski

    REPLY Nr. SIX

    Energy levels of light nuclei A = 5−10
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375947488901248
    Abstract
    A review of the evidence on the properties of the nuclei with A = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, with emphasis on material leading to information about the structure of the A = 5−10 systems.
    ===================================

    COMMENT:

    Nothing concerning why 8Be is unstable.

    regards
    wlad

  22. Wladimir Guglinski

    REPLY Nr. FIVE

    Alpha decay constant of 8Be nucleus
    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732314500278
    The 8Be nucleus decays into two 4He nuclei. This decay constant is theoretically estimated using Fermi golden rule and the ground state wave functions of the 4He and 8Be nuclei. The estimated result agrees pretty well with the reported experimental value.

    .
    Fermi’s golden rule
    In quantum physics, Fermi’s golden rule is a way to calculate the transition rate (probability of transition per unit time) from one energy eigenstate of a quantum system into another energy eigenstate, due to a perturbation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%27s_golden_rule
    ================================================

    .

    COMMENT
    So, it is not a theory, based on a nuclear model, and it does not explain why 8Be is unstable.
    It is actually a phenomenological work, based on the experimental fact that 8Be nucleus decays into two 4He nuclei, and uses the Fermi’s golden rule (and such rule has nothing to do with the stability of the nuclei).

    The nucleus 8Be has a binding energy of 7,06MeV/nucleon, however the nucleus is unstable. The paper calculates the binding energy, but does not explains why 8Be is unstable.

    Besides, as already mentioned in the REPLY Nr. THREE, the 8Be formed by two-alpha clusters is not viable, because the 9Be formed by 8Be+n cannot reproduce the nuclear properties of the 9Be.

    regards
    wlad

  23. Wladimir Guglinski

    REPLY Nr. FOUR

    Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of A=8 nuclei
    http://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.62.014001
    Abstract
    We report quantum Monte Carlo calculations of ground and low-lying excited states for A=8 nuclei using a realistic Hamiltonian containing the Argonne v18 two-nucleon and Urbana IX three-nucleon potentials. The calculations begin with correlated eight-body wave functions that have a filled α-like core and four p-shell nucleons LS coupled to the appropriate (Jπ;T) quantum numbers for the state of interest. After optimization, these variational wave functions are used as input to a Green’s function Monte Carlo calculation made with a new constrained path algorithm. We find that the Hamiltonian produces a 8Be ground state that is within 2 MeV of the experimental resonance, but the other eight-body energies are progressively worse as the neutron-proton asymmetry increases. The 8Li ground state is stable against breakup into subclusters, but the 8He ground state is not. The excited state spectra are in fair agreement with experiment, with both the single-particle behavior of 8He and 8Li and the collective rotational behavior of 8Be being reproduced. We also examine energy differences in the T=1,2 isomultiplets and isospin-mixing matrix elements in the excited states of 8Be. Finally, we present densities, momentum distributions, and studies of the intrinsic shapes of these nuclei, with 8Be exhibiting a definite 2α cluster structure.
    ===========================================

    COMMENTS:

    1) The filled α-like core and four p-shell nucleons is similar to the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, since in QRT the nuclei have a central 2He4 (core).

    2) The definite 2-alpha cluster structure for the 8Be is no viable, as explained in the REPLY No. THREE, because a model of 9Be formed by 2-alpha cluster+neutron cannot reproduce the magnetic moment, nuclear spin, and electric quadrupole moment exhibited by the 9Be , as measured by experiments.

    regards
    wlad

  24. Wladimir Guglinski

    REPLY Nr. THREE

    The Very Rich Structure of the Rather Light Nuclei
    http://www.cenbg.in2p3.fr/heberge/EcoleJoliotCurie/coursannee/cours/W-Catford.pdf
    =======================================
    6. MASS A=8
    The 8Be system is, in some ways, the most enigmatic of all the beryllium isotopes.
    It can be considered as two alpha-particles in orbit with zero angular momentum.
    ========================================

    .

    COMMENT 1:

    Unfortunatelly, the 8Be has not nuclear properties so that to verify if such structure formed by apha-particles is satisfactory.

    However, we can verify the alpha-particles model by considering the 9Be. Look at what is said in the item 7, MASS = 9:
    ======================================
    The molecular description of 9Be, in terms of two alpha-particles bound together by a neutron in a molecular orbital, was developed by Seya and collaborators in 1981 [21].
    ======================================

    .

    COMMENT 2:
    This model is impossible. Each alpha-particle has nuclear spin zero, and therefore the 9Be would have to have the spin of the neutron, i=1/2 . However, from experiments we know that 9Be has spin 3/2.

    Other problem is the magnetic moment. Each alpha-particle has magnetic moment zero. So, the magnetic moment of the 9Be is due to the neutron, and its magnetic moment is -1,913. But due to the rotation of the nucleus, the magnetic moment has to increase of about 10%, and therefore 9Be could not have magnetic moment less than -2,10. But the experiments show that 9Be has magnetic moment -1,177.

    Other problem is the quadrupole moment. The two alpha-particles produce null quadrupole moment. As the neutron has no electric charge, the electric quadrupole moment of the 9Be must be zero. However the experiments detected that 9Be has electric quadrupole moment +0,053.

    .

    COMMENT 3:

    In the paper it is written:
    ======================================
    Although the alpha-particle subsytems bring with them a high binding energy, the 8Be system is not bound overall.
    ======================================

    So,
    in spite of they calculate the binding energy of the 8Be, however it is not explained why the 8Be is unstable.

    Actually only a conjecture is proposed:

    ===============================
    The existence of a loosely bound system of identical boson particles (alpha-particles) could lead one to suppose [15] that a link might exist with Bose-Einstein condensates.
    =================================

    But Bose-Einstein condensates refers to a gas of bosons. So, by considering 8Be as cluster of two bosons 2He4, an the oxygen 16.O a clusters of 4 bosons 2He4, a question arises: Why 8Be is unstable, and 16.O is stable? They both are formed by a pair number of bosons.
    So, by considering the conjecture of the Bose-Einstein condensate, actually 16.O would have a structure formed by two 8Be nuclei, and therefore 16.O would be unstable like the 8Be is.

    However, as the theorists know that 16.O is stable, of course they invent a mathematical artifice, in order to explain why a Bose-Einstein condensate formed by 4-boson nuclei 2He4 is stable, by following the example given by Heisenberg, when he invented the mathematical artifice named Isospin, so that to explain why two neutrons are not bound via strong nuclear force.
    When a theory fails to give what the logic expects from it, the solution is via mathematics, by inventing mathematical phantasmagoric assumptions.

    .

    COMMENT 4:

    In the paper it is written:
    ===================================
    Another interesting feature of nuclear structure is illustrated by the unbound ground state of 8Be, and is sometimes referred to as the phenomenon of
    “ghosts” [18].
    ===================================

    Well,
    It is not a surprise.
    Because the Standar Nuclear Physics was developed from the Heisenberg’s phantasmagoric scientific method.

    And what we can expect from a phantamagoric method, if not ghosts?

    .

    COMMENT 5:

    The paper is ended with the following words:
    ==================================
    Clearly, though, this is very fertile territory for study and there are many interesting things still to be learnt from the rather light nuclei.
    ==================================

    Of course.
    However, first of all they have to solve the primordial puzzle of the nucleon-nucleon force, not solved yet along 66 years.

    After all, how can they solve the puzzles of the light nuclei, since the light nuclei are bound via nucleon-nucleon force, but they did not solve yet the primordial puzzle?

    regards
    wlad

  25. Wladimir Guglinski

    REPLY Nr. TWO

    Three-body forces and the binding energy of light nuclei
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02710935#page-1
    =========================================
    Summary
    A phenomenological nuclear interaction consisting of a two-body potential containing a Gaussian with exchange and a delta-function, together with a three-body potential of a generalized Gaussian, was fitted to helium 4 and to the single-particle values of oxygen 16. The binding energies of 8Be,12C and 16O were calculated with this potential. The three-body term was found to contribute some five MeV to the binding in oxygen 16. An interaction consisting of a two-body Gaussian with exchange and a three-body Gaussian with exchange was found not to bind oxygen 16
    ==============================================

    Such nuclear model is not able to describe the oxygen 16, because of the following:

    1) The oxygen 17 would be formed by oxygen 16+n

    2) Oxygen 16 has magnetic moment zero, spin zero, and elec. quad. moment zero.

    3) Therefore oxygen 17 would have to have:

    3.1) Magnetic moment not less than -2,10 (-1,913 of the neutron plus 10% due to the rotation of the nucleus). But oxygen 17 has magnetic moment -1,893

    3.2) Spin i=1/2 due to the neutron. However oxygen 17 has spin 5/2

    3.3) Elec. quadr. moment equal to zero, because oxygen 16 has quadrupole moment zero, while the neutron has no charge. However oxygen 17 has quadr. moment equal to -0,26.

    3.4) As it is unable to describe oxygen 17, it makes no sense to suppose that such model can be applied to the oxygen 16.

    CONCLUSION:
    Therefore the model is wrong, and it makes no sense to apply such model to 8Be.

    regards
    wlad

  26. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Mr. JR,

    I wrote a reply for each one of the links quoted by you, in the total of seven replies.
    I will post them, each one in a different Comment in the JoNP.

    .

    REPLY Nr. ONE

    One of the biggest puzzles in Nuclear Physics starts from the most simplest particle: the deuteron, formed by only a proton and a neutron

    The problem started in 1939, with a paper published in the journal Nature:

    The Electric Quadrupole Moment of the Deuteron and the Field Theory of Nuclear Forces
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v144/n3645/abs/144476a0.html
    —————————————————————-
    |THE discovery by Rabi and his collaborators that the deuteron in its ground state possesses an electric quadrupole moment is of considerable theoretical importance, since it clearly shows that the forces acting between a proton and a neutron must to a quite appreciable extent depend on the spatial orientations of the spins of the heavy particles.
    ——————————————————————-

    .

    In 2005 (therefore 66 years after the publication of the paper by Nature in 1939), the puzzle of the nucleon-nucleon force was not solved yet, as we realize from the paper published by the Tukish Journal of Physics:

    Electron-Deuteron Tensor Polarization and D-State Probability
    http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-05-29-3/fiz-29-3-1-0408-3.pdf
    Page 129:
    —————————————————————-
    ”One of the main hopes of electron-deuteron scattering experiments have been to measure certain features of the deuteron wave function and to use these properties to determine unknown properties of the nucleon-nucleon force.
    —————————————————————-

    .

    Well, this is almost unbelievable, because the deuteron is the most simplest bound particle, formed by proton+neutron. After all, after 66 years the theorists were not able to solve the most simplest bound structure existing in the Nature, formed by proton+neutron ?????

    Let us ponder about such unsuccessful attempt made along 66 years.
    If a model is proposed with the same structure existing in the Nature, of course from such model would be viable to describe all the nuclear properties of the structure existing in the Nature.

    However all the attempts along 66 years have failed.
    And a question is unavoidable : WHY ???

    Well, just because the model of forces acting between a proton and a neutron considered in the Standar Model is wrong. If it was right, certainly the problem on nucleon-nucleon force already had been solved.

    So, what happened along 66 years?

    What happened is explained ahead:

    1- A theorist A had proposed the first model
    2- Later other theorists realized that the model of the theorist A was not good, because it was not able to be fit to some results of experiments.
    3- Then a second theorist B had proposed a second model
    4- But later again the other theorists realized that the model of the theorist B was no satisfactory
    5- Then a third theorist C had proposed a third model
    6- And so one…

    And how many models were proposed for the forces acting between a proton and a neutron? Two models? Three? Four? Five?

    In the case of the deuteron, between 1939 and 2005 thirty three models were proposed.

    Thirty three models ?????

    Thirty three models for the most simplest particle formed by proton+neutron ????

    Yes, thirty three models, as we see in the page 129 of the paper published in the Turkish Journal of Physics:
    —————————————————————-
    ”So, in our investigation of deuteron tensor polarization we employ thirty-three local potential models of the nucleon-nucleon force.”
    [...]
    “These thirty-three potential models have different deuteron properties, such as deuteron quadrupole moment Q , D-state probability P , asymptotic D-state amplitude A and asymptotic ratio E. The values of these properties are not equal, but have wide range of values in all potential models.”
    [...]
    ”To discuss the properties of various wave functions of these potential models, the deuteron radial wave functions u and w of fourteen selected local potential models among the above mentioned 33 potential models (i, c, f, GK3, TSC, r6, RSC, RHC, r7, HJ, PARIS, MHKZ, 2 and 4) are chosen. “
    —————————————————————-

    So, along 66 years the theorists did not succeed to solve the puzzle of the electric quadrupole moment of the deuteron, and the puzzle of the nucleon-nucleon force, and the puzzle is not solved yet.

    As they did not succeed to solve the puzzle of the most simplest nucleon formed by proton+neutron, what can we expect when we consider more complex structures, as for instance the 4Be8 ?

    This is what we will discuss in the next reply to you, Mr. JR.

    Regards
    Wlad

  27. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You have mentioned how you are very interested with the recent Gullstrom paper, and you and your team is studying it carefully. This suggests you are still learning about the theoretical basis of the E-Cat.

    Can you create a satisfactory E-Cat product without a full understanding of the theory behind it?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  28. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Your question must be divided in different well distinguished points:
    1- Yes, we are studying the paper of Gullstroem
    2- We are studying at 360° all the possibilities of reconciliation between the Standard Model and the results of the ITP Report
    3- I am studying the possible theoretical bases of the so called “Rossi Effect”, that I made through a Galilean methodology of trial and error. As a matter of fact I think a theory is ready, but it is strictly bound to particulars of the reactor that cannot be disclosed so far. I am working upon the issue in collaboration with nuclear physicists.
    4- To create a satisfactory product without a full understanding of the theory behind it is not just possible, it is what happens most of times for most of the inventions: 2226 years ago Archymedes has burnt the fleet of the enemies assailing Syracuse using mirrors that reflected the sunrays: a full understanding of the theory behind this “Archymedes Effect” has been found after circa 2120 years, with the discovery of photons. But the product worked pretty well, ask the enemies of Syracuse!
    Obviously, the same principle is valid for the E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  29. JR

    Joe,

    I think it’s confusing and somewhat misleading to say that objects have both wave and particle properties (or change back and forth between the two). In quantum mechanics, it’s more correct to say that all objects are always waves, but that the behavior of the waves is similar to particle behavior under many circumstances. This refers to an object’s wavefunctions, not just simple propagating waves.

    As for tunneling, the wavefunction exists on both sides of the barrier; most of it is “inside” the barrier, but a little bit of the wavefunction can cross the barrier and extend beyond. If you measure to see where the object is, there is a small chance (related to the amount of wavefunction beyond the barrier) that you’ll find that it’s on the outside.

    But it’s like Schrodinger’s cat: the object is both inside and outside of the barrier. But then when you look, you’ll either find it inside or outside.

    Of course, this is just a simple description of the quantum mechanics for this problem. Quantum mechanics has many subtleties, and it’s not easy to explain what it means for an object to be a wave or exist both inside and outside of the potential barrier.

  30. Joe

    To all the Readers,

    1. Although we know that tunneling is probabilistic, what is the mechanism involved that keeps an object from crossing a barrier some of the time, and allowing it to cross at other times? In other words, why does tunneling not occur at EVERY possible opportunity?

    2. The Schrodinger equation is usually used to describe how a wave tunnels through a barrier. Since an object has both wave and particle properties, how is particle nature transmitted through a barrier? An analogy would be a rubber ball bouncing off a wall, transmitting some of its energy to the other side by way of its wave nature, but having its particle nature prevented from crossing the barrier. It seems that science treats the particle nature as just a toss-in, never really explaining how it makes its appearance on the other side of the barrier. Some people might claim that the particle nature just simply disappears for the time of the crossing, or that the particle nature converts to wave nature for the time of the crossing. But I find these two potential claims illogical. In the case of disappearance, no mechanism exists to even nullify one particle property, let alone many – and that simultaneously. In the case of conversion to wave nature, it is absurd that a confusion of natures would exist. Particle is particle because it is never wave. Even if such conversion did happen, the problem remains that all particle properties would have to convert simultaneously. And no mechanism exists that can accomplish this.

    All the best,
    Joe

  31. Steven N. Karels

    Wlad and JR,

    I have enjoyed reading your posts and friendly blanters. JR – thanks for the latest posting with references. I shall read them and attempt to increase my limited (and dated) understanding of the nucleus and Bound vs Unbound effects.

  32. JR

    Sorry, Wlad, I never mentioned atoms; you’re the one that thought that they were somehow relevant and introduced them into the discussion (and then immediately complained because they aren’t relevant). However, the binding energy of 4He is absolutely central to the question at hand – if 4He were just slightly less bound, then 8Be would be bound. To assert that the binding energy of 4He is irrelevant whether 8Be is bound or not is to admit to not understanding the question at hand. Of course, claiming that all N=Z even-even nuclei must be bound in conventional nuclear physics is admitting to not understanding much about nuclear physics, which puts you at a disadvantage right out of the gate.

    I could suggest that *you* stop with the nonsense, but of course that’s never going to happen. In any case it’s *far* too late to convince people that you head is functioning properly.

    But to humor you, you can find papers on ab initio structure of nuclei (Variational Monte Carlo, Coupled Cluster, Green’s Function Monte Carlo, Density Functional Theory, etc…), all of which allow you to calculate nuclear structure (with approximations, especially for heavy, complex nuclei). They require input such as nucleon-nucleon potentials extracted from nucleon–nucleon scattering data (chiral, Av18, CD-Bonn, Nijmegan, etc… potentials). Of course, three nucleon forces are important, as I mentioned in my last email, and they aren’t constrained as well (but well enough to describe dozens and dozens of ground state masses and excited state energies with remarkable precision).

    http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei gives many references, as does a simple google search: http://bit.ly/1q0r0dB

    A few hastily selected examples follow. Some may not actually include the calculations, but likely they can be found in the references. Others are on the topic of light nuclei in general and may or may not include 8Be. If you want to find specific things, do your own google search, or try actually reading something about the field that you’re constantly bashing with little to no understanding of where the field actually stands today. Even the basics as described on Wikipedia or scholarpedia would be a huge step forward for you if you don’t want to read actual scientific literature.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02710935#page-1
    http://www.cenbg.in2p3.fr/heberge/EcoleJoliotCurie/coursannee/cours/W-Catford.pdf
    http://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.62.014001
    dx.doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptu012
    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732314500278
    dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.01.010
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375947488901248
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepja%2Fi2006-10214-6

    Of course, these are complicated; if you want to understand the calculations (and obviously you don’t), it’s best to look at the approach for A=2 and A=3 nuclei. The general input to the calculations is the same for 8Be, but the calculations are much more difficult so approximations and special computational approaches are required in some cases.

  33. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 29th, 2014 at 4:43 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    That’s what I thought…

    JR wrote in October 29th, 2014 at 8:43 AM

    So, using your own criterion, I’ll take your refusal to answer as an admission that you don’t know what it means for a nucleus to be bound.
    —————————————–

    That’s what not only I thought… but also what I said…

    Although there is not any mystery with the bound state, of course as a smart politician you are changing the discussion, so that do not show us the THEORY which explains why 4Be8 is unstable, published in a Journal of Physics.

    Bound state
    A nucleus is a bound state of protons and neutrons (nucleons).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bound_state

    As you see, that what you said does not fit to the nucleus:

    By the way, because the 8Be binding is only slightly less than the binding of two 4He nuclei, the calculation has to be very precise to determine if it’s bound or unbound.”.

    Because two atoms of 4He are not a bound state of protons and neutrons, since two atoms of 4He would have to be actually bound by their electrosphere.

    The 4He is a noble gas, the level “s” of the 4He atom is full (2 electrons), and therefore two atoms 2He4 do not form a molecule (with the two atoms sharing the same electron in their orbits), and this is the reason why the binding energy of two 4He atoms is very weak.

    You cannot compare the bound state of two 4He atoms with the bound state of the nucleus 4Be8, since in the 4Be8 the bound state is due to interactions between protons and neutrons.

    Dear Mr. JR,
    I suggest you to stop to say nonsenses, because the reader will start to think that something is wrong with your head.

    regards
    wlad

  34. Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    thank you for the interesting links and suggestions.
    I agree with you that “many nuclear theorists are in the last years realizing that it is impossible to find a theory capable to lead to the nuclear structure, based on the current idea of interactions via strong nuclear force”. However I think the realization is not something recent, and goes back at least a few decades.
    I read the text of Professor Lefteris Kaliambos. I disagree on a series of points, like his proposal of modified quark charges, and the arguments that lead to a negative peripheral charge of the neutron, which is in sharp disagreement with the measurements of Miller in 2007.
    But the analysis that Kaliambos does of the electromagnetic interaction between nucleons and of the progressive assembly of nuclei are interesting.
    I will not enter the debate about the instability of Be8.

    About your second comment/critic. You wrote:
    “If the attractive force was higher than the electrostatic repulsion, then all the isotopes of the all nuclei would have to be stable.”

    The attractive force that Dallacasa proposed depends on:
    - the reciprocal location of the nucleons,
    - the magnetic dipole reciprocal orientation (inclusive precession effects that are not considered in the simplified energy evaluations),
    - the phasing between the rotating charges.

    If the dipoles rotate or the phasing changes, the attraction can decrease and become repulsion. Nuclei are dynamical systems. For the p-p case a simple decrease of the attractive force can lead to the separation of the protons due to the always present long range electrostatic repulsion. In the case of n-n or n-p any positive level of the magnetic attraction leads instead to a bound state. This is the well known reason why progressively heavier nuclei tend to have progressively more neutrons than protons.
    Assembling nucleons in a nucleus means finding the lowest energy combination/s (if any) of:
    - relative average nucleon positions,
    - processing spin direction (magnetic dipole moment),
    - internal rotation phasing.
    Sometimes there are more stable combinations, sometimes there’s only one, sometimes none (e.g. Technetium).

    I have to say that I am always “suspicious” of arguments based on the words “natural” and “normal”. And Prof. Kaliambos uses the expression “NATURAL LAWS”. Anyway it is just my attitude.

    About your first comment. You wrote:
    “The structure of the neutron is n= (p+e), and therefore the lepton number is not violated, since the electron exists into the neutron in the form of a lepton with spin zero (because the electron loses its zitterbewegung into the neutron, and the ZBw is the responsible for the spin 1/2 of a free electron).
    The violation of the lepton number in the Standard Model actually occurs because of the mass of the neutrinos. …”

    Violation of the lepton number conservation would mean that there is something absolutely special in this reaction that differentiates it from the myriad of other cases where the lepton number is conserved. What is it?
    Then you argument a reason for the lack of lepton number conservation. And you say that the electron loses its ZBW inside the neutron. Why? Do you know what causes the ZBW? This would be a major step in physics.
    Let me say that in this case I think you are going against a VERY well proven principle without any VERY well founded explanation. No to mention your claim that the so called Standard Model is WRONG altogether. I would be a bit more cautious in criticizing the result of the interaction of many of the most brilliant minds mankind ever produced.
    Sorry, but I can not consider your arguments. Let me friendly ask you not to try to convince me any further about the non-conservation of the lepton number.

    Best Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  35. JR

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    That’s what I thought…

  36. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 28th, 2014 at 9:00 PM
    Just for amusement, what do you think “bound” means in this context. Please be specific.

    JR wrote in October 29th, 2014 at 8:43 AM
    Wlad,
    So, using your own criterion, I’ll take your refusal to answer as an admission that you don’t know what it means for a nucleus to be bound.
    ==============================================

    Dear Mr. JR

    I was very specific when I said:

    ——————————————-
    The binding energy of the 4Be8 has nothing to do with the binding energy of two 2He4 nuclei, because:

    1) 4Be8 is a nucleus (the 8 nucleons are packed in one unique nucleus)
    2) two 2He4 nuclei is NOT a nucleus, they are actually two atoms (4 nucleons are packed in one 2He4, and 4 nucleons are packed in other 2He4).
    3) you cannot compare the binding energy of a nucleus with the binding energy of two atoms, BECAUSE ATOMS ARE BOUND VIA ELECTRONS in their electrospheres, AND NUCLEI ARE BOUND VIA STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE (according to the Standard Model).
    ———————————————

    However, Mr. JR,
    as a smart politician,
    after realizing that you said a very stupid thing,
    you tried to deviate the subject of the discussion, by introducing a polemic about the morfology of the word “bound”

    .

    Mr. JR,

    And I repeat again:

    A theory for the explanation on the unstability of the 4Be8 must be proposed as follows:

    1) A nuclear model of the 4Be8 must be proposed
    2) The model must show the distribution of protons and neutrons within the 4Be8, with the energy level of each of them
    3) The model must show the interactions between the nucleons
    4) The unstability of the 4Be8 must be proven from the item 3

    .

    So, Mr. JR
    please show us a nuclear theory where the 4 steps above are fulfilled.

    .

    Unless you come back here and show us a THEORY published in any Journal of Nuclear Physics, I will not waste my time with your claims.

    If you do not to show the THEORY published in a Journal of Physics, I will not waste my time in answering your nonsences.

    regards
    wlad

  37. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Winter is coming — I hope your R&D output will be enough to cut the heating bill at IH!

    Best wishes,

    Frank

  38. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    You bet; in addition I hope our 1MW plant output will give to the Customer of IH the economic profit he has got the plant for.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  39. JR

    Wlad,

    So, using your own criterion, I’ll take your refusal to answer as an admission that you don’t know what it means for a nucleus to be bound.

  40. Achi

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I have a simple question about the test I don’t believe has been answered. I know that you weren’t present during the test much but I think you possibly could have noticed this.
    How was the room ventilated? From the pictures I’ve seen it just looks like a regular room that would get quite hot with the e-cat running 24/7, so i was wondering how they got rid of the heat.

    As you can tell this is mainly just to satisfy my curiosity.

    Thank you,
    Achi

  41. Andrea Rossi

    Achi:
    He,he,he…nice question.
    It was winter, and in Lugano winter is pretty cold; besides, the laboratory is in a valley between mountains, where cold intensifies. In the photos you cannot see, but along all the ceiling of the laboratory there was a long and big window, that remained open during all the roughly thousand hours of the experiment, so that the hot air mostly escaped through the upper window; nevertheless, the laboratory ( which was pretty big) has been heated enough to force the persons inside to stay in shirts, with an external temperature between minus 5 and plus 10 °C as an average, in the period of February and March. Inside the laboratory the temperature was about of 25°C, but, again, with the hot air , which obviously has a specific gravity minor than the cold air, escaping continuously, 24 hours per day, through the big window of the ceiling of the lab.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  42. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 28th, 2014 at 9:00 PM

    Wlad: “The binding energy of the 4Be8 has nothing to do with the binding energy of two 2He4 nuclei”

    So clearly we’re back to Wladimir not understanding the definition of the terms he’s using.

    Just for amusement, what do you think “bound” means in this context. Please be specific.
    ———————————————-

    Dear Mr. JR
    sometimes people choose the wrong profession.

    For instance, I am an engineer, but the best would be if I had chosen to be a physicist.

    While you choose to be a physicist, but the best would be if you had chosen to be a politician. He is an expert in bamboozling people with the power of his speach.

    regards
    wlad

  43. JR

    Wlad: “The binding energy of the 4Be8 has nothing to do with the binding energy of two 2He4 nuclei”

    So clearly we’re back to Wladimir not understanding the definition of the terms he’s using.

    Just for amusement, what do you think “bound” means in this context. Please be specific.

  44. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    This article was recently submitted to E-Cat World, and I think you might find it interesting. The title is “Low radiation fusion through bound neutron tunneling”, and is written by Carl-Oscar Gullström, a doctoral student in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Uppsala University, Sweden.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/244393652/Low-radiation-fusion-through-bound-neutron-tunneling

    The abstract:

    “To achieve low radiation fusion one considers bound neutron tunneling
    in the MeV range. It is found that the probability for bound neutron
    tunneling is larger then tunneling through a coulomb barrier for Ni Li
    interaction below the energy for fusion conventional Ni Li fusion. The
    theory from basic quantum mechanic tunneling principles are compared
    with the e-cat device. It is found that bound neutron tunneling fusion
    could explain isotope abundance, energy production and burn rate from
    an e-cat test run done by a third party collaboration.”

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  45. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Please extend to Carl-Oscar Gullstrom my congratulations for his very intelligent paper. We are going through them with attention.
    If Carl-Oscar Gullstrom contacts me, we can have an exchange of opinion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  46. Wladimir Guglinski

    Silvio,

    Look again what Mr. orene.org says in the link http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/555 :
    ————————————————————-
    “Very interesting theory ring Wladimir Guglinsky considering the Coriolis force would explain how they can interpenetrate two atoms of deuterium to give one of tritium, beating nuclear forces in the cold fusion.”
    ————————————————————-

    While Larson in his book speaks about the “antagonist” force to counter the attractive force, whatever it may be:

    —————————————————–
    “Originally it was assumed that the atoms are impenetrable, and that the electrical forces merely hold them in contact Present-day knowledge of compressibility and other properties of solids has demolished this hypothesis, and it is now evident that there must be what Karl Darrow called an “antagonist,” in the statement quoted in Volume I, to counter the attractive force, whatever it may be, and produce an equilibrium. Physicists have heretofore been unable to find any such force, but the development of the Reciprocal System has now revealed the existence of a powerful and omnipresent force hitherto unknown to science. Here is the missing ingredient in the physical situation, the force that not only explains the cohesion of solid matter, but, as we saw in Volume I, supplies the answers to such seemingly far removed problems as the structure of star clusters and the recession of the galaxies”.
    —————————————-

    In the case of the nuclei, this “antagonist” force can be the Coriolis force, and this is the reason why Mr. orene.org found very interesting the nuclear model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    In the paper Stability of Light Nuclei it is shown that their stabilty is promoted by the the equilibrium between the centripetal force and the magnetic force.
    See for instance the equilibrium of forces in the 3Li6, shown in the Fig. 10 at page 13:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    regards
    wlad

  47. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 28th, 2014 at 2:51 PM

    By the way, because the 8Be binding is only slightly less than the binding of two 4He nuclei, the calculation has to be very precise to determine if it’s bound or unbound.
    ———————————————–

    COMMENT

    The binding energy of the 4Be8 has nothing to do with the binding energy of two 2He4 nuclei, because:

    1) 4Be8 is a nucleus (the 8 nucleons are packed in one unique nucleus)
    2) two 2He4 nuclei is NOT a nucleus, they are actually two atoms (4 nucleons are packed in one 2He4, and 4 nucleons are packed in other 2He4).
    3) you cannot compare the binding energy of a nucleus with the binding energy of two atoms, BECAUSE ATOMS ARE BOUND VIA ELECTRONS in their electrospheres, AND NUCLEI ARE BOUND VIA STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE (according to the Standard Model).

    This is one among the most stupid argument used by you up to now.

    .

    The reason why the unstability of the 4Be8 cannot be explained via the Standard Model is very easy to be understood:

    1) All nuclei with Z=N = pair are stable, except 4Be8
    2) In order to explain why only 4Be8 is not stable, there is need to adopt ad hoc hypothesis
    3) However, if we apply the ad hoc hypothesis to the other nuclei with Z=N= pair, like 2He4, 6C12, 8O16, etc, they also cannot be stable, by considering the Standard Model.

    Dear Mr. JR,
    I repeat:

    A theory for the explanation on the unstability of the 4Be8 must be proposed as follows:

    1) A nuclear model of the 4Be8 must be proposed
    2) The model must show the distribution of protons and neutrons within the 4Be8, with the energy level of each of them
    3) The model must show the interactions between the nucleons
    4) The unstability of the 4Be8 must be proven from the item 3

    .

    So, Mr. JR
    please show us a nuclear theory where the 4 steps above are fulfilled.

    And please invite Martin Freer, Nörtershäuser, or any other nuclear theorist to come here to show a theory, based on the 4 steps above.

    .

    Unless you come back here and show us a THEORY published in any Journal of Nuclear Physics, I will not waste my time with your claims.

    regards
    wlad

  48. Wladimir Guglinski

    silvio caggia wrote in October 28th, 2014 at 12:22 PM

    @Wladimir Guglinski
    Time ago I asked your question to a RS2 theory guru and seems that this theory predicts that 4Be8 is not stable:
    forum.rs2theory.org/node/555
    Even if I am not able to full understand what he answered me…
    —————————————–

    Silvio,
    interestingly,
    in the link http://forum.rs2theory.org/node/555 mentioned by you there is the following comment on the Quantum Ring Theory, by orene.org:

    ————————————————————-
    “Very interesting theory ring Wladimir Guglinsky considering the Coriolis force would explain how they can interpenetrate two atoms of deuterium to give one of tritium, beating nuclear forces in the cold fusion.”
    ————————————————————-

    regards
    wlad

  49. Wladimir Guglinski

    silvio caggia wrote in October 28th, 2014 at 12:22 PM

    @Wladimir Guglinski
    Time ago I asked your question to a RS2 theory guru and seems that this theory predicts that 4Be8 is not stable:
    forum.rs2theory.org/node/555
    Even if I am not able to full understand what he answered me…
    ———————————————-

    Dear Silvio,
    the theory mentioned by the guru is not based on the Standard Nuclear Physics.
    Actually it is a theory proposed by Larson.

    In the page 4 of the book Basic Properties of the Matter, mentioned by the guru, it is written:

    Originally it was assumed that the atoms are impenetrable, and that the electrical forces merely hold them in contact Present-day knowledge of compressibility and other properties of solids has demolished this hypothesis, and it is now evident that there must be what Karl Darrow called an “antagonist,” in the statement quoted in Volume I, to counter the attractive force, whatever it may be, and produce an equilibrium. Physicists have heretofore been unable to find any such force, but the development of the Reciprocal System has now revealed the existence of a powerful and omnipresent force hitherto unknown to science. Here is the missing ingredient in the physical situation, the force that not only explains the cohesion of solid matter, but, as we saw in Volume I, supplies the answers to such seemingly far removed problems as the structure of star clusters and the recession of the galaxies”.
    ———————————————–

    regards
    wlad

  50. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for your responses. Would you say the problems you encounter are increasing as your work continues, or diminishing?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  51. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Thank you for the information.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea

  52. JR

    Not surprisingly, Wlad once again (a) pretended I was saying something other than what I said and (b) is simply wrong about the state of nuclear theory when he that such models don’t exist.

    First, I was talking about real calculations, not energy differences from mass measurements. Also, one doesn’t obtain the binding energy of 8Be from a direct mass measurement, because it isn’t bound.

    Second, it has been calculated in detailed nuclear models, and all of the things Wlad asks for exist in published papers. That, rather than online comments, is the standard forum for presenting such results. One can search the scientific literature and find several examples, or simply search on “binding light nuclei 8Be” or something similar and find examples (a very quick search found papers from 1998 which provide everything Wlad asked for).

    Wlad’s approach of simply demanding that physicists spend their time correcting his extremely poor understanding of modern nuclear physics in the comment section of various web sites is not very useful. Plus, when nuclear theorists (myself, Martin Freer, Nörtershäuser, etc…) do spend time answering your questions, he just ignores the explanations and arguments that are presented.

    By the way, because the 8Be binding is only slightly less than the binding of two 4He nuclei, the calculation has to be very precise to determine if it’s bound or unbound. So for example, calculations which include only the forces between two-nucleons, and neglect the so-called three-nucleon forces, will not give results that are as precise as one would like. So I’m sure one can search hard enough to find ‘bad’ calculations which give incorrect results, although as a rule, even the less precise calculations still show that 8Be as unbound compared to two alphas.

  53. silvio caggia

    @Wladimir Guglinski
    Time ago I asked your question to a RS2 theory guru and seems that this theory predicts that 4Be8 is not stable:
    forum.rs2theory.org/node/555
    Even if I am not able to full understand what he answered me… :-)

  54. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 28th, 2014 at 7:28 AM

    Wlad,

    If you look carefully, I argued that it can be explained in conventional nuclear physics based on the fact that it has been explained in conventional nuclear physics. In particular, by multiple conventional calculations that have shown that it’s unbound.
    —————————————————-

    TO ALL THE NUCLEAR THEORISTS OF THW WORLD:

    There is not any theory for the explanation of the reason why 4Be8 is not stable, because:

    The binding energy of the 4Be8 is obtained as follows:

    1) The mass of the proton is measured by experiments
    2) The mass of the neutron is measured by experiments
    3) The mass of the 4Be8 is measured by experiments

    With the masses measured by experiments, the binding energy of the 4Be8 is calculated.

    THIS IS NOT A THEORY

    It is only an empirical calculation obtained from the results of EXPERIMENTS

    .

    A theory for the explanation on the instability of the 4Be8 must be proposed as follows:

    1) A nuclear model of the 4Be8 must be proposed
    2) The model must show the distribution of protons and neutrons within the 4Be8, with the energy level of each of them
    3) The model must show the interactions between the nucleons
    4) From instability of the 4Be8 must be proven from the item 3

    There is not any theory proposed as required by the 4 steps above

    .

    So,
    I invite all the nuclear theorists of the world, so that to come here to show the theory proposed as shown above.

    .

    regards
    wlad

  55. JR

    Wlad,

    If you look carefully, I argued that it can be explained in conventional nuclear physics based on the fact that it has been explained in conventional nuclear physics. In particular, by multiple conventional calculations that have shown that it’s unbound.

  56. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in October 27th, 2014 at 10:55 PM

    Wlad wrote (again): “It is impossible to explain why 4Be8 is no stable, from the Standard Model”

    I’m sure that this will come as a great surprise to all of the people who have made conventional calculations of the 8Be binding energy and found that it’s not bound.
    ————————————————

    COMMENT

    Dear Andre Rossi,

    in October 20th, 2014 at 10:36 PM you wrote here in the JoNP:

    —————————————–
    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.
    —————————————-

    May you invite them, in order to say to us if the instability of the 4Be8 has explanation by considering the nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physis?

    Unfortunatelly our friend Mr. JR does not understand that we cannot use the effect of a phenomenon so that to explain the cause of the phenomenon.

    The small binding energy of the 4Be8 (calculated by using the Einstein’s equation) is consequence of the fact that 4Be8 is not stable.

    As we know, when the Standard Model is no able to explain a phenomenon, Mr. JR uses the inversion of the causality, so that to explain the phenomenon.

    As we know, a man falls ill with ebola when the first ebola virus enter his body.
    But according to Mr. JR the reason why the first ebola virus enter the body of the man is because he was sick with ebola.
    This is the sort of explanation Mr. JR uses in Physics

    So,
    dear Andrea,
    please invite Dr Seshavatharam and Prof. Lakshminarayana, so that to explain to us if we can use the inversion of the causality in the question of the instability of the 4Be8.

    regards
    wlad

  57. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski,
    You made your point. Who wants to answer is invited to.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  58. JR

    Wlad wrote (again): “It is impossible to explain why 4Be8 is no stable, from the Standard Model”

    I’m sure that this will come as a great surprise to all of the people who have made conventional calculations of the 8Be binding energy and found that it’s not bound.

  59. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You have mentioned recently that you have problems to solve — some easy, and some hard. Also you mention that you are involved in ‘difficult’ work. This seems to indicate that the commercial plant is posing a significant challenge for your team.

    1. Are you learning new things about the E-Cat now you have to put it under load in an industrial setting?

    2. How confident are you in your ability to meet your contractual deadlines with your current customer?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  60. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Thank you for your PERMANENT ( hi, Orsobubu) attention.
    One by one, we are resolving all the problems. With patience and dedication, united with the consciousness that if we go through we will have written a page of history.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  61. 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

  62. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Thank you for your continuous attention.
    1- yes
    2- Our team is very strong, all the bases are covered ( electronic engineering, physics, mechanical engineering and top level blue collars). I have good reasons to hope we will not disappoint our Customer, while I am sure we will give the maximum of our skills.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  63. Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    here you can read of another italian that seems to have reached another breakthrough valuable in many fields.
    http://www.enzopennetta.it/2014/10/i-test-al-cnr-confermano-la-tecnologia-wow-su-cs-un-articolo-dellinventore-adriano-marin/#comment-30907
    It’s a quick read. Beyond personal curiosity I think it could sparkle other ideas…
    All the best, Gherardo

  64. Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    Wow!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  65. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andrea Calaon

    here is other nuclear model in which the equilibrium is via electromagnetism. The author Prof. Lefteris Kaliambos writes:

    After the discovery of the assumed uncharged neutron (1932) and the invalid relativity (1905) which led to the abandonment of the well-established electromagnetic laws, theoretical physicists developed fallacious nuclear theories for the nuclear force and various nuclear structure models, which cannot lead to the nuclear structure. Under this physics crisis in 2003 I published my paper “Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism ” by reviving the natural laws which led to my discovery of nine extra charged quarks in proton and nine ones in neutron able to give the nuclear binding and nuclear structure.”
    ———————————————————————-
    http://lefteris-kaliambos.wikia.com/wiki/STRUCTURE_OF_Be8_AND_Be9

    He tries to explain why 4Be8 is not stable by considering his nuclear model working via electromagnetic interactions.

    So,
    it seems many nuclear theorists are in the last years realizing that it is impossible to find a theory capable to lead to the nuclear structure, based on the current idea of interactions via strong nuclear force.

    The reason why 4Be8 is not stable is shown in the item 3.13-5 (Fig. 14 , page 17) of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    regards
    wlad

  66. Will Hurley

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I hope all is well with your commercial endeavor (your 1MW- Cat Baby). Since we are looking at a year before the unveiling of this application, could a smaller unit of say, 3 cats be tried at another smaller commercial business in parallel? I understand you must walk before you run but every business must have more than one product. Good luck.
    Will

  67. Andrea Rossi

    Will Hurley:
    Thank you for your attention.
    As I said, our team is focused on the operation and the R&D related to the 1MW plant. We do not sell small commercial units, for obvious reasons related to the defense of the IP. I am sure you can understand. Thank you for your suggestion, though: the suggestions of our Readers all can hekp us in our difficult job.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  68. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in October 24th, 2014 at 5:27 PM

    Dear Steven N. Karels,

    Premise about the Nuclear Force
    As Dallacasa suggested in the early 1980’s, (see for example the more recent ref. [1] and [2]) the force that keeps the nucleons together to form any nucleus has nothing to do with quarks, gluons, W+-, Z0, and neutrinos. It is only electromagnetic:
    The magnetic dipole moments of the nucleons are due to the very rapid rotation of their charges. The rotation frequency is around 5E23 [Hz]. This rotation generates an oscillatory magnetic field around each nucleon. When two nucleons approach, the rotating charges inside one of them cross the oscillating magnetic field generated by the other. As a consequence the charges are subject to a Lorentz Force. If the rotations inside the two particles are phased and the magnetic moments are parallel (or antiparallel), the nucleons experience a net attractive force. The force is actually cycling at each turn, but the period is very short. The average attractive force is higher than the electrostatic repulsion. At a distance of 2.5 [fm] the potential associated with the force described is in the [MeV] range, exactly the nuclear binding range for light nuclei.
    ———————————————–

    COMMENT

    If the attractive force was higher than the electrostatic repulsion, then all the isotopes of the all nuclei would have to be stable.

    But I agree to with Dallacasa that the force that keeps the nucleons together to form any nucleus has nothing to do with quarks, gluons, W+-, Z0, and neutrinos. It is only electromagnetic.

    However the equilibrium is due to magnetic force against centripetal force, as proposed in the new nuclear model described in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in the JoNP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    In the paper it is shown that the stability of the light nuclei (not explained by the Standard Model) is explained via the equilibrium between magnetic and centripetal force.

    This model explain, for instance, why 4Be8 (with Z=N pairs) is no stable, in spite of all the other nuclei with Z=N pairs are stable: 2He4, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28… etc.

    It is impossible to explain why 4Be8 is no stable, from the Standard Model,

    regards
    wlad

  69. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in October 27th, 2014 at 7:13 AM

    Dear Steven N. Karels,

    Question c:
    p + e can not create a neutron, as Brillouin suggests. It is simply forbidden by the nuclear reaction rules: this reaction does not conserve the lepton number. Andrea Rossi explained this a number of times in this blog.
    ———————————————————

    COMMENT

    The structure of the neutron is n= (p+e), and therefore the lepton number is not violated, since the electron exists into the neutron in the form of a lepton with spin zero (because the electron loses its zitterbewegung into the neutron, and the ZBw is the responsible for the spin 1/2 of a free electron).

    The violation of the lepton number in the Standard Model actually occurs because of the mass of the neutrinos:

    Violations of the lepton number conservation laws
    “In the Standard Model, leptonic family numbers (LF numbers) would be preserved if neutrinos were massless. Since neutrino oscillations have been observed, neutrinos do have a tiny nonzero mass and conservation laws for LF numbers are therefore only approximate. This means the conservation laws are violated, although because of the smallness of the neutrino mass they still hold to a very large degree for interactions containing charged leptons”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number

    The theorists use to create laws to be followed (as the lepton number) based on the Standard Model.
    However the Standard Model is wrong, and it makes no sense to suppose that a law proposed via a wrong model must be followed by the Nature.

    regards
    wlad

  70. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Joe,
    I am not a Standard Model theoretician, but I am sure that the evidences that are explained by the strong interaction, the weak interaction and the theory of general relativity can not be attributed to electromagnetic interactions.
    As most people interested in physics, I have my own ideas about time, particles, gravity, hidden variables, contextuality, dark matter, dark energy, and the number of different forces that at the moment appear necessary for a coherent picture of our universe … But I think all my guesses would not be worth a dime. And I have already proposed enough strange things. Hehehe
    Best regards
    Andrea Calaon

  71. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear J.H. Silver,
    Is it possible that Dark Matter is the phenomenon that in either strong gravitational fields, and in systems with high speeds of the matter, the “mass” of the matter increases ?
    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  72. Dear Steven N. Karels,
    I will try to answer the questions of your last 2 posts.

    Magnetic field stimulus:
    The frequency ratio between the internal rotation frequency of a nucleon and that of the electron should be in the kiloHertz range. In particular I estimated that the p/e frequency ratio is equal to their mass ratio: 1,836.1527 … . In electromagnetic terms kiloHertz are VERY low frequencies and can modify electron orbitals only “quasi-statically”.
    I guess that if one introduces a frequency that lies at a few kiloHertz distance from a frequency proper of the crystal vibrations, the difference could become effective in the coupling. At the moment I am not able to guess anything better.

    The solenoid around the charge gets the current from a three-phase ac at 50 [Hz]. In the USA the net frequency is instead 60[Hz]. I guess Andrea Rossi had to adjust the control for this difference. By playing with common switches it is possible to shift part of the power to frequencies in the [kHz] range. No higher than that. If this is the case, the electromagnetic stimulation of the charge would be in the kiloHertz frequency range. But if the control system is more complex this guess could be wrong.

    Question a:
    Following only the coupling mechanism that I propose, LENR “ignition” should require only a sufficient number of matrix sites with at least two neighbouring interstitial sites occupied by p/d. However an additional requirement is that the energy of the p/d/t should be high enough to reach the critical distance for the magnetic potential to prevail. This is achieved only when the loading is as high as to make the crystal vibrations highly non-linear in the active particle, so that the energy can actually concentrate. This second requirement makes the load limit higher than the first, and near to the 1:1 atomic ratio.
    It is important to say that in the Palladium matrix interstitial hydrogens distribute homogeneously (they repel each other), whereas in Nickel hydrogens clump/cluster together. So that even with low average loading, in Nickel there are zones which have high loading (above 0.7), together with zones which have almost no loading at all. And these local loading values are enough to stabilize Nickel vacancies. This does not happen in Palladium. So in the case of Nickel one could have the formation of active particles around a hydrogen source with the rest of the matrix remaining not active. In Palladium this would require to load the whole matrix before the critical condition can be reached. And loading Palladium that much requires an electrolytic process.

    Question b:
    Temperature must be high to make the vacancies mobile enough. Plus the temperature populates the “non-linear modes” necessary for the extreme approach between the p/d/t. When the LENR start, their electromagnetic emissions enhance the formation and the movement of the vacancies. In this way there is a positive feedback that should make the reactions difficult to control at high power rates.

    Question c:
    p + e can not create a neutron, as Brillouin suggests. It is simply forbidden by the nuclear reaction rules: this reaction does not conserve the lepton number. Andrea Rossi explained this a number of times in this blog. Plus the energy needed is far too high (782.33 [KeV]).
    Plus neutrons appear only rarely in LENR and always in “extreme” conditions.
    Anyhow you are possibly touching an important point: Can the electron stably “capture” the proton inside its Zitterbewegung (without any successive nuclear reaction)? So far it seemed to me that a single coupling e-p/d/t without the other p/d/t, was not possible. However recently the Hydrino “saga” made me doubt.
    Is this what really happens in the so called Hydrino reactions? In other words, is the particular spectrum that seems to be observed due to the electron accelerating towards the proton when the magnetic coupling prevails?
    Were not for this “coincidence” I admit that I would have dismissed the Hydrino story altogether.

    Clearly other theories would have answered some of your questions similarly.

    Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  73. Wladimir Guglinski

    jhs wrote in October 26th, 2014 at 6:51 PM

    Dear Wladimir,
    The Nature article you referred is extremely interesting but as is read in the abstract has nothing to do with the concept of Aether. Rather is a beautiful confirmation of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
    ————————————————

    sorry,
    I posted the wrong paper

    A vacuum can yield flashes of light
    http://www.nature.com/news/a-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light-1.12430

    Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/

    regards
    wlad

  74. Dear Andrea,
    If I remember right, the previous HotCat test was with a stainless steel reactor. If the walls contain nickel, it is not surprising if transmutation to Ni62 remains incomplete, because most materials including nickel have non-negligible vapour pressure at 1400 C (see e.g. http://www.powerstream.com/z/vapor-press1-big.png). In alumina reactor such contamination mechanism is obviously absent.
    regards, pekka

  75. Andrea Rossi

    GP Nolan:
    Congratulations for your publication on Science, great achievement.
    Please send us the link, for our Readers too.
    Thank you for your very kind words,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  76. Joseph Fine

    J.H. Silver,

    The Pioneer Anomaly was solved two years ago.

    http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-209

    At least this controversy has been resolved. (Or has it?)

    Thermal regards,

    Joseph Fine

  77. GPJNolan

    Andrea,

    I am thrilled with your progress. We’ve been chatting since before your first “public” experiment and I send this note as continued support for your “renegade” attitude. As I told you over two years ago now, I have had many people tell me my ideas were crazy and could not work– and that they flew in the face of someone’s reality. There’s nothing more satisfying than making your point in the face of people who would deride you so as to make you NOT succeed.

    I send to you under separate cover our, now, fourth paper accepted in Science– two of which privately faced the criticisms you face (it can’t be done, it’s too complicated, it’s not possible, etc. etc.).

    So– I look forward to further development and YOUR success.

    Best,
    Garry Nolan

  78. Thomas Paign

    Steven Karels,
    Detecting helium is actually pretty easy with a sniffer probe and LACO mass spec unit. It’s the measuring which is a bit more difficult, but is still relatively easy.
    T.P.

  79. jhs

    Dear Wladimir,
    The Nature article you referred is extremely interesting but as is read in the abstract has nothing to do with the concept of Aether. Rather is a beautiful confirmation of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
    BTW one should observe that QED is one of the most precisely verified theories that we now have in Physics.
    Dear Andreas, I agree with you the Sober article is in fact making a much more profound analysis and if needed we can start a much more serious discussion on that topic.
    The example of General Relativity is not right because that theory in fact explains much more phenomena of simple Newtonian Gravitation.
    I suggest the reading of that article about the experimental test of General Relativity by Voyager 1 mission: http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/krisher_1.pdf
    Notably even General Relativity is under question for some aspects and other theories were proposed because some experimental observation seems not to fit the theory or even by some scientists Dark Matter is seen just as an artifact. We must note that the nature of Dark Matter, gravitational interacting matter that should constitute about the 96% of the Universe, is still unknown.
    See for example this paper published on arXiv by Milgrom on MOND theories : http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.7661
    An interesting introduction to a very complex experimental fact, eventually connected to modifications of General Relativity, could be also found at the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
    For a more deep discussion of that topic a large number of articles are available. For example this review of 2010 can be a good starting point to understand how difficult is to design an experiment and interpret the data with high precision: http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2010-4/download/lrr-2010-4BW.pdf.
    Have a good time,
    J.H.Silver

  80. Steven N. Karels

    E Hergen,

    Detecting helium is a difficult test. What is required is to contain the eCat within a helium-tight container, run it long enough to produce a reasonable helium by-product and then remove the enclosed gas and measure it with a mass spectrometer. The output must be significantly above normal atmospheric helium content to show a positive result. Designing an experiment with the eCat thermal output handled but maintaining a helium-tight enclosure would be challenging.

    I asked Andrea Rossi about this before and he had posted, as I recall, that helium was not produced (or, I assume, that it had not been able to be measured). Given the results of The Test, and the lithium isotropic change, I would assume some helium was generated but that is only my guess.

  81. E Hergen

    Dear Mr Rossi,

    in previous posts you stated, that it is possible to recycle the used nickel and use it again as fuel. Now from the last test we learned, that the nickel isotopes shifted to 99% to Ni62. It seems the reactor can run with a concentration of 99% of Ni62. Do you think it is possible to use Ni62 as the sole nickel compound or would it be necessary to blend it with other nickel isotopes?

    By the way: if the reactor runs with the isotope Ni62 alone, then the isotope shifts of nickel are not the main source of the energy production. Did you in your tests ever find helium?

    With best wishes,

    E Hergen

  82. Andrea Rossi

    E.Hergen:
    Thank you for your attention.
    We cannot give this information.
    Warm regards
    A.R.

  83. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andreas Moraitis wrote in October 26th, 2014 at 2:39 AM

    Dear J.H. Silver,

    Theories should ideally be not more complex than necessary (here Ockham’s razor makes sense), but they cannot be less complex as needed.
    ————————————

    COMMENT

    Yes,
    because if the Nature operates via a structure more complex than that adopted in the theory, of course the theory cannot work well

    A satisfactory theory must have the same complexity of that existing in the Nature, because she does not follows the rules of the scientific-phylosophical method of investigation established by the men

    We have to establish our rules according to what we observe in the Nature, and not the contrary

    When a method of investigation fails because the complexity adopted in the investitation did not achieve the complexity existing in the Nature, we have to improve the complexity of the method
    The method of investigation used in the 20th Century did not arrive to the complexity existing in the Nature

    That’s why the method used in the 20th Century must be improved

    This is the reason why I did it in my book Quantum Ring Theory

    regards
    wlad

  84. Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    A few questions on your theory:

    a. The occurrence of LENR activity seems strongly correlated with the p/d/t loading of the Pd or Ni material. Below a certain ratio, no LENR activity occurs. How does your theory support this observation?
    b. Likewise for material temperature. How does your theory predict LENR activity as a function of material temperature?
    c. Would not the formation of a neutron from a p/d/t plus an electron, under your theory, provide a thermal neutron that eventually would find a Pd or Ni nucleus and then fuse? Why a three body solution instead of a two body solution?

  85. Andreas Moraitis

    Dear J.H. Silver,

    Although I highly appreciate Russell and Quine, I’m somewhat skeptical with regard to the probabilistic interpretation of Ockham’s razor. If an empirical theory can be ‘true’ or not depends on its accordance with all possible observations, not on estimated probabilities. Einsteins theory of gravity is more complex than Newton’s, but as far as we presently know it is correct, and Newton’s theory is – strictly spoken – wrong (although it is still a useful approximation). Theories should ideally be not more complex than necessary (here Ockham’s razor makes sense), but they cannot be less complex as needed. A higher probability would not help in this case. By the way, in some cases it might be possible to formulate two theories of different complexity which are both in accordance with the observations. However, it could not be ruled out that only the more complex theory is correct. For that reason, Ockham’s razor should rather be taken as a rule of thumb than as an absolute methodological principle.

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  86. Wladimir Guglinski

    jhs wrote in October 25th, 2014 at 9:43 PM

    Please can you send a link to a paper or at least to a preprint, report or internal note ?
    I normally do NOT refer to Journalist articles as a source of scientific information.
    ————————————-

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7373/full/nature10561.html

    regards
    wlad

  87. jhs

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    I never written that light can be created by an empty space ( note that instead e+/e- pairs creation by space energy density is supposed to be a possible mechanism of Black Hole evaporation )
    you write: “light cannot be created by an empty space”
    “In 2011 an experiment detected the EVIDENCE on the aether existence”
    Please can you send a link to a paper or at least to a preprint, report or internal note ?
    I normally do NOT refer to Journalist articles as a source of scientific information.
    J.H.S

  88. Wladimir Guglinski

    jhs wrote in October 25th, 2014 at 7:32 PM

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,

    As far as I know NO EVIDENCE of Aether existence has been found and
    ——————————————-

    Dear jhs,
    you are wrong,
    light cannot be created by an empty space

    In 2011 an experiment detected the EVIDENCE on the aether existence
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Light-created-from-vacuum-shows-empty-space-a-myth/articleshow/10789049.cms

    Michelson-Morley did not detect the luminiferious aether because the aether is no luminiferous

    regards
    wlad

  89. Andrea Rossi

    J.H. Silver:
    Welcome !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  90. jhs

    Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
    before discussing about aether it would be interesting to refer here the fascinating letters to Nature of P.A.M. Dirac, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v168/n4282/abs/168906a0.html , where he puts forward a new theory of electrodynamics including the concept of Aether. There was also a very interesting debate on same pages with H. BONDI & T. GOLD and L. INFELD who P.A.M Dirac responded.
    You can find all the links at that page:
    http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q-1=NATURE%2CNEWS&sp-q=Is+there+an+%C3%86ther%3F&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all
    which include links to many other interesting articles of fundamental Physics.
    Very interesting is also to read the article “A New Æther-Drift Experiment” by L. Essen also published on Nature in May 1955.
    See this link http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v175/n4462/abs/175793a0.html#more_articles
    As far as I know NO EVIDENCE of Aether existence has been found and this lead us to a basic concept op Philosophy of Science known as The Principle of Parsimony and well illustrated in the article of Elliott Sober ( The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun., 1981), pp. 145-156)
    see link : http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/687195?uid=3738296&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21105031406703
    This Philosophical article is so fascinating that I would like to propose to all the readers the first paragraph of it:
    ” The principle of parsimony has typically been described and defended as if it were a deletion rule, counseling agnosticism. Ockham, followed by those after him who liked the razor to which he gave his name, says that a hypothesis should not be asserted, or an entity postulated, if it is not needed to explain anything (Boehner [1957]). The razor slices away; it tells us to remove what is unnecessary. Modern justifications of parsimoniousness have presupposed this formulation of the principle, and have sought to justify it on grounds of probability. Both Russell ([1951], pp. 148, 155; 119591, PP. 71, 265, 267-9) and Quine [1966] recognize that removing an existential claim from a theoretical system has the effect of raising the probability of what remains. This is simply because a conjunction must have a lower probability than either conjunct, provided that the conjuncts are mutually independent. ”

    This means that if we can formulate a theory with a minimum set of concepts that theory has a larger probability to be true.
    Best regards,
    J.H.Silver

  91. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe,
    in 2002 the magazine Infinite Energy had published my paper “What is Missing in Les Case’s Catalytic Fusion”, (Vol 8 No 46) in which I proposed the application of a magnetic field external to the vessel, in order to align the nuclei and so to increase the velocity of the cold fusion reactions, and to become the experiment easily replicable (at that time it was very hard to get the replicability of cold fusion experiments, and the academicians used it as an argument against the occurence of the phenomenon)

    Coincidently or not, in 2003 Dennys Lets and Dennys Cravens showed in the anual ICCF-10 their experiment in which they applied an external field to the vessel, and the replicability of their experiment was improved (they had exhibited the experiment occuring in their laboratory by controling it in the ICCF-10 by the internet)

    regards
    wlad

  92. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe,
    there is a point to be noticed.

    If the space was empty (and therefore Euclidian), the magnetic nuclear moment could not actuate in a distance of 10^-11m, since the radius of the nucleus is 10^-15m and the magnetism decreases with the square of the distance.
    But such law is valid only for the Euclidian space.

    The density of the aether within the nuclei is very high (in the same magnitude of the aether within the Sun), because protons and neutrons are confined within the very smal volume of the nuclei

    So, the high density aether spreads along the distance of the radius Bohr 10^-11m, because it decreases actually proportinal to 1/R.

    regards
    wlad

  93. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in October 25th, 2014 at 2:50 PM

    2. Your cold fusion setup seems too simple. Ni, a catalyst, and an applied oscillatory EM field would have been used many decades ago to detect LENR. But that detection never happened. I doubt that the E-Cat uses anything exotic or extremely refined beyond what scientists decades ago would have procured for their own experiments.
    —————————–

    Joe,
    cold fusion exists along decades.
    But as cold fusion is impossible by consideing the Standard Physics, the academicians used the strategy to claim tha the results were fraud and errors in the calorimeters.

    http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/index.htm

    regards
    wlad

  94. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    thanks for the reply, I understand, better, I do not understand, but that’s okay, I adapt to…..
    You said: “in collaboration with nuclear physicists I am working on a theory that could explain the results of the report.” So maybe some young nuclear physicist is happy to answer:
    in which way can the energy be produced, as a result of:
    1. decrease in Lithium from Li7 to LI6;
    2. increase of the Nickel mass from Ni58 to Ni62
    Isotopic Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  95. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    I repeat:
    ” In collaboration with nuclear physicists I am working to explain the results”.
    We will publish our explications, when we will be ready. At the moment we are studying. I prefer not to anticipate ideas that could result wrong.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  96. Brandon Hurd

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    I would just like to say to you, first of all, congratulations on the findings of the ITP and WELL DONE! It is an amazing result.

    Also, I would like to say, thank-you for the work you have done over the years – work that will benefit all mankind. You have endured so much over the years to get this far – with great courage and determination. For that, personally, and on behalf of all those on my continent – Africa – who don’t yet know how your invention will change their lives for the better, I thank you.

    In my country, South Africa, the government is currently making plans for 8 new nuclear reactors, generating up to 9.6GW of power, to be commissioned at an estimated cost of around $100bn. I am hopeful that there will be an alternative available – based on the E-Cat – before such a vast sum of money, which my country can not afford, is committed to existing nuclear technology.

    I that regard, I have a question for you. Now I know this is difficult to answer but I would appreciate it if you could offer your best guess: When, in your opinion, do you think your technology could make a difference in a country like mine? In other words, when do you think we will be able to see, either new E-Cat power plants being built, or existing coal-fired power plants being retrofitted, or even smaller E-Cat power generators being made available for people’s homes?

    Many thanks once again and keep up the hard work.

    Warm regards
    Brandon Hurd
    Cape Town, South Africa

    P.S. – If you are ever in Cape Town, it would be my absolute privilege to give you a personal tour. I definitely mean it.

  97. Andrea Rossi

    Brandon Hurd:
    We all love the Country of Nelson Mandela.
    I am not able to answer to your question, but I hope our technology can work also in South Africa.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  98. Joe

    Andrea Calaon,

    Do you consider the other three interactions – gravitational, strong, weak – to be essentially electromagnetic?

    All the best,
    Joe

  99. Stefano Landi

    Dear Andrea.
    Congratulation for your work. I am following the blog and I hope the ecat and emouse will work perfectly for the sake of humanity.
    I have a couple of curiosities.
    1) in your conference in Italy you said about a procedure of Ni isotop enrichment. Is this in agreement what the results of the Itp report? The amount of Ni isotopes before the run do not seem enriched as compared to the natural Ni isotopes composition
    2) the 1MW plan has been working now for several months. Although the period is too short you could say something about the main problem occurred and whether these problem coul be solved easily or not.
    3) although data now are only preliminary, you could also say how much time the ecat was really active (producing energy) and how much energy produced so far..
    Kind regards

    Stefano

  100. Andrea Rossi

    Stefano Landi:
    Thank you, Dr Landi, for your kind attention.
    1- At those times I could not say other than what I said, due to IP constraints. As a matter of fact, the enrichment system is the process made by means of the ECat. Nevertheless, the results from the test have gone well Beyond what we found before during our internal R&D. As I said, now we are studying how to reconcile, but during these last days we arrived to understand possible explications; much more study is necessary, though.
    2- Information about the 1 MW plant will not given before the operation of it will be considered consolidated. Problems are many, some easy to solve, some not.
    3- Please, see#2.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  101. Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. Although your bridge analogy involves resonance, it is false in that the actions are sequential: foot-stomping followed by bridge vibrating. In your cold fusion model, an external third party – oscillating EM field – is applied to all actors simultaneously. So in the latter case, a catastrophic change is not necessarily expected. (Conditions would have to be examined first.)

    2. Your cold fusion setup seems too simple. Ni, a catalyst, and an applied oscillatory EM field would have been used many decades ago to detect LENR. But that detection never happened. I doubt that the E-Cat uses anything exotic or extremely refined beyond what scientists decades ago would have procured for their own experiments.

    All the best,
    Joe

  102. Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    Thank you for your response. It will take me a few days to digest it.

    Question: I believe you mentioned an applied electromagnetic field could enhance the process. Is this in the “few kiloHertz” region, sort of a beat frequency or is it a much higher frequency?

    The eCat that was tested in The Report has within it heating wires in the form of a helix. Applying a current will induce a magnetic field. Adding an RF component could provide the needed electromagnetic oscillations to assist the reaction. Your thoughts?

  103. Vessela Nikolova

    Hello Andrea,
    thank you for what you wrote about my book. I thank also the reader Andre Blum, because with his review he shows to have fully grasped the message I wanted to convey by writing your biography. I am a psychologist, so I tried to bring out the psychological aspect of the protagonist and his experience, trying to explain how his past personal story has somehow an “influence” on his future choices, and in particular on those related to his latest discovery: the E-Cat.
    Vessela

  104. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in October 24th, 2014 at 9:28 PM

    Wladimir,

    You write,
    “However there is need also to consider the nuclear magnetic moment of the catalyst. It must be weaker than the magnetic moment of the nucleus Ni, in order that the proton in the sandwich be pulled within the Ni by its stronger magnetic moment.”

    But then why bother having a “sandwich” at all? Why not just apply a magnetic field to align the Ni atoms and the protons, and let their magnetic dipole moments do the rest of the work of transmutation?
    ———————————-

    Joe,
    the proton moving in oscillatory motion between the two magnetic moments, the Accordion-Effect of the Ni and Te nuclei, and the oscillatory electromagnetic field, all they may get resonance, and the amplitude of the oscillation of the proton starts to increase

    do you know why a battalion of soldier do not cross a bridge by marching ?

    do you know what happens when a battalion of soldiers crosses a bridge by marching ?

    regards
    wlad

  105. Joe

    Wladimir,

    You write,
    “However there is need also to consider the nuclear magnetic moment of the catalyst. It must be weaker than the magnetic moment of the nucleus Ni, in order that the proton in the sandwich be pulled within the Ni by its stronger magnetic moment.”

    But then why bother having a “sandwich” at all? Why not just apply a magnetic field to align the Ni atoms and the protons, and let their magnetic dipole moments do the rest of the work of transmutation?

    All the best,
    Joe

  106. Dear Steven N. Karels,
    I am not sure I will be able to really “illuminate” you. But let me try. :)
    The theory I propose is more or less summarized in two “evolving” (not yet complete) documents on this internet-site:

    http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/

    However it may well be that I haven’t been that good in describing “the collapse mechanism”. So I will try here to describe it in a possibly different and more effective way.

    Premise about the Nuclear Force
    As Dallacasa suggested in the early 1980’s, (see for example the more recent ref. [1] and [2]) the force that keeps the nucleons together to form any nucleus has nothing to do with quarks, gluons, W+-, Z0, and neutrinos. It is only electromagnetic:
    The magnetic dipole moments of the nucleons are due to the very rapid rotation of their charges. The rotation frequency is around 5E23 [Hz]. This rotation generates an oscillatory magnetic field around each nucleon. When two nucleons approach, the rotating charges inside one of them cross the oscillating magnetic field generated by the other. As a consequence the charges are subject to a Lorentz Force. If the rotations inside the two particles are phased and the magnetic moments are parallel (or antiparallel), the nucleons experience a net attractive force. The force is actually cycling at each turn, but the period is very short. The average attractive force is higher than the electrostatic repulsion. At a distance of 2.5 [fm] the potential associated with the force described is in the [MeV] range, exactly the nuclear binding range for light nuclei.

    Premise about the Electron
    The electron manifests as a point charge with a perfectly symmetric electric field. However the Dirac Equation, which is the best “description” of the electron we have, says that the electron has an intrinsic and very fast “oscillation”: the so called Zitter-Bewegun. The frequency of this rotation is very high: 2.47E20 [Hz], so that it would be quite challenging to measure it (cristal interference, …). Actually the Dirac equation describes the evolution in 4D (Minkowski Space) of the plane (it is a bivector in “Geometric Algebra” terms) where the rapid rotation takes place (ref. [3]).
    The only option that makes sense is that the point charge travels at the speed of light. The size of the rotation circle is much larger than any nucleon: The diameter is about 386 [fm]. The intrinsic spin and the magnetic dipole moment of the electron are consequences of this rotation. The size of this intrinsic rotation determines the nice shapes and the sizes of the atomic orbitals and therefore all properties of chemical bonds.

    Coupling
    The electron Zitterbewegugn frequency is only a few kiloHertz lower than the inner frequencies of the nucleons mentioned above. As a consequence if the electron can see two nuclei with at least a magnetic quadrupole moment rotating around at those frequencies, a net attractive force between the electron and the nuclei develops. In this way the magnetic force that keeps nucleons together can manifest at a much larger scale, thanks to the coupling with the electron. Fortunately this coupling requires additional conditions (otherwise the universe would not exist as we know it) in order to overcome the “electron orbital” repulsion and bring to a nuclear fusion:
    The precessing spins of electron and nuclei must be kept aligned (antiparallel),
    Two nucleons need to couple together in order to prevent spin flipping.
    The kinetic energies should not be too high,
    Electron and nucleons must first find themselves at a distance as low as a few picometers.

    These four necessary conditions make the presence of the attractive potential essentially undetectable in almost all common materials and conditions. However the movement of the dislocations in heavily non-linear crystals loaded with hydrogen isotopes allows to reach the critical condition.
    Higher temperature increases the mobility of the dislocations and the kinetic energy of the interstitial nuclei. Plus an electromagnetic stimulation can generate the magnetic field necessary for the (precessing) spin alignment plus an additional contribution to the internal frequency gap between electron and nucleons.

    Eventually the answer to your question: The Collapse
    When two p/d/t (hydrogen nuclei) or one p/d/t and a nucleus couple with the electron, a ballet starts. The electron is much lighter than any nucleus, but it is caught between the two nuclei. The ballet depends on the relative masses of the two nuclei and the incoming directions.
    Anyway, during this phase the accelerating particles emit photons in the energy levels permitted inside the metal structure. The emission in this phase should be mainly dipolar.

    In common fusion reactions the magnetic coupling starts only at something like 3 [fm] and there are no energetic levels between which the the shortly accelerating nuclei can radiate. Therefore the excess energy in the magnetic attraction potential (the mass difference) can manifest only as kinetic energy of the daughter particles.

    With the mediation of the electron instead the magnetic potential can manifest over distances that allow accelerations of the nuclei and consequent electromagnetic fractionation.
    But fusion needs all three particles to meet inside 3 [fm], and the electron Zitterbewegung radius is much larger than that. In fact there is a “second pahse” of the collapse.

    The two nuclei reach the Zitterbewegung radius and cross it. Inside this radius the magnetic potential is repulsive. Hence the nuclei remain captured “inside the electron trajectory”. The electron point charge moves at the speed of light, which is much higher than any speed the nuclei can possibly reach. Therefore the nuclei behave as as inside a continuous potential well. The potential well in the Zitterbewegung plane is circular.
    Inside this circle the two nuclei attract each other with the very same magnetic potential that attracted them towards the electron. They “see” each other quite strongly because their magnetic moments directions are now completely locked by the coupling and their charge rotations have been phased during the approach. Therefore the two nuclei accelerate inside the circular orbit of the electron Zitterbewegung (helical in space) towards each other. During this phase they emit radiation that should resembles that of a synchrotron. When they are within 3 [fm] nuclear fusion actually takes place, since the electron keeps crossing them very frequently. The reaction is unusual because it is a ternuclear reaction (three particles meet in the same place). But the nuclear steps are the common ones.
    One proton acquires the energy to exchange with the electron the massive W+ that carries a positive charge and the flavour-change (up-down), becoming a neutron. The electron is annihilated and the flavour-change (u->d) flies away (it is the electron neutrino). The new neutron is born already bound to the p/d/t. In this way it has not been necessary to reach the mass of a free neutron before the appearance of the daughter particle.

    The fusion between two heavy (Z>1) nuclei with the mediation of the electron in principle should be possible. However the dynamic that leads to the magnetically oriented particle approach during a vacancy movement should need at least one highly mobile interstitial nucleus (the one that jumps into the forming vacancy); plus this nucleus must have at least a quadrupole magnetic moment (He4 is out). The LENR experiments seem to say that only hydrogen isotopes can make the trick. May be the results of Iwamura point at something heavier.

    This is what I managed to write today. If you have any question/critic/suggestion/doubt please tell me. I am here to try to understand.

    Andrea Calaon

    [1] Cook Norman D., Dallacasa V., “LENR and Nuclear Structure Theory” for ICCF-17.
    [2] Dallacasa Valerio, Cook Norman D., “The magnetic force acting between nucleons”,
    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36827/MagneticForceActingNucleons.pdf?sequence=1
    [2] Hestenes D., “Zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics”,

  107. Andre Blum

    Dear Andrea,

    I read Vessela Nikolova’s biography about you today, and I loved it. It is a real page turner. Your background is impressive and so full of hurdles. I hope you like how the book came out too. I certainly recommend all of your many followers to read this one.

    Best regards,
    Andre

  108. Andrea Rossi

    Andre Blum:
    Thank you, I agree. “The New Fire” is a sincere book.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  109. Andrea. matrapport has only one t. The address that you have given fails to work because of the double t.

    Jean Pierre

  110. Andrea Rossi

    Jean Pierre:
    Thank you very much for the correction! What a stupid error I made!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  111. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in October 24th, 2014 at 3:58 AM

    Wladimir,

    In your model of cold fusion, there would be as much catalyst 52Te as 28Ni within the E-Cat. Does that not seem excessive?
    ——————————————-

    No,
    because there is no need a big amount of catalyst, since it is not consumed in the nuclear reactions.

    Rossi said he tested several catalysts. But perhaps he said it only with the aim to increase the mystery on the working of the eCat.

    In the page 30 of the Report is said:
    “Although we have good knowledge of the composition of the fuel we presently lack detailed information on the internal components of the reactor, and of the methods by which the reaction is primed.”

    So, probably the catalyst is in the form of a lattice.

    Perhaps 52Te is not the best catalyst, in spite of it seems it is the best to resonate with Ni via Accordion-Effect.

    However there is need also to consider the nuclear magnetic moment of the catalyst. It must be weaker than the magnetic moment of the nucleus Ni, in order that the proton in the sandwich be pulled within the Ni by its stronger magnetic moment.

    From the Report (page 29), there was 68.1% of 58Ni in the unused fuel and 0,8% in the ash, and so the larger amount of Ni isotope consumed was 58Ni.

    From the aspect of resonance via Accordion-Effect, the best catalysts are:
    64Gd
    52Te
    40Zr

    The stable isotopes to be catalysts are:
    40Zr91 has magnetic moment -1,30
    52Te125 has magnetic moment -0,89
    64Gd155 has magnetic moment -0,25

    Unfortunatelly I did not find the magnetic moment of the stable 58Ni, but from the magnetic moments of Zr91, Te125, and Gd155 we realize that the best one is the Gd155.

    regards
    wlad

  112. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    I think one Metric ton is 1000 kg or 1 million grams. So if Nickel costs about $15,210 per metric ton, 1 gram (unprocessed of course) costs about 1.5 cents. Not bad for 1.5 MWh. So the processing might cost as much as the raw material.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/nickel-prices-slide-extends-roller-coaster-year-1413993743

    Joseph Fine

  113. Curiosone

    Who will answer to the questions formulated in regard to the Report?
    Thank you,
    W.G.

  114. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    The Professors of the ITP will answer to all the questions in periodical updates of the report published on
    http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-matrapport-publicerad
    It is time for me to turn my attention to further improvement of the industrial E-Cat; the R&D work related to it is the most beneficial to me to spend my time and does the most for my knowledge of both the industrial application and the Physics involved in it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  115. DTravchenko

    Andrea, give us an electric shock: what do you want to say to the persons that are sceptic about the E-Cat and of their comments?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  116. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    I thank them for their clear observations. They can only benefit our ability to be successful through science and R&D.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  117. JCRenoir

    I have given the report of the Independent Third Party to read to a prof of Physics who teaches physics of the neutron in a university. He wants not to be cited,because wants not to be involved in the blogs, but he has said, after reading the report, that the measurements and the analysis have been made in the best possible way. He too says that the reconciliation of the strange shift of Ni isotopes is hard to do, but there can be many reasons, for example that most of Ni powder remained upon the internal surface of the reactor, so that a shift is happened, but not in that measure. Ways to reconciliate the shift of a minor percentage are not impossible, in theory. The shift of Li is all but impossible to explain, he says, at least in theory.
    What do you think?
    JCR

  118. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    I am confident in the work of the Professors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  119. Vessela Nikolova

    Hi Andrea, here is the link where you and all the interested readers can find the book “E-CAT – THE NEW FIRE”, in both English and Italian version: http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/. I wish you a nice weekend! Vessela

  120. Andrea Rossi

    Vessela Nikolova:
    Good Luck!
    Nice week end to you too
    A.R.

  121. Wladimir, great theory, many thanks for the many hours of intellectual labor you have put into this, be proud of your great mind!

    Some questions, the quantum spin of the electron is due to its helical spiral movement, and this spin is lost in the low orbit within the neutron, so the electron quantum sping disappears (spin fusion). Secondly, the neutron magnetic dipole moment is also dependent on this helical spiral movement of the electron. Does this mean that the spiral diameter is more or less that of the neutron diameter, such that the usual helical movement of a bound electron cannot exist anymore in the very small orbit within a neutron? In other words, is the spin movement converted into an orbit movement, during the collapse of a proton and electron into a neutron?

    If quantum spin can be converted into orbital movement, do we still need a neutrino for having “spin conservation”? You did not mention the neutrino once.

    I also like very much your suggestion about the non-validity of the Planck constant on the very small subatomic scale. Your suggestion is just another example of the misuse of the standard physics theory, to disqualify new data or new hypotheses as ‘unphysical’, because it wasn’t anticipated by the standard theory. A physics theory only communicates in a very short form all the experimental data related to the theory, and should never be abused to exclude new data from scientific consideration, because this data falls outside the scope of the theory! Mainstream scientists confuse the many assumptions intrinsic of physics theories with proven facts, and only very keen intelligent minds (like yours) are capable of seperating the assumption from facts (which both determine theory in general).

    For instance, it has NEVER been experimentally proven that:
    - elementary particles do not have intrinsic POTENTIAL energy (this is THE unproven assumption of QM)
    - gauge conditions in electrodynamics are valid, which limits the scope of the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, excluding all kinds of longitudinal effects
    - there has to be an upper bound in the speed of causality (constant c) ( the ‘average atmospheric speed of TEM waves is considered ‘highest speed of any signal or causality in general, and this is just an assumption for which there cannot ever be experimental proof)

    etc …

    not to mention three different definitions of ‘entropy’ (which one is correct?), the true meaning of the Planck constant and its scope of applicability, etc …

  122. Dear Andrea,
    Some people think, and I find it not impossible, that observed accelerating expansion of the universe might be explainable by General Relativity alone, that is, not requiring dark energy. Low density regions of the universe expand faster than high density regions. After a while the low density regions dominate the volume of the universe and hence the average expansion rate appears to have increased. It is not a mathematical contradiction because the equations of General Relativity are nonlinear.
    There is also a visibility effect: some regions of the universe are hidden from our view because of gravity lensing. If density of the hidden regions differs from the average, it biases our estimate of the average density.
    regards, pekka

  123. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.

  124. Daniel De Caluwé

    @Orsobubu,

    You wrote: 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.

    My answer:Well, first: i) I don’t see the E-cat as ‘a sword’, and certainly not with ‘annihilation purposes’, but as a very beautifull, important and necessary invention of dr. Andrea Rossi; and ii) I did not say that it could fit inside the Standard Theory, but that I believe its inventer, dr. Rossi, when he says that, untill now, he can explain the Rossi-effect within the present Theory, but I’m also a big admirer of dr. Wladimir Guglinsky, who combines knowledge, physical insight and intuïtion (at a very high level) to formulate his QRT, that already explains certain phenomena that present theories don’t, so his QRT certainly is a candidate.

    Kind Regards,
    Daniel.

  125. Joe

    Wladimir,

    In your model of cold fusion, there would be as much catalyst 52Te as 28Ni within the E-Cat. Does that not seem excessive?

    All the best,
    Joe

  126. Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear Andrea,

    You wrote: Very interesting, isnt it?

    My answer: Yes, and especially the way they detect it, is very interesting, and I agree with you where you wrote that it is now more difficult to say that dark matter does not exist.

    Kind Regards

  127. Peter Forsberg

    Dear orsobubu,

    You wrote:

    “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.”

    I believe you are right!

    Regards

    Peter Forsberg

  128. 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”

  129. 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

  130. 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

  131. 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.

  132. 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.

  133. Andrea Rossi

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

  134. 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

  135. Andrea Rossi

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

  136. 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.

  137. 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

  138. 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.

  139. 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

  140. 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.

  141. 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

  142. Andrea Rossi

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

  143. 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.

  144. Joseph Fine

    Andrea and Giannino,

    Perhaps Giannino Ferro Casagrande meant the Bilderberg group.

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

    Joseph Fine

  145. 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?

  146. Dima Redko

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

  147. Andrea Rossi

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

  148. 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 !!!!!!!!!

  149. Andrea Rossi

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

  150. 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

  151. 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).

  152. 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

  153. 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

  154. 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

  155. 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.

  156. 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.

  157. 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

  158. 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

  159. 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

  160. 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

  161. 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.

  162. 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.

  163. 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

  164. 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,

  165. 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

  166. Andrea Rossi

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

  167. 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

  168. Andrea Rossi

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

  169. 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

  170. 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.

  171. 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

  172. 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.

  173. 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

  174. 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.

  175. 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

  176. 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.

  177. 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

  178. 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

  179. 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.

  180. 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.

  181. Andrea Rossi

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

  182. 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

  183. Andrea Rossi

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

  184. 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.

  185. 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

  186. Andrea Rossi

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

  187. 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.

  188. 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

  189. 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.

  190. 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

  191. 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.

  192. 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.

  193. 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.

  194. Andrea Rossi

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

  195. 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.

  196. 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

  197. 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.

  198. 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

  199. 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.

  200. JCRenoir

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

  201. 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.

  202. 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

  203. 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

  204. 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

  205. 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.

  206. 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.

  207. Andrea Rossi

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

  208. 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

  209. Andrea Rossi

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

  210. 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

  211. 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.

  212. 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.

  213. 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.

  214. 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

  215. Andrea Rossi

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

  216. 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

  217. 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.

  218. 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

  219. Andrea Rossi

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

  220. 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

  221. 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.

  222. 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

  223. Joseph Fine

    Koen Vandewalle,

    Thanks again for shedding some light on this matter.

    Joseph Fine

  224. John Atkinson

    Mr. Rossi,
    I have followed your hard work and dedication for several years now. I believe it has been through the grace and shield of God you have been able to withstand the ridicule and slander thrown your way throughout the independent study process. I realize the commercial plant completion and assimilation is now your primary focus, and with Gods continued guidance will shine the light on the path you will follow.I have one question. For the next year, what new developments should we look forward to and or information given to us while the plant is being built and tested? Thank you you for all of your hard work and dedication.

  225. 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.

  226. 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

  227. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    In your internal testing, have you:

    a. Run an eCat reactor to fuel exhaustion?
    b. If yes, then what was the lifetime of the run?
    c. If yes, Did the thermal output begin to decrease as the fuel was consumed or did it remain constant and then suddenly decrease?
    d. Was the run what you expected based on your theory of operation — i.e., you got a certain amount of excess energy out and this corresponds to the fuel mass?

    I understand you may not want to release this information but this does not deal with the internal workings of the eCat so I think it is a fair question to ask.

  228. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    1- yes
    2- confidential
    3- confidential
    4- mostly yes
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  229. Italo R.

    Dear Dr. Rossi:
    assuming that on the beginning of the reaction the charge is formed with various components mixed homogeneously, and that during the reaction there are inhomogeneous variations within the charge. A sample taken at one point of the mixture is not representative of what has happened in the rest of the charge.
    Are we confident that the sample was taken significantly?
    After all, sampling is a science on its own.

    Kind Regards
    Italo R.

  230. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    We are working on all this issue in all the due directions. We are throughly studying the results and I am convinced that we should arrive to a reconciliation, taking in account all the results of the data regarding the heat excess, the Ragone diagram and the isotopical shift. Crossing all these data we are formulating a theory. No doubt about the increase of 62Ni, which we found many times, about the entity measured a strong work is in the making. Until this work is finished, I cannot comment on it. Many explications are under inspection.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  231. orsobubu

    Dear Andrea, I am very very happy with the results of your work. The same history of your life is a source of great inspiration for me. I think you will become a hero! The whole event is also taking funny implications: I’m reading about respected scientific commentators speculate that you spend your time studying how to install laser hidden in the ceiling, creating special compartments like a magician’s trick box where one thing goes in and a different one comes out, depending on how the box is manipulated, or by training several hours a day in manual dexterity for the replacement of dusts. Honestly, I think, since you’ve risked everything in this adventure, also those who publicly denigrate you should not get away with it, from the point of view of their reputation and their careers.

    Do you think that would be helpful, once business gets permanent drive and you have more permanent free time, and since you risk becoming *very* rich, set up some kind of foundation to take care, protect and help, even financially, who is placed at the edge of the scientific establishment because of personal interests, or still suffered ostracism which have compromised his future as it happened to you? to make a case that we know well, mr Guglinsky has repeatedly stated here that he could not go in court, for economic reasons, to defend his rights against clear cases of plagiarism. There are several associations dedicated to fighting those who deviate from recognized knowledge, should there be even a few that deal with certain fundamentalism in the opposite direction

    another thing. are you reconsidering the possibility that Guglinsky’s hypothesis – or other versions different than the standard model – can explain the test results better than yours?

    One last thing, again about lasers. I saw the photos of alumina prototype of the new e-Cat. As I assumed for a long time, it is eventually taking the shape of the sword handles of Star Wars Jedi knights. Now it is clear to me which is the real hidden goal of your work. Very good, I’m a fan too. Don’t you think that now it is time you slow down with the 1MW plant and accelerate with the sword?

  232. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    Welcome back.
    Since the set up of the test has been totally made by the Professors of the ITP, the assumptions and the innuendos of the usual imbeciles are just insults to the integrity of 6 Professors whose entire lifes give paramount evidence of their honesty and of their knowledge in the field of Physics. For this reason such assumptions, as you correctly mean, does not merit to be taken in any consideration.
    Said this, I totally adhere to the Standard Model, with all respect for the sincere anf honest work of Wladimir Guglinski, albeit I am perfectly conscious of the fact that theories are made to be overcame. Not bad your idea of a fund to defend the mavericks.
    The 1 MW plant in the factory of the Customer should be the first stone of the commercial breakthrough, and a commercial breakthrough resolves all the discussions. The 1 MW plants are for sale since 2012, now, for the first time, we have the possibility in the USA to control the operation of our plants in a factory where they are applied to an industrial production and not in a situation of internal tests .
    In the late seventies the “experts” used to say that the idea to produce computers for “housewifes” was ridiculous and technologically impossible.
    Whatever they are saying now is totally insignificant, as well as what they said in the past.
    The Sword will annichilate them.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  233. orsobubu

    This is only a test to see if the nasty robot keeps on spamming me

  234. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    I take advantage to this comment of yours to inform that we have restricted the filter of the robot, due to attacks we received. I can assure you I have not spammed any comment of yours. When a Reader does not find published a comment, in most of cases is because there is contained a link that is taken as advertising. Please signal it, sending an email to
    info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
    with the text of the comment spammed.
    We will see what we can do
    As a matter of fact, dear Orsobubu, I was buffled by the fact that it was time you didn’t comment here. I was in permanent waiting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  235. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    No offense taken. But I could not resist pouncing *like a Cat on a Mouse” on a possible Rossi revelation… (LOL)

    Seriously — I hope you are able, from time-to-time, to provide a few nuggets of eCat truth, theory and practice our way. We Thirst for your knowledge..

  236. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Few nuggets? In the Report of the ITP you got a Niagara Falls of nuggets!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  237. Paul

    Andrea,

    Will you ever be able to release the video of the hot-cat from the 2013 tests that lost control and melted down?

    I think that was to-date your smallest 1 MW reactor.

    Paul

  238. Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    We cannot release videos related to our internal R&D.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  239. Hello Dr. Rossi,
    So much has occurred since our last correspondence. Firstly, congratulations on the recently published test results! They have certainly created more positive interest in your technology.
    My question refers to the plant in Ferrara, Italy that was heated prior to 2009 by what must be the Grandmother of E-Cats. Is this boiler still in operation? I realize that I am still encouraging your previous efforts to create an affordable home style unit. At present, it seems that you and partners are occupied primarily with the larger energy generation projects. Thanks for your reply. I wish you continued success!
    Best regards,
    Gerard Cruz-Molina
    Brooklyn, NYC

  240. Andrea Rossi

    Gerard Cruz:
    Thank you for your kind comment.
    The domestic line is still under R&D and enormous amount of experience and designs, manufacturing projects have been made for it. It will take time, though, to get the necessary safety certification; for this several years of operation of the indistrial E-Cats will be necessary.
    The factory of Ferrara has been closed and all the stuff has been transferred in the USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  241. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted “When it produces 62Ni…” So from this I assume you mean that the reaction actually changes something (e.g., other nickel isotopes) into 62Ni, as opposed to devouring the other nickel isotopes and leaving 62Ni untouched?

  242. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Ha,ha,ha,ha…Steve, I was just joking!
    Obviously, you are too intelligent not to understand that I am not laughing AT you, but WITH you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  243. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi, Koen Vandewalle,

    Andrea is 4 years younger than I am. Despite his youth, he knows much more about Physics and E-Cats than I do.

    My cat, Nina, sends regards to both of you.

    Joseph Fine

  244. Joseph Fine

    Koen Vandewalle,

    Based on the previous experiment, first I would have to say:

    “Let there be light!” (Or FIAT LUX)

    All the rest are details.

    Joseph Fine

  245. Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    Nice, thank you,
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  246. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I know you cannot discuss what occurs inside the eCat reactor but will an operator hear any sound from the eCat during normal operation? Some devices have a pitch that operators know by experience whether the device is operating correctly. Does the eCat reactor “sing”?

  247. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Of course the E-Cat sings! When everything goes well, full power, he sings “Twist and Shout”, when things go not too well he sings ” Please don’t cry loving me”. When it produces 62Ni he emits dodecaphonic notes ( not easy to reconcile).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  248. Alessandro Coppi

    Hi Andrea, you should say soon that E-CAT doesn’t work at all, because the prices of the Brent and WTI are dropping silently, and many rich guys will lose a lot of money around the world.
    Great days we are going to live!

    :-)

    Grazie
    Alessandro Coppi

  249. Andrea Rossi

    Alessandro Coppi:
    He,he,he…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  250. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Professor Joseph Fine,

    Most of the time you very precisely comment on topic, besides some joke or a teaser to make us read on some very interesting subjects. Remember I suspected you of really being an alias of Andrea Rossi. I think he likes your comments, but maybe he might consider you a pain in the head.

    Having a teacher like you, would make me want to become a nuclear scientist.
    But what happened yesterday is very uncomprehensive to me.

    Suppose, for once, that you have to create a universe. How would you begin ? For now and for the simplicity you can omit side-effects as organic life. Just to create some matter.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  251. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    So, Prof. Joseph Fine: are you an alias of Andrea Rossi? I never knew, but you never know…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  252. Giovanni Guerrini

    Dear Mr Rossi,
    in these 3-4 years I have seen a strange phenomenon.
    There are some people (and in some groups a lot of people)who,when I speak about this concrete chance to make better this world for all,oppose without know what I am speaking about.
    They don’t want listen and seems to me that they have fear.
    So I have asked to myself: why fear?!
    I don’t know,but I have a hypothesis.
    It could be that these people feel good because they are in a position better than a lot of other people and they have fear to lose their comparative privilege.
    So they become clowns who follow,unawares,their instict of “homo homini lupus” and “mors tua vita mea”.
    I hope my hypothesis is wrong,because it would be very sad.
    Culturally today the idea that “I have ergo sum” is still strong and I think that a thecnology that give more well being to all will be a great gift also for these people because they will be forced to evolve.
    But I hope my hypothesis is wrong.

    Regards G G

  253. Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    I think you are right, but nobody can stop a commercial breakthrough. This is why we have now to focus excusively on our 1MW plant and the related R&D and nothing else.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  254. Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    One of the few clowneries around, regarding the Report, on some blog, merits a comment, just to put in evidence the total lack of “bona fides” of the usual persons:
    1- ” The clamps of the electric power have been inverted”: obviously it is a false innuendo. The clamps have never been inverted.
    2- ” The resistances of the dummy were different from the resistences of the Hot Cat”: obviously it is false, because there was not a dummy and a Hot Cat, the same Hot Cat has been measured without charge ( and in this status has been defined “dummy”) and with charge ( and in this status has been defined “Hot Cat”); the behavior of the resistances, as I explained already, changes and is not linear, because it interacts with the reactor and the reactions. I cannot give more information about this particular, for obvious reasons.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  255. Curbina

    Dear Mr. Rossi:

    I haven’t asked anything here in a long time (last time was around 2012), but I’m curious of one thing that I haven’t seen yet asked to you after the release of the report: In your opinion the results were Positive or Negative? (For me they were very positive, but I’m more interested in your perspective, of course, the results, as you also announced a few days before the release of the report, are tremendously important).

  256. Andrea Rossi

    Curbina:
    Positive. Important. Problematic under a theoretical point of view, and we are working on this.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  257. Andrea Rossi

    Dear Readers:
    I am receiving a snowball of comments, in any form and with the most creative excuses, to get more information regarding the reactor tested by the ITP: questions regarding charge,powders, alumina, resistances, photographies, cables, you name it, you got it. For me it is not a pleasure to spam all of them. For this reason, please take notice of the fact that I cannot give any more information about the reactor in positive or in negative. I cannot, as well, give any information, so far, regarding the R&D and the theoretical study started from the publication of the Report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  258. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    Have you ever placed one of your filled Alumina tubes without any external connections on alumina blocks inside a microwave oven and observed the tube with an IR camera while irradiating it with the microwaves? Might be an interesting easy to do test.
    Regards.

  259. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    I cannot give information about our R&D.
    Thank you for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  260. Yona

    Dear andrea Rossi. Now after the successful report, when it will be possible for visitors to come to see the 1mw plant ( as you said) ? Thanks and good luck

  261. Andrea Rossi

    Yona:
    The visitors will be accepted to visit the plant after the period of perfectionment of the set up. You know plants problems ( I know who you are) and you know perfectly well that a complex like this needs up to 1 year to go through all the problems that come out by the day, when you put at work a new technology in operation for a production process that implies 24 hour per day of labour of the plant, 350 days per year.
    Thank you for your distinguished attention.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  262. Andrea Rossi

    Dr :
    Unfortunately, we HAVE TO climb the Everest !
    We are studying throughly the results and some light is beginning to be turned on.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  263. Joseph Fine

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I apologize for writing relativistic ‘photons’ as all photons travel at the speed of light. I meant there could be a gravitational red-shift operating on the gamma rays (due to the mass of the nucleus) and if the gammas were close enough, under the proper conditions they would bend and lose energy (be red-shifted or increase wavelength) to the lattice.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

    I’d prefer climbing the Appalachians. It’s much warmer and there’s more air to breathe.

    Thank you,

    Joseph Fine

  264. Andrew

    Andrea Rossi,
    How do you comment the fact that after thousand of tests you find out just now a such massive isotopical shift in Ni? Does this result somehow relates to the way the Cat was operated (Not Self sustained mode)?
    Beasides, are you aware of the value of the waste products that comes out of the Cat?
    If I am not wrong 1 milligram of Ni 62 at that purity (over 99%) can cost over 1000$.
    Seems you have in your hard a technology whose worthiness goes a lot beyond heat production.
    Always wishing best luck
    Andrew

  265. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    I am studying the results of the test to reconcile the isotopical shifts.
    I am doing this with a nuclear physicist well known and expert of the matter and stronger than me in advanced mathematics. Perhaps we are approaching the beginning of a percourse to a reconciliation, remaining in the standard model, therefore avoiding dangerous exotic temptations. We want to find at any cost the solution. It is hard, it is not like climbing the Appalachian Mountains, but even the Everest has been climbed, at last. Just working.
    Lavolale, lavolale!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  266. Hank Mills

    Hello Everyone,

    A new article on PESN has been posted about how Dr. Brian Ahern, a scientist and long time LENR researcher, has changed his opinion about the paper documenting the month long test of a high temperature E-Cat. Initially, he indicated that he believed no excess heat had been produced. Such a statement aligns with his previous skeptical comments about the technology. But after consulting with an expert in IR measurements – who declared the cameras and methodologies used during the test were correct and the same as he would have chosen – his doubts were resolved. He now feels the results are accurate. Please read the full article at:

    http://pesn.com/2014/10/13/9602546_Hell-Freezes-Over–Brian-Aherns_Doubts_on_E-Cat_Test_Resolved/

    Perhaps he will be one of many previously skeptical individuals to recognize the truth that the E-Cat works.

  267. Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Dr Brian Ahern is a sincere and honest scientist. He says what he sincerely thinks to be right. Sometimes with excess of nerve, but I prefer go to the core of problems, ignoring the form outside.
    Speaking of things that count, and not of the useless blabla, the work made by Ahern with nickel and hydrogen is smart, as I already said in the period during which we got not very tender words from him. I confirm my opinion that he will be probably the first one to arrive to an industrial product after us. His publication has been very convincing for us.
    Thank you for the kind information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  268. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat2_pics/141011_ragone_20.png

    If you divide the Energy Density of each dot (W-h/Kg) on the Ragone Plot by the corresponding Power Density (W/Kg), the result is the duration (in hours) of the test.

    The March 2014 E-Cat ran for (1.6/2.1)*1000 hours = 31.75 days while the Pu-238 system Energy and Power Densities appear to be based on projected operation of ( 9.7*10^9/500) hours or 2,215 years!

    The advantage in using the Pu-238 system seems limited if the user must wait over 2,000 years to get almost the same Energy Density as an E-Cat that operates for 6 months! Plus there are the Radiation concerns for any Pu-238 system.

    ( 6 * 1.6*10^9 = 9.6 * 10^9 W-h/Kg )

    How do you keep (most) Gammas in the nuclei? While staying within Standard Physics?

    (It seems to be a good question.)

    The following ‘crazy’ thought popped up (in a dream, as usual) that, at the femto-meter level, relativistic photons (when created in the nuclei) are extremely close to several femto-scale event horizons (tiny black holes) and rapidly lose energy to the lattice.

    I apologize for offending anyone with this crazy comment, but “is it crazy enough to be true”?

    (You don’t have to answer, but I have to ask.)

    Relativistic regards,

    Joseph Fine

  269. I’m sure that the governments and other energy hoarders are quaking in their boots.

    I admit that China is a good place to start, but their government is as vulnerable to change as those with conventional energy supplies.

  270. Andrea Rossi

    Charlie Sutherland:
    I am not involved in commercial issues.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  271. Bill Conley

    Andrea Rossi,

    First I’m am a big supporter of you and the eCat and often defend you both against skeptics/trolls on various blogs. I also accept the results of the test as true and accurate.

    The last test was an opportunity to for the test team to answer many of the criticisms that were leveled at the first test. Two majors issues were that the first test took place on your premises and in your presence. This time the tests were wisely moved to an independent facility and the expectation is that you would not be present either.

    Then we find out that you “intervened” (page 7) at several important points in the process. Why was this necessary when all must have known that this would just be ammunition for your critics to cry foul and fraud. I do not understand why you were even there to feed this narrative. I think it would have been much wiser to not even have set foot in the facility and allowed these courageous professors to claim complete independence. Now you cast an unnecessary shadow over the event.

    Best wishes going forward. I hope that the demonstration of the commercial plant comes soon.

  272. Andrea Rossi

    Bill Conley:
    My presence has been clearly explained in the Report, as well as its limitations. The necessity of technical assistance in case of breakages is obvious. I am the sole guy that could repair any breakage. Luckily, no breakage happened. The commercial plant is not going to make a demonstration, it has to make a profitable work for the Customer who pays for it.
    Thank you for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  273. Gian Luca

    Dear A.R.
    while we are talking about the discovery of the millennium (after the wheel) oilprice.com publish this article, but does not mention or LENR E-CAT. Meanwhile, oil continues its descent toward $ 80 a barrel
    http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Is-Fusion-Power-Closer-Than-We-Thought.html
    Ad Majora…..

    Gian Luca

  274. Andrea Rossi

    Gian Luca:
    Thank you for the info. About the talking: I take notice of the fact that our opponents are again trying to use my past to assassinate my character
    ( http://www.ingandrearossi.com)
    This gives evidence of the validity of my work, if after 5 years they still need to use that as an argument.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  275. Dear Andrea Rossi,

    FYI

    Brian Josephson (awarded for the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973) comment at Nature.com

    —————————————
    The most important news of the year, perhaps, not just the last seven days? The results of a new investigation into the Rossi reactor (allegedly a high-power cold fusion reactor), involving running the reactor over a 32-day period, are now out. The report not only confirms output power far in excess of anything possible by chemical reaction, but also gives a clear indication that a nuclear reaction is occurring, on the basis of a substantial change in the isotopic proportions of Li and Ni over the period of the run. The report, entitled Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel may be seen at http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe….

    As before, I predict that pigs will fly before Nature makes any mention of the report, which has also been put on hold by the physics preprint archive arxiv.org (with an earlier report, a leaked email disclosed that the moderators were trying hard to find a reason to block the report but eventually gave in).

    Brian Josephson
    —————————————

    http://www.nature.com/news/seven-days-3-9-october-2014-1.16087#comment-1626001865

    Best Regards
    Felix Rends
    Germany

  276. Andrea Rossi

    Felix Rends:
    I thank you very much for your comment, that I think is important for the following reasons:
    1- Brian Josephson is a Nobel Prize laureate ( one of the youngest Nobel Prize awarded of the History)
    2- Because his article has been written on Nature, even if its blog
    Well, this is a very beautiful moment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  277. silvio caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    The ITPR says that your e-cat was able to produce 1 gram of Nickel 62 isotope with a purity of 99,3%. Do you have any idea of the commercial value of such high refined material?
    You have not to recycle e-cat ashes, you have to sell them! :-)

  278. Andrea Rossi

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

  279. alex

    Dear Ing. Rossi,

    In your reply to Daniel G.Zavela you wrote:

    “..it is the milestone that signals the first commercial product based on LENR ..in the free market. The success of this plant goes beyond anything else, and nothing will take a single hour of my work but it from now through the end of 2015″. Does this mean that you are targeting roll out of commercial e-car or hot-cat, or domestic e-cat, for early 2016?

    God be with you.

  280. Andrea Rossi

    Alex:
    What I answered to Daniel G. Zavela means that I will not accept any engagement of any sort until the 1 MW plant supplied to the Customer will be totally and definitely running in a regular, easy operation, without trouble making of any sort.
    About the domestic application, I already explained.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  281. Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    Congratulations your results are really stunning…I think I have been staring at the table of isotopic change for some hours having no words …
    I have one question if you can answer: when you say 1 MW plant you still refer to THERMAL power or ELECTRIC power?
    Thank you on behalf of mankind
    Neri B.

  282. Andrea Rossi

    Neri B.:
    Thermal
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  283. Koen Vandewalle

    Overnight re-reading of the report makes me consider the following:

    This does not need publiciation in a scientific journal. The output/input measurement is plain vanilla up-to-date thermodynamics analysis, executed on a very professional way with perfect scientific approach.

    This document fits in courses and professional litterature -and why not in advertising for industrial measurement technics- that should be studied by every technical university student and technical professional involved with heat-related issues.
    These are the guys that will offer, sell, install and service the final devices. If they “buy it”, their employers will buy it.

    Sorry for posting and commenting too much. But this excellent, well written report, full of facts and proof deserves better than “opinion-by-reference-authority”-approach.

    Koen

  284. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    Thank you for your opinion,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  285. Dear eernie1,
    thank you for answering me directly. I feel honored by your attention.
    I agree with the need for something out of the box. It depends how far out.
    Let alone my theoretical rumbling speeches, the “theory” I am proposing fortunately arrives at some falsifiable statements.
    Here a few of them:
    Physics (the electron coupling and the collapse):
    Some electromagnetic frequencies in the [kHz] range should be able to change the reaction rate. This because they should stimulate/interfere in the coupling between the p/d/t and the electron. Specifically I estimate (but this a very rough estimation) that one frequency should be equal to the p/e mass ratio 1,836. … [Hz].
    The irradiation of the charge with gamma rays of frequencies just above 141 [keV] and 4.17[MeV] should activate the production of neutrons. If my estimation of the mass of the beta decaying H4 is wrong these frequencies should be changed accordingly.
    The d-e attraction should be less intense than the t-e attraction. Together with reaction 4, this means that any tritium added to an hydrogen loaded charge should gradually be consumed by the LENR. The E-Cat and the Hot-Cat in fact seem not to accumulate tritium, despite hydrogen loading (see Edmund Storms’ comments …).
    The presence of a strong magnetic field should enhance the reaction rate. The radiation that escapes the charge should have an angular distribution that follows the magnetic field. In particular there should be two different sets of frequencies coming out parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field. Those parallel are due to the approaching phase of the nucleons to the electron and are “dipolar”. Those perpendicular should be due to the “cyclotron” emission of the nuclei once captured “inside” the electron Zitterbewegung (if any).
    Chemistry (before the coupling):
    Stimulating the charge with photons that enhance the movement of vacancies, the reaction rate should raise.
    The size of the active metal clusters should be in the 3-12 nanometer range. Outside the reaction rate should be very low.
    There should be a correlation between the number of hydrogen (p/d/t 2) molecules formed and the amount of energy produced (some of the approaches do not lead to the electron coupling and to the collapse, but to the formation of molecules inside newly formed vacancies).

    Best regards

    Andrea Calaon

  286. atlantis71

    Dear dr. Rossi,
    this is the link of the article on the strategic impacts of breakthrough energy technologies that I mentioned to you by email a couple of months ago.
    http://www.sicurezzanazionale.gov.it/sisr.nsf/approfondimenti/strategic-impacts-of-breakthrough-energy-technologies.html
    All the best
    D.R.

  287. I finally got my video up from my interview on Coast to Coast AM about the E-Cat test results.

    Sterling Allan on Coast to Coast AM about E-Cat breakthrough – On October 9, George Noory interviewed me about Andrea Rossi’s third-party test.

  288. eernie1

    Dear Andrea Calaon,
    In my experience,when a situation or result lies out of the box of standard theory you must look for an out of the box solution. At this stage of the game with an incomplete ash analysis,your theory is as good as anyone else can come up with within reasonable boundaries. I think we require more information but the last report of ash content if correct, may point us in the right direction

  289. Dear Dr. Rossi,

    With apologies to Christopher Columbus, please remind your critics that the Earth is indeed flat and that if you travel far enough, you will fall off the edge.
    I know the truth of what you have achieved as Dr. Patterson had success in 1995 producing 400% excess power using a corrugated nickel base and when he substituted a smooth nickel base, the reaction would not work. Dr. George Miley analyzed and found transmutation of elements in the Patterson Power Cells(tm). I have a copy of an independent laboratory report proving transmutations from a cell that vaporized at 3000 degrees C.

    Sterling Allan feels it will take 5 years more time to commercialize your ECat. Do you believe production might happen sooner?

    Wishing you the best of luck.

    Best Regards,

    Daniel G. Zavela

  290. Andrea Rossi

    Daniel G.Zavela:
    As a matter of fact, we already have a plant of 1 MW made for a Customer. For all the next 12-14 months my only and sole focus will be on it: it is the milestone that signals the first commercial product based on LENR ( or QUAR, as my friend Renato Estri likes to say) in the free market.
    The success of this plant goes beyond anything else, and nothing will take a single hour of my work but it from now through the end of 2015. Also my activity of R&D will be focused on it. All my great team is focused on it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  291. Dave K

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    In mercatu veritas! There seems no longer a reason for your customer (or IH) to not allow the E-cat to be put on display, if not to the public, then at least to some group of business, government, or scientific leaders. Even if there remain some technical difficulties, the customer would be seen for its business acumen, technical savvy, and environmental awareness, and it would surely improve a beleaguered stock price. If the customer is not willing to allow this, IH should put it on display themselves, or they should establish a second customer who will! Do you not think so?

  292. Andrea Rossi

    Dave K:
    Selected visitors will be allowed to the 1 MW plant, in future.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  293. Curiosone

    Dr Rossi,
    I do not know if you can answer to this question, if not please spam it.
    Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ?
    W.G.

  294. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse vanishes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  295. Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    I want to admit that I just discovered that I asked you a needless, redundant question earlier today. After reading the report yet again I found the answer. I aoologize, and I now know why you spammed my comment.

    I deserved it. I’ll re-read the report again.

    Thank you.

    Hank

  296. Andrea Rossi

    Dear Hank Mills:
    Thank you. This report is very deep. The more you read it, the more you get from it. It comes from the experience of Professors that have dedicated all their life to Nuclear Physics and that accepted not to be biased against the possibility of LENR, albeit these could pose gaps of reconciliation with the classic models. They also had the courage to be honest and sincere: it would have much more easy for them to follow the wave and dismiss LENR as impossible and so be it.
    This Report a mine also for me, like the book of Norman Cook.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  297. Thank you, Andrea, for your wonderfully entertaining reply which started:

    “Andrea Rossi
    October 10th, 2014 at 3:05 PM
    TO THE READERS:
    I have been informed right now that on a blog a person whose nickname is Raman has said a curious thing I want to deal with because is a paradigmatic example of fake professionality used to perpetrate an agenda.”

    It brought a huge smile to my face!

    Thanks also to Hank Mills for his quote from Jonathan Swift!

    Rodney Nicholson.

  298. Andrea Rossi

    Rodney Nicholson:
    Usually I ignore stupid comments, but sometimes I get nervous.
    Sorry.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  299. Andrea Rossi

    Herb Gills:
    We are studying the results. It will take time.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  300. Herb Gillis

    Dr. Rossi:
    According to the most recent 3rd party report a number of elements that were in the fuel material seem to have disappeared from the ash, or were radically lower in concentration in the ash. These were Al, Fe, C, Ca, Cl, Mg, and Mn. Apparently no data given on isotopic composition (changes) in these elements. Do you find any of these changes surprising? Do you think these changes were due to simple chemical segregation within the fuel during burning- – or perhaps something else?
    Kind regards; HRG.

  301. Curiosone

    Dear Dr Rossi:
    Which is the official site where the report is deposited?
    Thank you,
    W.G.

  302. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    The site where the Report of the Independent Third Party has been put and where the Professors will make all the updatings is:

    http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-matrapport-publicerad

    Some minor corrections already have been made.

    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  303. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I know that the professors did not run the device in self sustained mode(no activating input)because they feared a runaway mode may occur. After they finished their testing regime did they try to run it in self sustaining configuration? In the self sustaining mode, COP is meaningless because dividing by 0 gives you infinity. My other question is, have you or are you running your tests in self sustaining mode and if you are, can the device be controlled?
    Successful regards.

  304. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    The Prof did not use the ssm mode. We did in our factory, but the data of our R&D are restricted, so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  305. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Since The Report shows a dramatic isotopic RATIO shift, I believe there are two possibilities:

    1. That the isotopes showing a decrease were “consumed” in the exothermic reaction.
    2. That the isotope with the large increase was somehow created during the reaction.
    3. both of the above occurred.

    For lithium – I do not know of a way to shift 7Li to 6Li, so I assume this was a reduction in the 7Li population that caused the 6Li relative population to dramatically increase. So this might be a case of the 7Li being converted to helium?

    For the nickel – I would assume the lower numbered nickel isotopes were altered and eventually became the dominant nickel isotope. But we did not see a production of copper. Somehow, the reaction stopped at 62Ni isotope.

    Comments?

  306. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    We are studying.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  307. H-G Branzell

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    H-G BRANZELL:
    PLEASE FIND MY ANSWERS ALONG THE TEXT: MY ANSWERS ARE RECOGNIZABLE BECAUSE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, INSERTED IN THE TEXT TO MAKE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO ANY SINGLE POINT MADE BY THESE SCIENTISTS. I RESPECT THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT AN AGENDA, BUT FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY ARE SINCERELY CONVINCED OF.

    Not very positive for the Dogbone Cat —

    IT IS NORMAL AND EXPECTED

    http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854985.ece, google Translate:

    Elforsk AB is the Swedish electricity company research and development company. Thus, Elforsk a heavy role and a responsibility to conduct the important research on the current and future energy supply in a way that is both responsible and relying on good science and critical thinking.

    MOST OF ALL, I WOULD SAY, ON EXPERIMENTS THAT REALLY MAKE PRODUCTS THAT WORK: ELFORSK DOES NOT PRODUCE THEORIES, BUT ENERGY.

    On NyTekniks debate page on 9/10 states now Magnus Olofsson, CEO of Elforsk, it’s time for Elforsk to proceed with research on so-called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), and this is largely because of the “amazing results” that is now being published in a report written by researchers from Uppsala University. We find it surprising that just hours after the report is released, without waiting or asking for more critical comments on the reported material, is prepared to launch an entirely new area of ​​research.

    We note that the new measurements have been carried out in southern Switzerland and that funding for the report comes from Elforsk, and that three of the authors are retired, formerly employed at Uppsala University. But as far as we know, this report has otherwise no connection to Uppsala University, financially or operationally.

    LET’S BE PRECISE:
    THE FUNDS DID NOT ARRIVE ONLY FROM ELFORSK; THE LIST OF FUNDINGS IS REPORTED AT THE END OF THE REPORT; AND NOWHERE HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT ANY FUNDING CAME FROM THE UPPSALA UNIVERSITY

    Perhaps the most interesting thing about the E-Cat deal, which now has rolled in blogs and the media since 2011, it is perhaps that it is still “alive” and question why anyone still believes in it. Periodically test new variants of the E-Caterpillar and criticisms of tests of previous E-Cat variants are never to be and answered. Instead investigated now even a new variant of “energy catalyst” and even more amazing results presented.

    ALL THE QUESTIONS, TO WHICH WAS POSSIBLE TO ANSWER, THAT HAVE BEEN PUT AFTER THE FORMER TESTS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED TO; NEW TESTS HAVE FOLLOWED SUIT THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORK

    We agree that what is reported is amazing. But we believe that it is surprising is that the authors and Elforsk are so naive that they uncritically swallow something that would set the entire nuclear physics on its head; in a gram of “fuel”, consisting mainly of nickel, the proportion of the isotope Ni-62 in the “fuel” through some type of nuclear processes have increased from 4 percent to 99 percent. And this without any radiation emitted, either during operation or in the resulting “ash”. An equally spectacular nuclear transformation must have been of a proportion of lithium in the fuel powder. This goes against all the accumulated nuclear physics knowledge collected over the last 100 years. But rather than rewrite the textbooks, we believe that you first have to thoroughly investigate if there are other, simpler explanations.

    I AGREE ON THE FACT THAT THE RESULTS ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE, AND WE ARE STUDYING ON THIS. IF WHAT HAPPENED WITH LITHIUM SUITES IN PART OUR EXPECTATIONS, FOR NICKEL WE HAVE DIFFICULTIES TO RECONCILE. CLEARLY, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.

    THESE SCIENTISTS FORGET THAT IT HAS BEEN MEASURED AN EXCESS OF ENERGY NOT RECONCILIABLE WITH ANY CHEMICAL REACTION. THIS TOO CONTRASTS WITH 100 YEARS OF FORMER EXPERIENCE. RELATIVITY CONTRASTED WITH 500 YEARS OF FORMER EXPERIENCE. GALILEO RISKED TO BE BURNT ALIVE BECAUSE CONTRASTED 3 000 YEARS (OR MORE) OF FORMER CONSOLIDATED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
    SUCH AN EXCESS OF ENERGY, MEASURED IN A LONG PERIOD ( MORE THAN 1 000 HOURS STRAIGHT) NEEDS AN EXPLICATION TOO, THAT DOES NOT RECONCILE WITH ANY CHEMICAL REACTION.

    For apparently thinking Elforsk not seriously if researchers simply may have been deceived by an inventor proposals. The drastic isotope enrichments that should have been accomplished during the operation of the E-Cat can be quickly purchased from several different companies. The inventor Rossi has what we can understand of the report dealt with the fuel itself both in terms of replenishment and withdrawal.

    THIS IS REALLY FUNNY: SHOULD I HAVE TEMPERED THE SAMPLES, I WOULD HAVE MADE IT TO MAKE RECONCILING POSSIBLE, OR AT LEAST CLOSE TO LIKELY ! THESE SCIENTISTS ASSUME THAT I SUICIDE MYSELF MAKING ARTIFICIALLY A NOT RECONCULABLE CHARGE!
    BESIDES: IN THE REPORT IS WRITTEN THAT THE SAMPLES HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE COMMETTEE.

    Already in 2011 there were two very professionally conducted fuel analyzes at the Natural History Museum.

    THIS IS MORE FUNNY: THESE SCIENTISTS DEFINE VERY PROFESSIONALLY CONDUCTED AN ANALYSIS MADE UPON A SAMPLE SUPPLIED BY ME, AND DO NOT, BY LOGICAL DEDUCTION, CONSIDER PROFESSIONALLY CONDUCTED ANALYSIS MADE UPON SAMPLES INSERTED AND EXTRACTED BY A THIRD PARTY

    The result of this time showed that the nickel contained in both the “fuel” and “ash” had the natural distribution of isotopes of nickel, that is, no isotope change of nickel which could be observed. It then alleged reaction product of copper occurred additionally in separate flakes of “ashes”, not mixed in nickel flakes which should have been the case if nuclear transformations occurred. Therefore, one can suspect that Rossi did not hesitate to provide the testing with researchers manipulated the material. Without a rigorous and documented inspection, one can not draw any conclusions regarding Ecatens function based on the fuel analyzes presented.

    AS THESE SCIENTISTS CORRECTLY SAY, I SUPPLIED THOSE SAMPLES, IN 2011 (TO PROF. SVEN KULLANDER), AND I GAVE A SAMPLE FROM WHICH THE COMPONENTS, THAT AT THOSE TIMES WERE NOT DISCLOSABLE, HAD BEEN EXTRACTED, BECAUSE NOT YET PATENTED. I CLEARLY WARNED PROF. KULLANDER OF THAT. SO WE ALL KNEW THAT THOSE ANALYSIS COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS COMPLETE, BUT JUST AS A FIRST APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. THE COPPER FOUND WAS PROBABLY AN IMPURITY AND I MADE CLEAR THIS SUSPECT OF MINE . IN THAT CASE THE SAMPLE HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM A REACTOR BY A THIRD PARTY AND I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY TO SAY, AS I DID WHEN I DELIVERED IT, THAT I HAD TAKEN OFF FROM IT THE PARTS THAT I WANTED NOT TO DISCLOSE.

    ANDREA ROSSI

    Stephan Pomp, Professor, Uppsala University
    Göran Ericsson, Professor, Uppsala University
    Peter Ekström, Professor Emeritus, University of Lund
    Ane Håkansson, Professor, Uppsala University

  308. Andrea Rossi

    H-G Branzell:
    Please find my answers inside the text of your comment, to make easy the reading. My answers are in capital letters, to make clear the distinction between what they wrote and what I answered.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  309. Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    After the release of the test – which will hopefully be followed by a publication in a peer reviewed journal – scientists around the world might wish to reproduce the “Rossi effect” in their laboratories. Do you see a possibility that you, without disclosing any critical information, propose some of them an experiment that would allow a reliable replication? I’m thinking of a setup that produces a COP that is greater than 1, but anyway not high enough for commercial applications.
    From the viewpoint of an entrepreneur there would be no reason for you to do that, but as a scientist you might be open for this idea. By the way, don’t forget that well-known city in Sweden…

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  310. Andrea Rossi

    Andreas Moraitis:
    For the next year we will be exclusively focused on the operation of the 1 MW plant supplied to our Customer and on the R&D applied to it. This commercial breakthrough is the sole logic next step and we want not to be distracted from this purpose.
    Obviously I will personally continue to study on the results of the Report, because at this point I ned to reconcile the theoretical bases. Theoretical discussions will go ahead for years, though.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  311. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    The more I read and re-think all that has been said and written, the more I get convinced that this “test” is no more than the warming-up, the preparation, the stabilisation of the reactor.
    This is really a miracle device. A gift of God.
    I understand your modest and humble attitude, many of our great inventors in history had that, but I am not sure it is in place. The world is in big trouble, and this invention gives a possible outcome.
    Thank You very much Andrea Rossi,
    Best Regards,
    Koen

  312. gian

    Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory, notes, “I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP were accurate. Aside from the fact that this could not have been produced from any known chemical reaction, the most significant finding to me is the evidence of isotopic shifts in lithium and nickel. Understanding this could possibly be the beginning of a whole new era in both material transmutations and energy for the planet and for space exploration. This is an exciting time to live in and this is an exciting technology to witness come about.”

    IS IT NOT REMARKABLE ? THIS IS NASA !

  313. gian

    “The sample was taken by us at random from the fuel and ash,
    observing utmost care to avoid any contamination.”

    So was written by the Autors of the report.

    The accuses of some colleagues of Upsala that fuel and ash were
    manipulated or replaced by other substances by Rossi are unfounded,

  314. Andrea Calaon

    Dear JoNP Readers,
    dear Wladimir Guglinski, dear eernie1, dear Steven N. Karels, dear Dan C., dear H-G Branzell, dear Rodney Nicholson (question 2 ;) ), …

    Please consider this simple suggestion for the solution for the “mystery” of LENR.

    The LENR are simply nuclear fusion reactions mediated by the electron.

    This so far uncharted type of reaction follows always this scheme:

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

    where:
    Nu(N) is any nucleus with neutron number N and
    the expression p/d/t meas: either a proton, a deuteron or a triton.
    If Nu(N+1) is not stable other corresponding nuclear “pieces” appear.
    It is a ternuclear reaction in the sense that the three particles on the left react at the same time because they meet in the same place. The means by which this otherwise very unlikely meeting event happens is the coupling of the electron.

    A necessary condition for this reactions to take place is that the two reacting nuclei must have at least a magnetic quadrupole moment (a magnetic dipole moment is even better …) because the attractive potential is magnetic. Is is essentially Dallacasa’s nuclear attractive potential (1983).
    These reactions are triggered only when the two nuclei and the electron find themselves within a radius of “some” picometers, and have kinetic energies that are not too high.
    If you want I can detail on the collapse mechanism.
    It is possible to enhance the coupling through some electromagnetic frequencies.
    The many metal structures that have been proven to host LENR actually succeed in squeezing the two nuclei and the electron inside picometric distances. They do it in a special way, through the dynamic of vacancy movement with some additional requirements: energy localization that comes with non linear modes in particles between 3 and 12 nanometers … this is the physical-chemistry of LENR.

    The essential is that the electron acts like an extension of what is called nuclear force (nothing to do with the strong force). The Zitterbewegung of the electron has a diameter of 386 [fm]: much larger than any nuclear range. And it can reach even further.
    Hence there is actually no particle kinetics that overcomes the Coulomb barrier, as in common plasma fusion.

    There is no need for a special mechanism for energy fractionation because the nuclei accelerate while accelerating towards the electron and during the final collapse that happens “inside” the Zitterbewegung trajectory (like a spiralling rail) of the electron. They therefore emit soft gamma rays, well before the real nuclear reaction eventually takes place: exchange of W+ and emission of a neutrino. In this way part of the binding energy turns into photos instead of kinetic energy of the daughter particles.

    The “classical” LENR are:

    1 : p+e+p ->d + neutrino + (max) 1.442MeV
    2 : d+e+p ->t + neutrino + (aver) 4.9 MeV(max 5.475)
    3a: d+e+d ->H4+ neutrino + (max) 6.82 MeV
    non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV
    3b: d+e+d+141[keV] ->H4 + neutrino +(max) > 0.00 MeV
    excited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV
    4a: t+e+p ->H4 + neutrino + (max) 2.79 MeV
    non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV
    4b: t+e+p+4.17[MeV]->H4 + neutrino + (max)> 0.00 MeV (very unlikely)
    exited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV
    5 : t+e+d ->H5 + neutrino + ?
    H5 ->H4 + neutrino+n+e-+(max) 18.1 MeV
    excited H4 ->t + n + 3.39 MeV
    non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 MeV

    By the way, in the nuclide charts H4 is described having a mass of 4.027806424 [u] and decaying 100% by neutron emission. That is however a excited nuclear isomer. There exists another H4 that has a lower mass (approx. 4.020334 [u]) and that decays beta, as indicated in the _a reactions.

    When one of the two nuclei “captured by the electron” is not a p/d/t, but a heavier nucleus, an isotope shift (possibly followed by a transmutation) occurs.
    For example in the case of Lithium:

    10: Li7+e+p ->He4+ H4(non-excited)+ 0.83 [MeV]
    non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+(max) 16.00 [MeV]
    11:Li6+e+p ->He4+t+neutrino+ (max) 4.51 [MeV]
    and the produced tritium is rapidly consumed by reaction 4a.

    Li7 has a magnetic dipole moment (3.256424 [muN]) that is larger than that of Li6 (0.8220467 [muN]). This is the reason for which it reacts more quickly. This causes the isotopic ratio of Lithium to progressively change.

    In the case of Nickel:
    12: Ni58+e+p ->Ni59+neutrino+ (max) 8.22 [MeV]
    13: Ni59+e+p ->Ni60+neutrino+ (max) 10.60 [MeV]
    14: Ni60+e+p ->Ni61+neutrino+ (max) 2.63 [MeV]
    15: Ni61+e+p ->Ni62+neutrino+ (max) 14.22 [MeV]
    Ni61 is the only stable Ni isotope with a magnetic dipole moment. The other isotopes, since they react, must have a magnetic quadrupole moment. Unfortunately no data are available to me about the actual quadrupole magnetic moments of Ni58, Ni59, Ni60.
    The nuclear (fcc) structure of Ni62 is sort of “perfectly symmetric”, in fact it possesses the highest binding energy per nucleon. That makes all its magnetic moments exactly equal to 0. This is the reason why it does not couple with the electron, and stops the isotope shift progression.

    About the Hot-Cat:
    I think that in the “production” mode (long term runs), the Hot-Cat reactions that provide most of the power, as in all other less powerful LENR devices, are number 1, 2, 3a and 4a. Occasionally if reactions 3b and 4b are activated by the gamma radiation of the very same LENR, some lone neutrons can be actually produced. Reaction 5 happens only during some runaway bursts, during which tritium and deuterium accumulate.
    The “heavy” isotopes that can undergo isotope shifts (like Ni58) are completely “depleted” in the priming of the Hot-Cat charge. This phase lasts a time span measurable in months of continuous work.
    When the charge has no more “heavy and shiftable” isotopes, reactions 1-4 can become the primary energy source. And it could be that the optimum electromagnetic stimulus has to be changed accordingly as well.

    A comment on the COP for electricity production:
    To me it makes no sense to evaluate the industrial interest of the COP of a system that can transfer heat only “passively” through radiation to a non-absorbing medium. The COP for electrical energy production should instead be proven for systems that control their temperature at least partly by varying the cooling load.

    The alumina rod of the experiment seems to have been developed specifically for pure radiation heat exchange, like the performed test, because it is brittle, but with excellent endurance at the highest temperatures.

    I think that with:
    - Primed Fuel (no more isotope shifts in Ni and Li) +
    - Discontinuous Cat and Mouse Heating Cascade +
    - Higher Temperature +
    - “Cooling-fluid Thermal Control”
    the COP can raise towards 20. This is the range that I guess Andrea Rossi and his Team have in their hands and are testing right now.

  315. Curiosone

    If the article will be published in a peer reviewed magazine, do you know which one is it ?

  316. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    The Professors told me so. But told me it takes a long time. Besides, it is a 54 pages report, not easy for a magazine. Usually magazines limit the pages around 15-20 pages and this report is not easy to cut, because every page has a precise function.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  317. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone: No, I do not know which one is it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  318. To Steven N. Karels:

    Questions about how much longer the fuel charge could have continued providing heat in the ITP test may not have much relevance to the performance of a commercial E-cat because in the ITP test the investigators ran the unit with power continuously ‘on’.

    I understand this was to make it simpler to calculate both the energy input and heat output. In previous experiments, in order to keep the unit functioning it had only been necessary to provide input power intermittently. With the continuous power input during this test the fuel may have been used up at a faster rate than would have been the case with only intermittent power input.

    This will also likely be a factor in the COP. If in this ITP test the power had indeed been applied only intermittently, when strictly necessary, then the amount of power input would have been reduced, and the power output likely would not have been diminished as much. So I believe this is one of the reasons the COP in the ITP test came out to less than 6. There may perhaps be additional reasons also.

    Rodney.

  319. Steven N. Karels

    Analysis of the eCat Mass and Interior Volume based on The Report

    The report showed a mass after the test of 452 grams, with one gram attributed to the Fuel.

    Is the mass consistent with the Alumina material and published dimensions?

    Alumina density = 3.95 grams per cubic centimeter

    Volume model: Two Caps plus one cylinder
    Cap is 4 cm in length and has a diameter of 4 cm (radius = 2 cm)
    The cylinder has a length of 20 cm and a diameter of 2 cm (radius = 1 cm)
    If they were solid Alumina, the Alumina volume would be V = pi * r * r * L
    Alumina volume = 2 * pi * (2cm * 2cm * 4cm) + pi * (1cm * 1cm * 20cm) = 52 * pi cc = 163.4 cc
    The corresponding mass would be 3.95 grams per cc * 163.4 cc or 645 grams

    The difference (645 – 452) is due to the hollow volume = 193.3 grams or 49 cc of hollow space
    This does not account for the mass of the resistance heating wires so the space (for the hydrogen gas) is probably 50 cc or slightly larger.

    If the hollow volume were cylindrical with a length of 20 cm, then the hollow cylinder radius would be 6.3 mm or a diameter of 12.6 mm (about ½”).

  320. Steven N. Karels

    Fuel Mass Analysis of the eCat from The Report

    Mass Content:
    The eCat reactor is described as cylindrical with a diameter of 2 cm and a length of 20cm. The material was stated to be Alumina with a triangular surface, 0.23cm deep by 0.32cm wide, purportedly for heat transfer purposes.
    Inside was an electrical heater subsystem. Mass after the test was 452 grams. Fuel mass was 1 gram.

    Assumption: Wall thickness was 0.4 cm (based on a thermocouple hole diameter of 0.4cm).

    Inside Radius = 1.0 cm – 0.23 cm – 0.4 cm = 0.27 cm
    Total Internal Volume of the cylinder = V = pi * r^2 * h = 3.14 * 0.27 * 0.27 * 20 cm = 4.6 cc
    Assumptions: Assign ½ of volume to resistance heaters. Gas pressure is 10 atm.
    Working Volume = 2.3 cc. = 0.0023 liters

    How much hydrogen is needed to support a pressure of 10 atm at 1200K?

    Using the ideal gas law P * V = n * R * T, where R = 0.082 liter * atm / ( K * moles)
    n = P * V / ( T * R) = 10.0 atm * 0.0023 liters / (1200 K * 0.082 atm * liters / (mole * K)
    n = 2.34 * 10 ^-4 moles

    2 grams of hydrogen in one mole, therefore hydrogen mass = about 0.47 milligrams

    Assumption: LiH was used to supply both the hydrogen and the lithium to the eCat.

    What was the mass of the LiH supplied?
    LiH can yield about 25% of its hydrogen when heated above 700C. So the hydrogen portion of the LiH must be 1.88 milligrams. Lithium has an atomic mass of about 7 while hydrogen is about 1. So the amount of LiH is 8 * 1.88 milligrams or about 0.015 grams (or more).
    Total amount of lithium is about 0.013 grams.

    What was the mass of the nickel?
    Total fuel mass was 1 gram. So the nickel mass was about 0.985 grams (could be less)

  321. FINALLY GOT YESTERDAY’S MATS LEWAN INTERVIEW POSTED

    Author of An Impossible Invention

    TWIFE™ Featuring Mats Lewan on E-Cat Test Results – News Compilation on E-Cat Validation Paper

    Includes show notes and links

  322. Curiosone

    Do you know if the Report of the ITP will be also published in a peer reviewed magazine?

  323. Here’s an excerpt from the email that Coast to Coast AM sent out after the show last night, which can be found at http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2014/10/09

    From: CoastZone
    To: sterlingda…
    Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 7:53 AM [MDT]
    Subject: CoastZone – Cold Fusion Breakthroughs

    October 10, 2014 Coast Insider Audio

    Cold Fusion Breakthroughs:

    During the first half, CEO of Pure Energy Systems Inc., Sterling D. Allan , talked about the latest developments in alternative energies and cold fusion technology. Allan commented on a recently published third-party report on the performance of Andrea Rossi’s low energy nuclear reactor. Rossie’s “cold fusion” device ran for 32 days continuously at over 1000° C using only a gram of fuel, he reported, noting it produced 3.5 times more energy than was put into the system. According to Allan, we may only be five to ten years away from a small (size of refrigerator) cold fusion system that can power a house.

  324. Hank Mills has written an excellent article reviewing the test results and their ramifications.

    Apocalypse Revealed – The Four Horsemen of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat: Lithium Iron Nickel Hydrogen – Not only did the recent report show clear and credible evidence of anomalous heat as well as isotopic ratio changes, proving that Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer is a clean nuclear process, with no externally measurable radioactivity involved, but it also divulged some important information that may enable replication. (PESN; October 10, 2014)

    I’m nearly ready to upload the interview I did with Mats Lewan yesterday, which you’ll want to listen to. Then I’ll prepare the interview I did on Coast to Coast AM last night, which went well.

    Also, we’ve created a page over at PESWiki to track the news as it comes in on this: http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:E-Cat_Fuel_Analysis_and_Validation_Paper_Posted_October_8%2C_2014

    We welcome your help in keeping it updated. We try to use GMT time with the date so we can keep things in their proper sequence of arrival.

    Like Wikipedia, PESWiki is publicly editable. Feel free to update and add links. We had to disable the sign-up of new users due to spam, so just contact us if you want an account.

    We use stars to highlight excellent coverage, and we also have a flag to mark “mainstream” news stories as they trickle in.

  325. Giovanni

    The E-lectriCAT

  326. Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    I saw someone use this quote today, referencing you.

    “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” – Jonathan Swift

    At least a few other intelligent individuals, like those who have signed onto the paper and work with you at IH, have provided you with an alliance of allies against the dunces.

    Also, someone

  327. Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Thank you, but I am not a “Genius”, just a hard worker.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  328. Giovanni

    Dear Dr Rossi
    please hurry up in your way of producing electric power….. that will be the real and world wide accepted and recognized winning strike!!!
    My best regards and compliments
    Giovanni

  329. Andrea Rossi

    TO THE READERS:
    I have been informed right now that on a blog a person whose nickname is Raman has said a curious thing I want to deal with because is a paradigmatic example of fake professionality used to perpetrate an agenda.
    Here is how the story goes.
    This Raman, proclaiming himself a high level expert, writes that from the data of the report the conductivity of the cables of the resistance does not respect the Ohm’s Law, therefore all the E-Cat stuff is rubbish.
    He says this apodittically, without any analysis of the real situation: as a matter of fact, the alloy of the resistance is different from the alloy of the cables. Every alloy’s behavior in function of the temperature is a characteristic of its. In the alloy of our resistance, the behavior is not linear. Copper wires have standard Ohmic behavior in function of temperature: their resistance becomes higher with the temperature. Because the resistors are in series and not in parallel, it is clear that with higher temperature the copper cables dissipate less and the coils of the internal resistance dissipate more. Mr Raman uses the word “Shunt”, in a totally improper situation: shunts are resistors that are put in parallel to an ammeter, but in this case we have resistors in series; he has used a simple evaluation of linear behavior as if dealing with simple electric conductors. Our doped conductor has non linear answers, and it acts in synergy with the regulation and control system in a very sophysticated way. As I said many times, the E-Cat is a machine much, much more complex than it appears to be. Somebody really thinks that I am a stupid guy, and that the E-Cat is fallen on my head casually from a fig tree, while I was eating a banana, with problems in managing how to peel it ( and jetting the peel on the flowers too); consequently, these imbeciles ( from the Latin Imbacula, not an offense, just a factual situation), that do not know the difference between linear and not linear behaviors in function of T, think they can act as Professors, utilizing formulas to calculate linear integrals instead of non-linear, without even think to the fact that, before saying this, you have to analyse the situation you are dealing with.
    The Professors of the ITP have, obviously, considered only the well known dispersions, i.e. the ones from the copper cables. From the report, it is clear that for the Cu cables the Ohm Law is perfectly respected, while it is not possible for the cables of the resistance inside the E-Cat. The alimentation cables are in series with the cables inside the reactor, therefore all the line cannot be considered linear.
    In a nutshell: the Report is very, very tough and deep, it is not fit for an easy reading. I bet all you want that this Mr Raman has not been able to read it.
    So long, “Prof” Raman.
    Suggested reference: ” Electronics for Dummies” ( Amazon).
    Andrea Rossi

  330. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Readers and Writers of JoNP,
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Thinking again about the movie: “Le Concert”.
    Andrea seems to be the perfect conductor:
    Letting the Ni- and Li- atoms transmute perfectly ONE BY ONE, for 32 days.
    I did not find the sheet-music in the report. Andrea wrote that he is a drummer, so it must have been the beats.
    So, how is this done ?
    Musical Regards,
    Koen

  331. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    “Le Concert”: what a wonderful movie!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  332. eernie1

    Dear Valeriy,
    The high energy protons for the 7Li transformation and the neutrons for the 6Li transformations must be supplied by either a linear accelerator or a fission reactor which is use to produce the He and also the Tritium used in the H bomb. In Rossi’s device no signs of He or 3H or signs of high energy neutrons or protons are found or reported.
    Regards

  333. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Seshavatharam:
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  334. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    As I read The Report, It does not indicate the eCat reactor was running out of fuel. Certainly some ash was found and was measured. But I would understand that when the reactor was shut-down, there was still fuel available for further operation.

    a. Is this correct?
    b. Do you have an estimate of what percentage of fuel was left?

  335. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    a- As you can read on the report, when the E-Cat has been shut down the fuel had not been totally consumed. It is difficult to know how much more time it could endure.
    b- No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  336. eernie1

    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. 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?
    Curious regards.

  337. Respected Andreea Rossi Sir

    I would like to bring to your kind notice that, form the recent third party report report of page-30, para-2, line-2/3:”Our measurement, based on calculating the power emitted by the reactor through radiation and convection, gave the following results: the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ],the density of thermal energy (if referred to an internal charge weighing 1 g)” can be fitted and understood with binding energy difference of 58Ni, 62Ni and 7Li.

    If BE of 58 Ni 506.6 MeV, BE of 62 Ni =544.41 MeV and BE of 7Li= 41.45 MeV, then
    41.45-(544.41-506.6)=41.45-37.81=3.64 MeV of energy for each transformation (of 58Ni to 62Ni)can be liberated. If so for one gram of 58Ni,5894 MJ of energy can be liberated.

    thanking you sir,
    yours sincerely,
    U.V.S.Seshavatharam

  338. Italo R.

    Dear Dr. Rossi, the correct link for that CNN page is:
    http://www.american-reporter.com/5,074/1.html

    The same article is on:
    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1177868

    But I think that there is something to be corrected on measuring units (inches, megawatt)

  339. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    Thank you for the info,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  340. Tom Conover

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Again may I say, “GREAT RESULTS!” I love the small format you used for the test reactor!!!

    I found out some info about your comment about mainstream CNN coverage. It is nice that Joe Shea put a story “ireport.cnn.com” and on “american-reporter.com” but it states that the story is “Not verified by CNN” and Joe is a fan of yours (as am I) that regularly posts on e-catworld. Great job, Joe! The links to his comments and stories and contact information he publishes there are shown below.

    Tom Conover

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-released/

    by Joe Shea
    AR Correspondent
    Bradenton, Fla.
    October 9, 2014

    Joe Shea is Editor-in-Chief of The American Reporter. Write him at mreporter@aol.com.

    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1177868
    and on
    http://www.american-reporter.com/
    NOT VERIFIED BY CNN

  341. Andrea Rossi

    Tom Conover:
    Thank you for the info.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  342. Andrea Rossi

    Andrea Moraitis:
    We are working also on that configuration.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  343. Mark Saker

    Dear Andrea,

    1) I know you are now looking into the result of the nickel analysis.

    Even if you cannot determine the cause of Ni 90% transmutation in one month, would an easy fix be to add six grams of material to give you a 6month usage cycle (which is still not very much). Would this have any adverse effects?

    Or..
    WE’LL SEE

    2) Would the reactor continue to work regardless of the change in Nickel isotope (you probably cannot answer this ) :)
    EXACTLY

    3) Also, is there video footage of the test at the times you were involved such as emptying the reactor, etc. Of course I fully believe in the e-cat, I’m just thinking of the pathological skeptics. I’m interested to see how far they will go before they convert :) I’m guessing very far!
    THERE IS NO ANY VIDEO FOOTAGE REGARDING THE LUGANO TEST; IF SOME IS AROUND, IT IS A FALSE PRODUCTION. THE CHARGE HAS BEEN PUT AND EXTRACTED BY THE COMMETTEE

    4) Could you request the ITP authors release some more photos to quench our thirst for new stuff….or you can release a picture of the 1MW device. hehe
    NO. PHOTOS OF THE 1 MW PLANT WILL SURELY BE AVAILABLE IN DUE TIME

    5) Are you aware of IH giving any media announcements related to the Ecat in the near term or will they not talk until the 1MW planty has been running for a year? Surely you must be in contact with them?
    NO NEWS UNTIL THE R&D AND TEST UPON THE PLANT SUPPLIED TO THE CUSTOMER WILL BE COMPLETED

    6) Any plans to come to England, I’ll be glad to cook you a meal
    I TAKE NOTICE OF THIS

  344. Andrea Rossi

    Mark Saker:
    See the answers inside your comment in capital letters.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  345. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea
    all of us we are obviously happy and really excited for the report.
    However, as you can imagine, among your “beloved Readers” several comments and chatters were born. :)
    I would be happy to have some clarification with respect to what we had understood in the past.
    1 It was understood (but can not remember who had said it …) “6 months of continuous operation”. There have been other tests, beyond the 32 days? Or the “continuous operation” lasted only for 32 days?
    2 You said: “The report will be written by Professors and 7 Physicists of three European Universities”. For some reason one professor has waived?
    3 There was talk of “a peer reviewed scientific magazine”. As far as you know, the publication is still in progress?
    Greetings and warmest congratulations
    Giuliano Bettini.

  346. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    1- see my answer to Aubrey yesterday
    2- read well the Prof. who participated to the Report
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  347. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 9th, 2014 at 10:40 PM

    Wlad,
    The lifetime of a free neutron is approximately 15 minutes. Don’t you think that would be enough time for the neutron to encounter a 58Ni and be captured by it?
    ——————————————

    Eernie,
    the problem is: a halo neutron with orbit radius R=7fm in 3Li7 is impossible by considering the current models of the Standard Nuclear Theory (as I explained for the case of the halo neutron of the 4Be11).

    Such 3Li7 halo neutron with orbit R=7fm makes sense only by considering my new nuclear model.

    As the 3Li7 is stable, the question is to know why the neutron leaves away the nucleus.

    regards
    wlad

  348. Valeriy Tarasov

    Dear eernie1,
    I have meant not a spontaneous decay of stable isotope 7Li, but its induced decay in result of interaction with protons.

  349. Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    First of all, congratulations from me, too, for the successful report.

    My question: What do you think about a hybrid reactor, powered both by electricity and gas? Perhaps it would be easier to realize than a completely new, solely gas-based system.

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  350. Hank Mills

    Hello Everyone,

    My article about this ground breaking report is now up at PESN.

    Apocalypse Revealed: The Four Horsemen of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat

    http://pesn.com/2014/10/10/9602543_Apocalypse-Revealed–The-Four-Horsemen_of_Andrea-Rossis_E-Cat/

    Don’t let the title mislead you. Apocalypse means revelation in Greek.

  351. Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Thank you!
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  352. Christopher Henderson

    Thank you so much Dr. Rossi, and congratulations! What a great day for humanity. Thank God for you and the E-Cat.

    Love,

    Chris

  353. Andrea Rossi

    Christopher Henderson:
    Thank you. Now our team has to work very hard to make true what you say.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  354. Dan C.

    Dear Mr. Rossi:

    In response to H-G Branzell: You said
    > “I knew that during the operation 62Ni is formed”
    > “and its percentage grows, but not in that measure.”
    > “We are studying this fact to try to understand.”

    If I may make an observation:
    This test was performed 24/7 @32 days under continuous power.
    The ash analyzed in your lab are likely from reactors that run in on/off(SSM) 25% or so of the time or may have to do with the EM Pulse or both. Is there a correlation that stands up to scrutiny.
    Wishing you a happy serendipity.

    Warm Regards,
    Dan C.

  355. Andrea Rossi

    Dan C.:
    Yes, your point is good, as well as the point of H-G Branzell. We are trying to reconcile the 62Ni issue. It is midnight, right now, and I am studying on this…just while your comment arrived!
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  356. eernie1

    Wlad,
    The lifetime of a free neutron is approximately 15 minutes. Don’t you think that would be enough time for the neutron to encounter a 58Ni and be captured by it?

  357. Andrea Rossi

    Dear Readers:
    It appears the mainstream Media are looking at LENR: I have been informed right now that this has been running on CNN today:
    http://www.american-reporter.com/5,704/1.html
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  358. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 9th, 2014 at 4:11 PM

    Wlad,
    Thank you for your wise comments. Theoretically the loose nucleons should be r=1.2fm.11^1/3 = approx. 2.76fm for 11Be but tests out at7fm. For 7Li this should be 1.2.7^1/3 or approx. 2.3fm. Since there is no data for the neutron of the 7Li nucleus, my best guess would be around 5-7fm., well beyond the 3fm distance that the strong force exhibits a healthy influence. I suggested thermal influence because we know that is provided through the heating cycle
    ———————————————–

    Dear Eernie,
    there is one thing the nuclear theorists do not consider regarding the halo neutrons with radius orbit R = 7fm, as in the case of 11Be: the centripetal force.

    Due to the rotation of the nucleus, and because the radius R= 7fm is very short, the neutron is submitted to strong centripetal force, trying to expell it.
    As there is not interaction via strong force in the distance R=7f between the neutron and the cluster, the neutron would have to be expelled from the 11Be.

    But the neutron of the 4Be11 decays, and becomes a proton, and the situation becomes worst, because there is Coulomb repulsion between the newborn proton and the cluster.
    With the decay of the neutron to proton, the newborn element is the 5B10 with a halo proton in a distance of 7fm from the cluster.
    Therefore the newborn 5B10 would have to expell the halo proton, and transmute to 3Li7 + 2He4

    However, instead of leaving away the cluster, actually the halo proton is captured by the cluster, and they form the stable 5B10.

    There is no way to explain it via the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Theory.

    regards
    wlad

  359. Ron Stringer

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    Congratulations on this most recent public validation of your work. The scientists probably now have enough information to continue their studies on their own, while you can continue to pursue industrial commercial success, which is as it ought to be. The next milestone, we all hope, will be the irrefutable and really world-changing one, the implementation of fully functioning, productive units doing real, useful work!
    One question, if you can spare the time; was the e-cat tested in the report coupled to a mouse, or was it on it’s own? I am guessing the former, and that the cat and mouse configuration will be even more efficient!
    All the best to you and your amazing team. – Ron

  360. WaltC

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Congratulations on the test results.

    If genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration then in your case I’d add a big something more for perseverance in the face of adversity. This recent good news is very well deserved on your part and your team’s.

    I do have a question, if you have time: The report’s analysis seemed to indicate that a large part of the excess energy came from the transmutation of Lithium and Nickel:
    – Do you think that’s true, or is the jury still out on that one?

    Thanks & congratulations again,
    Walt C.

  361. Andrea Rossi

    WaltC:
    The Professors just made measurements, so they are not out on anything. Now we have to interpret the results, and while for Li we can reconcile, with the results of Ni it’s hard. Much to study about.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  362. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you! Very Fine!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  363. Herb Gillis

    Andrea Rossi:
    Congratulations on the latest confirmation of your invention!
    I would like to pose the following question regarding the extreme depletion of 58Ni in the latest report. Could this be explained by “hot spots” in the reactor? Some of the fuel particles may have gone into “run away” mode during the reaction, resulting in the nearly total exhaustion of 58Ni, and changing the physical appearance of the particles. The change in physical appearance might have caused an (unintentional) selection bias during the analysis??
    Kind regards; HRG.

  364. Andrea Rossi

    Herb Gillis:
    We are studying the analysis; while for Li we had theorized it and we understand well the results, the results related to Ni are puzzling us.
    I have an idea, but there is much to study upon.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  365. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    The Rossi-Effect seems to transform the nuclei to stable isotopes. Is there any hope -within the scientists group that cooperate with you- to use the effect to treat radioactive waste with the Rossi Effect ?
    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  366. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  367. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Some clarification please. On The Report, it shows the ash had largely consumed certain nickel and lithium isotopes. But I understand that this is only for the ash particles. So, there still remained fuel particles that had not been changed to ash at the end of the test?

    a. Is this correct?
    b. Can you disclose the relative amount of lithium compared to the nickel? It would help in the energy analysis.
    c. Helium was not mentioned in the report. Do you believe this was generated but either escaped or was not tested for?
    d. What do you think the primary energy producing reaction was (lithium)? and the secondary one (nickel)?

  368. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Please forward your questions to Orsobubu.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  369. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    Dear Industrial Heat team,
    Am I correct that with this version of E-Cat, the long-term self-sustain-mode under heavy load has lost a lot of its importance to COP ? Or are there other tricks in the hat ?

    It makes obsolete a lot of other ideas and concepts. Any attempt to compete with your team is pointless.

    Congratulations,
    Koen

  370. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    We have studied that possibility, but to no avail so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  371. alex

    Dear Ing. Rossi
    Congratulations on this dramatic milestone. The world is awaiting rollout of the hot cat coupled to a prime mover and alternator producing electricity at a fraction of the price which would be affordable by the poor of the world.
    It looks like the report has revealed a lot of what’s inside the reactor. Are you not afraid of some countrynor group of people copying your science?
    The Chinese and India are starved of energy and the hot cat technology would suit yhem fine, hopefully without stealing it from you.

    God speed.

  372. Andrea Rossi

    Alex:
    As a matter of fact in these 8 months of tests the Professors of the ITP have collected substantial information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  373. JCRenoir

    A Physics question, if you have time: I found somebody say that bosons are massless, other say bosons are massive. What do you think?
    JCR

  374. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    Bosons are massless; they become massive in case of spontaneous symmetry breaking.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  375. Curiosone

    Congratulations, great result. Bravo!

  376. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  377. DTravchenko

    Dr Rossi: I have read the report: what a wonderful thing !
    Forward, Andrea, Forward!
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  378. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  379. Arnie

    Dear mr Rossi. I have been following this blog- with anticipation- for a few years, and even though i know this type of reactions should not be possible, I have since the beginning not seen any real reasons for doubting something “impossible” is really happening. For example: You have been relatively welcoming to journalists and scientists, and too much people are involved. Someone with something to hide would never take such risks. If I really had something to hide, why let so many get the opportunity to find the “hidden cable”? Most or all of your so called competitors are doing the opposite, and in these cases I really can hear the alarm bells loud and clear…
    And for anyone reading the just published test I think it should be obvious something “impossible” is actually taking place.
    With this said, I still think the sceptics generally are doing a great job, forcing you and even TIP professors to refine methods, even if some sceptics tend to be overly aggressive.
    Of course I have understood that you don’t always want to tell us everything. And doing so would be very unwise.
    Also I have understood that you sometimes have wanted the world and perhaps yourself to think that you understand more about the process than you actually do. This is also normal, and perhaps necessary to stay ahead of the competitors. There has also been some unclear information regarding the manufacturing and e-cat factory constructions and so on. To this there might be similar -or other- explanations, too.
    But I have never caught you lying about anything.
    This leads to my questions.
    You have said you have provided the TIP team with three devices, but they claim to have had access to one device only.
    1.Why this contradiction?
    You have said you have had nothing to do with the tests, but -irrelevant or not- you have been visiting the testing premises at least three times.
    2.Why is this?
    Also, the length of the tests: you have said the device has been running for months in the tests, but it was only one month.
    3.Am I mistaken? Could be I misunderstood.
    Otherwise, one explanation could be that there are more than one group performing tests right now…
    Thank you for your time! Kind regards! /Arnie

  380. Andrea Rossi

    Arnie:
    1- two E-Cats were spare parts, in case of breakage of the first and, eventually, of the second
    2- I have been there to check that everything was OK and to intervene in case of breakages, not to participate to the measurements. In the Report is described what I did.
    3- six months were including all the phases of the test: the operation started on the 13th of February ( when the professors started to arrive) and finished in half September, with the last analysis.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  381. Wladimir Guglinski

    Nicola Cortesi wrote in October 9th, 2014 at 3:31 AM

    Dear Readers,

    Litium, Nickel, H+… It seems that all the components of the E-cat fuel are also naturally present in some rocks inside the earth, where the high temperatures and pressures could be able to sustain the LENR reactions indefinitely, generating the “missing heat” geophysicians are looking for. Maybe if there is a geologist between the readers, he could try to speculate on this topic further.
    —————————————————

    Dear Nicola,
    the speculation about cold fusion within the Earth, and also in the heliosphere of the Sun, is mentioned in my book Os Dados que Deus Escondeu, published in 2003 in Brazil.
    http://bodigaya.com.br/index.php/os-dados-que-deus-escondeu.html

    regards
    wlad

  382. eernie1

    Dear Valeriy,
    3Li,4Li,5Li,8Li and 9LI decay to He but 6Li and 7Li are stable isotopes. Am I missing something?

  383. eernie1

    Wlad’
    I also believe a sprinkling of 11Be in the mix would not hurt.

  384. eernie1

    Wlad,
    Thank you for your wise comments. Theoretically the loose nucleons should be r=1.2fm.11^1/3 = approx. 2.76fm for 11Be but tests out at7fm. For 7Li this should be 1.2.7^1/3 or approx. 2.3fm. Since there is no data for the neutron of the 7Li nucleus, my best guess would be around 5-7fm., well beyond the 3fm distance that the strong force exhibits a healthy influence. I suggested thermal influence because we know that is provided through the heating cycle

  385. Valeriy Tarasov

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    In the paper, there is a change of isotopes ratio towards 62Ni increase. But this doesn’t mean that there is synthesis of 62Ni. This can be a result of decay of all other Ni isotopes (the same scheme with 7Li and 6Li, I have mentioned to eernie1 below). Such fission will change the ratio. Only the precise measurement of nickel amount before and after usage will give the answer. If there is synthesis of 62Ni from 58Ni then total amount of nickel isotopes will stay the same. If there is 58Ni decay, after interaction with alpha particles, into low atomic weight elements then total amount of nickel will be decreased.
    Best wishes,
    Valeriy Tarasov

  386. Joseph Fine

    Andrea,

    My family and I thank you for your continued dedication to this miracle.

    In reply to my request for a not-lengthy lyric to the labwork by Levi et al in Lugano, with Lithium and lots of labor, Matt Robinson sent the following.

    New Fire – by Matt Robinson

    The Third Party test in Lugano
    was built on a set of Meccano
    In the middle a pipe,
    The first of its type
    Showing the light of a brighter Tomorro’

    Our congratulations to you and your team,

    Joseph Fine

  387. Giovanni Guerrini

    Dear Dott Rossi,
    Yes,of course,anyone working in this project,works for the truth and progress.
    Thank you all.

    Regards G G

  388. Carlo Marcena

    I haven’t yet read the report, but … an idea about COP: if warming heat is supplied by burning fuel, and electricity is used only for EM stimulus, then also a COP<5 or so would allow an efficient electricity generation.
    I am sure that this idea has already been assessed …
    Again, Andrea, my best congratulations for the results you have obtained so far.
    Regards,
    CM

  389. Janne

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Congratulations on the astounding results of the ITP test!

    This being the last test that is conducted and public information about the IH customer possibly a year away, does this mean we’re in for yet another long silence? I want the E-Cat to revolutionize energy production yesterday!!

    Best Regards,

    ~Janne

  390. Tommaso di pietro

    Dear ing. Rossi,
    What is The following step of The e cat disclosure?
    Press conference?visit to The plant in operation?other?

  391. Andrea Rossi

    Tommaso Di Pietro:
    We’ll see.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  392. Dear Dr. Rossi,

    The new design of you ECat reactor and the temperatures achieved in the latest test are a testament to your engineering genius. Congratulations!

    Do you intend to use the ECat self-sustaining mode in commercial applications or has your team decided that better control is achieved via the use of uninterrupted electrical power input as was done in the latest 32 day test run?

    Many have tried to harness “Cold Fusion”, but you have actually succeeded after “only” 25 1/2 years of research and toil under the frowning gaze of the scientific physics establishment. Bravo! Wishing you continued great success.

    Best Regards,

    Daniel G. Zavela

  393. Andrea Rossi

    Daniel G. Zavela:
    Thank you.
    The Cat&Mouse ballet will go commercial.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  394. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The success of eCat technology as demonstrated in the report will awaken the sleeping giants who will want to oppose or control the technology. Most people of technology that I know believe “Cold Fusion” to be a pseudo-science. This report may evoke a major change in their perceptions.

    I say the onslaught of critics because the powers that will be negatively affected by eCat will attempt to rally against you. I suspect the “Plan A” – LENR is bad science – is now effectively negated by The Report. “Plan B” will now be to regulate it into non-existence or otherwise force it into a mechanism where the eCat technology can be minimized or forced to be abandoned. This is where the Game becomes interesting.

  395. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    1- I have to work and stay focused on my job
    2- I have to pray God to help us
    All the rest is not up to me
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  396. Giovanni Guerrini

    Carissimo Dott Rossi,
    EVVIVA! “Eppur si muove!” e correrà sempre più veloce.
    Onore alla scienza che,tra le tante cose,ci dona l’incontestabilità di ciò che è vero.
    Onore al Prof Levi e colleghi,che dedicano la propria esistenza al perseguimento della verità e del progresso.

    Grazie a tutti Voi. Giovanni Guerrini

  397. Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    Thank you; obviously the results are merit of all our Team.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  398. Nicola Cortesi

    Dear Readers,

    Litium, Nickel, H+… It seems that all the components of the E-cat fuel are also naturally present in some rocks inside the earth, where the high temperatures and pressures could be able to sustain the LENR reactions indefinitely, generating the “missing heat” geophysicians are looking for. Maybe if there is a geologist between the readers, he could try to speculate on this topic further.

    Bests,
    Nicola

  399. Andrea Rossi

    Nicola Cortesi:
    Sure your comment merits an answer from a geophysicist: I am not able to answer, but you are introducing an interesting principle: under our feet we have an immense laboratory that makes for us for free a gigantic amount of experiments, if we are able to read them.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  400. Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear dr. Rossi,

    I’ve read the Report. Also from Belgium, congratulations with this positive report! Again a big step! As I read them calculating the energy radiation and the convection, having to calculate and fill in all the parameters, I couldn’t supress a smile, because, of course, with this big amount of excess energy, for people with eyes to see and ears to hear, this was already obvious with the simple caloremetric tests that you did yourself. I personally even prefer a simple caloremetric test, with a cooling fluid, measuring the flow and the delta T (Temperature difference) because honestly, that’s less complicated. But ok, the scientifc world now has, back again, a very decent report, measuring and calculating the excess energy in a different way. Kind Regards, and a lot of further success with you work, and with the 1MW plant at the location of the customer.

  401. Andrea Rossi

    Daniel De Caluwé:
    Thank you for your attention; in the report is explained well why the Professors preferred a direct measure of the energy instead of through a heat exchanger.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  402. Marco Serra

    Caro Andrea
    non ho mai dubitato della tua scoperta da quando ho visto su youtube il Prof. Focardi che diceva “Per l’umanità questa scoperta è paragonabile a quella del fuoco”. Da allora passato 3 anni annoiando amici e familiari increduli sulla nuova era che, grazie a te, si stava per aprire per l’umanità. Tutte le mattine ho letto i tuoi posts su questo sito aspettando buone notizie. Finalmente il momento è arrivato e la mia gioia è alle stelle. Ti faccio le mie congratulazioni e i migliori auguri per il tuo futuro lavoro.
    Grazie a te e grazie a Dio che sicuramente ha guidato il tuo lavoro.

    Un abbraccio
    Marco

    PS. Se hanno dato il Nobel 2014 per la fisica agli inventori del led a luce blu non possono non darlo a te.

  403. Andrea Rossi

    Marco Serra:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  404. Enrico Ghelardoni

    The report finally arrived and puts an end to this last stressing period for many of us.
    Hope that things will go a little smoother for everybody.
    Thanks for your resolution.

    Enrico

  405. Andrea Rossi

    Enrico Ghelardoni:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  406. Dan C.

    Dear Mr. Rossi

    You may already be aware that Elforsk is considering LENR Research.
    If not-On NyTeknik

    http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece

    Maybe in relationship with Industrial Heat???
    Regards
    Dan C.

  407. Andrea Rossi

    Dan C.:
    Thank you for your kind attention. No comment at all.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  408. Dear Andrea,
    Congratulations for the report. The ash was reported to be 98% pure Ni-62. There seems to be a marker for pure isotopes, see e.g. isotope-amt.com and buyisotope.com. To know the prices, one would have to ask for quotation. Someone at Vortex mailing list had speculated earlier that the price could be more than $100k per 10 grams (www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg79966.html).
    Maybe you could sell some surplus Ni-62 from test runs, and in that way generate some extra income for Leonardo Corp. From a 1 MW plant, the amounts produced would no longer be so tiny.
    best regards, /pekka

  409. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Maybe an idea.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  410. George

    compliments Dr Rossi. You’re a champion

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSTivVclQQ0

  411. Andrea Rossi

    George:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  412. H-G Branzell

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Your new member of the E-Cat family obviously needs a name. It belongs to the subspecies Hot-Cats, but it still needs a name of its own. To me this new name is obvious, welcome the Dogbone Cat, or D-Cat for short.

  413. Andrea Rossi

    H-G Branzell:
    Good idea!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  414. Andrea Rossi

    Bill Nicholson:
    Please find my answers in capital letters below your questions in your comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  415. Dan C.

    Dear Andrea

    Congratulations to You & your team on a positive report. I have read it once. it is not as layman friendly as the last report.

    As to the COP>3.6, I take notice of the On/Off(SSM) and EM Pulse is not implemented. Both of which would have a greater impact on COP though more complex to control.

    The test seems to be a bare-bones basic mode which appears very stable in operation. A practical approach considering it’s intent was to measure excess heat, not necessarily a high COP.

    My Intuition is that I may be missing something other then the EM Pulse & On/Off(SSM) not being implemented. If I’m correct, could you point out what I should be looking for before I re-read the report. It’s a Long Read & my eyes are getting old. :-(

    P.S. This looks like a Cat between 2 mouseys. Any comment?

    https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/44sjod4la842xrh7/images/2-ee77d95136.jpg

    Warmest Regards
    Dan C.

  416. Andrea Rossi

    Dan C.:
    Thank you for this important information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  417. H-G Branzell

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I have read the new third party report, thank you. The isotopic shifts are mindblowing. When the test ends all the Nickel is Ni-62 and in spite of this the Net Power Production shown in Plot 6 is constant and even increasing until the test ends. It is like a miracle! How do you do that? :)

  418. Andrea Rossi

    H-G Branzell:
    You are right.
    The results of the analysis have been partially surprising also to me. I perfectly expected the depletion of 7Li ( I have a patent pending for this, filed much before the test), I knew that during the operation 62Ni is formed ( we found many times a shift toward 62Ni in our private tests) and its percentage grows, but not in that measure. We are studying this fact to try to understand.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  419. Andrea Rossi

    Martin Aubrey:
    Sorry, I cannot give this information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  420. gian

    THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DECLARATION FROM SWEDISH: NyTeknik

    Omissis …………
    The central part of the reactor is narrow and two inches long . In the experiments, the reactor was at a temperature up to about 1400 degrees Celsius. Net developed 1,500 kWh energy as heat. The heat energy released was three to four times the electrical energy input . This with approximately one gram of the fuel consisting of hydrogen charged with nickel additives in powder form.

    Elforsk in recent years has followed the development of what has come to be called nuclear reactions at low energy, LENR – Low Energy Nuclear Reactions . Elforsk include published a compilation of knowledge about LENR . Elforsk has also co-funded the current measurements and earlier measurements. While the earlier measurements showed an unexplained excess energy .

    If it is possible to safely achieve and control the now indicated nuclear reactions waiting probably eventually a fundamental transformation of our energy system. It can open for decentralized energy supply. Electricity and heat can then be produced with relatively simple components . Climate Efficient energy would be very cheap.

    In the current situation we do not know if all this is too fantastic to be true. The measurement results indicate that a new way of extracting nuclear power may have been discovered. A small group of Swedish scientists are deeply involved in trying to understand the underlying physics . Sweden thus has a unique chance to be involved in leading research and development in the LENR area .

    Elforsk now taking the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish research initiative . More knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in searching coat phenomenon and then explain how it works.

    Magnus Olofsson , CEO Elforsk

  421. Andrea Rossi

    Gian:
    Translation: ” Our gratitude and a prayer must go also to Prof. Sergio Focardi”.
    I totally share your comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  422. gian

    Il nostro riconoscente pensiero ed una
    preghiera vadano al Prof. Sergio Focardi.

  423. Andrea Rossi

    Gian:
    Very important indeed, thank you. We are really honoured of this position of Elforsk.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  424. Will Hurley

    Congratulations!!! I am amazed at the progress you have made in short order. You have invented the new light bulb and now many lamps must be invented.
    Sergio is smiling.
    God Speed
    Will

  425. Andrea Rossi

    Will Hurley:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  426. I hope what I just heard is confirmed. If so, a hardy congratulations!!
    I’m very glad my business is making laundry detergent. No matter how little pollution the world continues to produce, folks will still manage to get dirty.

    Charlie

  427. Andrea Rossi

    Dear Readers:
    I am delighted to receive your comments. I will answer to all of them as soon as possible.
    Warmest regards to all.
    A.R.

  428. Martyn Aubrey

    Dear Dr Rossi,

    Would it be correct to say that one “cap” is the Cat and the other “cap” is the Mouse?

    If so, does each cap contain its own charge of nickel powder fuel?

    Kind Regards,
    Martyn

  429. Bill Nichols

    Dear Andrea,

    Congratulations on the very positive release of the report of the e-cat. Can only express the appreciation and thanks for the incredible time and efforts made by you and many others.

    Know your incredibly busy…

    Three quick questions

    1.) Does this report aid in obtaining patent(s); hence strengthen your implementation of a business model (besides you mentioning demonstrating the product and satisfied customers)?
    PATENTS ARE DEALT WITH BY OUR ATTORNEYS; BUSINESS MODEL IS BASED MORE ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE 1 MW PLANT IN OPERATION

    2.) Will this report aid in partnering with others to obtain greater resources to proceed (financially, technologically, and so on) in concert with question 1 above?
    THIS REPORT WILL STRENGTHEN OUR EFFORTS TO CONTINUE IN OUR R&D ENDEAVOURS AND DEVELOPE THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF OUR PRODUCTS

    3.) The report is only a step. Have the report authors provided a roadmap to involve the larger scientifically community and ultimately allowing these and future results secure support for further research and discoveries?
    WHILE OUR R&D EFFORTS WILL CONTINUE, COHERENTLY WITH ALL OUR FORMER WORK, WE FROM NOW ON WILL FOCUS OUR ATTENTION ON THE PLANTS IN OPERATION IN THE FACTORIES OF OUR CUSTOMERS. OUR R&D WILL GO AHEAD COHERENTLY WITH OUR INDUSTRIAL NECESSITIES AND WITH THE NECESSITY TO MAINTAIN AS LONG AS NECESSARY OUR IP

    Interesting how your new technology configuration has similarities to what asked you to visualize several days ago. Coincidence? I don’t think so. : < )
    I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING: OUR “NEW TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION” HAS BEEN BORN ONE YEAR AGO, NOT SEVERAL DAYS AGO

    Critical we communicate what heat and temperature are, how they overlap with the incomplete concepts of "gravity" and "charge" in the mediums we define as matter. As we've discussed.
    SORRY, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WANNA SAY!

    More to ponder from an olde and ancient B-52 aviator.
    OK

    All the best and enjoy the ride!
    WITH A PILOT LIKE YOU THE RIDE WILL NOT BE BORING.
    WARM REGARDS
    A.R.

    Kind Regards,

    Bill Nichols

  430. Valeriy Tarasov

    And more :) , a similar to 7Li decay effect should be detected if Lithium will be replaced by Potassium or Sodium.
    Best wishes,
    Valeriy Tarasov

  431. Valeriy Tarasov

    Dear eernie1,
    Just one note. In the case of 7Li decay to alpha particles after its interaction with protons relative amount of 6Li will be increased. Thus, no synthesis of 6Li is needed, and only decay of 7Li is sufficient to change the isotope ratio.
    Best wishes,
    Valeriy Tarasov

  432. Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    First, I would like to say that I am aware of the statement in the report in which it is stated they ran the reactor in such a way to ensure continual operation and that their results do not represent the best possible performance of the reactor. However, that does not answer my questions. I hope you can provide additional clarification.

    HANK MILLS: FIND MY ANSWERS BELOW YOUR QUESTIONS ALONG YOUR TEXT IN CAPITAL LETTERS, TO MAKE IT FASTER:

    A few thoughts:

    1 – The previous model of hot-cat tested in the first report could produce similar COPs at far lower temperatures (around 400C) than the new hot cat in the current report. In this report, temperatures of over 1,000C were required just to obtain similar COPs.
    WRONG, READ BETTER THE REPORT

    2 – The output of an E-Cat goes up rapidly with temperature. This is because the emission of infrared power rises quickly at higher temperatures. At 1,200C, much less 1,400C, the hot cat in the first report would have been producing a huge amount of output with a very high COP (probably 10 or higher). In this report, a maximum of around 3.8 was achieved.
    YOU SAY SO, BUT IT IS NOT SO. THE REPORT HAVE TAKEN MEASURES. YOU MUST BASE YOUR CONSIDERATIONS UPON WHAT THE RESULTS ARE, NOT UPON WHAT YOU ASSUME THEY COULD HAVE BEEN. REMIND THAT SHOULD I HAVE 5 BALLS, I COULD BE A PINBALL.

    3 – We have already been told by “cures”, who worked with scientists on the original E-Cat, the reactor wants to “run away” very quickly when heat is applied. I assume it starts to “run away” at temperatures far lower than 1,400C. This means the original E-Cat could have an infinite COP at a lower temperature.
    REMIND THE PINBALL….

    Here are my questions.

    (I would like to clarify that when I say less efficient I mean that at temperatures of 1,200C or higher it seems like the COP of the new model of E-Cat should have been greater than the previous model that obtained the same efficiency at a much lower temperature. In addition, I would like to state, for the record, that the efficiency of your technology can be infinite. We are only discussing a couple specific implementations.)

    1 – Why does the new hot-cat not produce high efficiencies at high temperatures, unlike the previous model of E-Cat?
    READ BETTER THE REPORT

    2 – Is the ONLY answer for question one that they provided constant input power and this lowered the COP to an extent that even a one thousand degree Celsius temperature difference could not overcome?
    NO

    3 – Are there other reasons as well why the new model of reactor is less efficient?
    HANK: PLEASE READ THE REPORT. IT IS NOT AN EASY READING, IT TAKES TIME AND FOCUS, OTHERWISE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT

    4 – Was a truly self sustaining mode of operation, in which the temperature would have remained constant or climbed for lets say half an hour without any electrical input, available to be tested?
    I WAS NOT THERE MOST OF TIME, THE PROFESSORS MADE THE TEST THAT THEY DEEMED OPPORTUNE TO MAKE THEIR MEASUREMENTS, COHERENTLY WITH THE AIM OF THE TEST. IT WAS NOT A COMMERCIAL TEST, WHERE YOU HAVE TO REACH SPECIFIC CONTRACTUAL TARGETS, IT WAS A TEST WHOSE AIM WAS EXQUISITELY SCIENTIFIC: TO CHECK IF THERE WAS OR NOT AN ANOMALOUS PRODUCTION OF ENERGY, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, FOR A LONG PERIOD. TO AVOID A LACK OF RELIABILITY, THE TEST HAS BEEN CONDUCTED VERY CONSERVATIVELY. SO IS WRITTEN. PLEASE READ AGAIN AND CAREFULLY AND BE SURE THAT WHILE YOU READ YOU ARE OPEN TO LEARN, NOT BIASED TO FIND CONFIRMATION OF YOUR PRE-EXISTENT CONVINCTION.

    5 – At what temperature range could they have cut off input power and then self sustained, maintaining the same temperature or climbing in temperature for a significant period of time? Please answer this question even if they were not allowed to utilize self sustaining mode.
    SEE ABOVE

    6 – If this test was to validate the technology, the highest possible efficiency and COP would provide the most skeptic-proof evidence: obliterating any false notion of measurement errors. Since this is the case, why did industrial heat provide the testers with a new model of E-Cat that were less efficient than the previous model?
    STUDY THE REPORT. SEE THE RAGONE DIAGRAM

    7 – Would it not have been better to send them additional modules of the previous design so they could have obtained a higher COP?
    SEE ABOVE

    8 – Did you intentionally, to ensure absolute safety and zero possibility of a run away, send them reactors that were produced (perhaps by an adjustment of the fuel) to only be capable of lower efficiency?
    NO

    9 – Do the results they obtained from the new version of the “hot cat” match those produced in your lab?
    WITH THE CONVERSION FACTORS DUE TO THE CONSERVATIVENESS OF THE TEST, YES

    10 – When tested in your lab, does the model of E-Cat used in the current report produce better, the same, or worse efficiencies (COPs) as the model used in the first report when provided the exact same input (in whatever mode tested)?
    I CANNOT GIVE INFORMATION OF WHAT WE DO IN OUR R&D LABORATORIES

    11 – How exactly is the new model of hot cat improved – as said in the report – if the efficiency is lower than what it would be with the previous model at high temperatures? Other than the fact ceramic is used which allows for the device to remain intact for longer periods of time at high temperatures.
    READ BETTER THE REPORT OF 2013 AND THE REPORT OF 2014, THEN MAKE A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

    12 — There are individuals saying that after the test the fuel had been melted – according to the electron microscope images – and the reactor would not have been capable of being restarted because the reaction sites would have been destroyed. Would the reactor have been capable of being restarted?
    YES

    13 — Did the fuel they tested come from the charge of the mouse or the cat?
    FROM THE CAT
    WARM REGARDS,
    A.R.

    Thank you,

    Hank Mills

  433. Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Please find the answers below your questions scrolling your your comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  434. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Andrea,
    I have one question:
    Did you give them an unprimed rod that you turned on for 10 hours for checking that it worked?
    I guess they stopped the test just before finishing the priming.

    In fact if I am right in the first month or so of operation the matrix and the “rest” undergo rapid transmutations:
    - Li7+e+p -> He4 + H4(non-excited)+photons
    non-excited H4 ->He4+e-+antineut.+photons
    - Li6 +e+p -> He4+t+neutrino+photons
    (Li7 reacts quicker due to the higher magnetic moment …)

    - Ni58+e+p -> Ni59+neutrino+photons
    - Ni59+e+p -> Ni60+neutrino+photons
    - Ni60+e+p -> Ni61 …
    - Ni61+e+p -> Ni62+neutrino+photons
    (Ni61 is disappears quickly because it has actually a “long range” magnetic moment)…
    Tomorrow I will try to detail. I wrote the equations without checking them (masses, energies, …)
    At Ni62 is the end of the story: it has the lowest energy per nucleon.
    Ni64 should not react.
    This is the way you were saying you enriched in Ni62 an Ni64. No centrifuges!

    After the priming the transmutations should be very limited. And the “classical” LENR reactions with protium, deuterium, tritium, H4, He4 … start. The COP should change as well. And not towards lower values.

    Well done Andrea.

    Ciao

    Andrea Calaon

  435. Andrea Rossi

    Andrea Calaon:
    You make all your considerations. As you know, I cannot comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  436. Dear Mr. Rossi:

    Many questions have been answered in the paper. But more arise:

    1) Was it originally intended that the paper be released on sifferkoll? Or might
    this be some kind of unintentional leak? And if it was unintended, from what you know is the information contained in the report accurate?

    2) It seems that in the ITP test the content of 58Ni was reduced almost to zero after one month of operation. That leads to a conclusion that maybe some route of conversion of 58Ni to 62Ni may be a significant source of the energy relaeased. But if the E-cat can function for as much as six times longer than the 32 days of the ITP test, then that cannot be right because there would not be any 58Ni available for the next five months.

    3) I had previously thought I had understood that hydrogen was supplied in gaseous form under pressure. But I do not see mention of that in the paper. It seems that it is available only in the form of AlLiH4. Is that correct?

    Please feel free to modify, or completely erase, any of the above questions if you feel discussion of them might not be helpful.

    Again, wonderful (positive?!) news. Congratulations.

    Rodney Nicholson.

  437. Andrea Rossi

    Rodney Nicholson:
    1- I do not know why the Professors of the ITP decided that way to publish. They, as I always said, are totally independent from us. If they did so, means they had a reason for it. The report has been written by them, obviously; today I have contacted their spokesman, who confirmed that the report published is the original version, uncut; the version that will be published in a scientific magazine will have to be reduced within 15 pages. They told me it was necessary a publication with all the 54 pages, because every page has a specific importance.
    2- the charge had been made for a 35 days test. This is the test duration agreed upon when the experiment has been started
    3- I cannot enter in this particular
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  438. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Congratulations on a positive outcome. I was slightly disappointed that the test was not 6 months but 30+ days is more than sufficient for demonstrating a nuclear level activity. I was also disappointed that the COP was not higher but, for such an important test, I understand the need to be conservative. Better to have a positive test result for such a critical test.

    Now begins the onslaught of the critics…

  439. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Thank you for your words; why onslaught ? The critics that mostly count, at this point, are only the critics of the Customers that buy our plants. Critics that teach us something are useful, while critics that repeat the usual blabla are irrelevant: in any case I do not see any onslaught in the horizon of the E-Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  440. georgehants

    Dear Mr. Rossi, three long years for those of us following your progress, but I think the time may have flown very fast for you being so busy changing the World forever.
    Now we shall see if those with power and influence will allow this technology to be given freely to the people or held back as it has been for many years for political and financial reasons.
    All of science now has a new baby to nurture and help grow to maturity.
    Many congratulations and good luck as always for the future, both yours and the new science of LENR.

  441. Andrea Rossi

    Georgehants:
    Our Team is working to put this technology at work.
    Thank you for your kind words.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  442. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in October 8th, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Thank you for your kind expressions. What is beginning is just a period of tough work on R&D.
    ——————————-

    Dear Andrea,
    I know there is a lot of work to do. For instance, there is need to improve your technology so that to get electricity from the eCat.

    However today is a great day, because the controversy is ended.
    In spite of many of us were sure that the eCat works, however many stated that the E-Cat didn’t work.

    It’s a great day of a New Era for mankind.

    regards
    wlad

  443. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    The opposition will continue to say the E-Cat does not work. At this point they are irrelevant, though. The era of this kind of tests is finished, now the focus is exclusively on the plants we sell to Customers and the R&D is focused only on the Customers’ needs.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  444. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Eernie,

    also,
    do not forget that Rossi uses a catalyst in his eCat, and without a catalyst the eCat does not work.
    Therefore, if your supposition of the reaction via 3Li7 is really correct, however the mechanism of the extraction of the neutron from the 3Li7 depends on the help of the catalyst.

    Perhaps Rossi does not use any catalyst, and he told a lie, just with the aim to deceive everybody, by putting them very far away on the mystery on how his eCat works.
    But I dont think Rossi said a lie, and I guess he really uses a catalyst.

    Rossi tried several catalysts, and some of them work better than other ones.

    I predicted that the best catalyst to resonate with the structure of Ni is the 52Te:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/How%20repulsive%20gravity%20contributes%20for%20cold%20fusion%20occurrence.pdf

    According to my new nuclear model, the nuclei exhibit a phenomenon (which I named Accordion-Effect): they have shrinkage and expansion like the bellows of an accordion.

    The Accordion-Effect of the nucleus Ni can resonate with the Accordion-Effect of other nucleus (the best resonance occurs with the 52Te).

    In the case your speculation about the extraction of the neutron from the 3Li7 is correct, however probably the resonance between the Accordion-Effect of the Ni and 52Te helps the extraction of the neutron.

    regards
    wlad

  445. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 8th, 2014 at 3:42 PM

    1) ————————————-
    This neutron may exist as a Halo neutron which is located approximately 7 times further from the cluster than any of the other nucleons and thereby much more loosely bound to the nucleus by the strong force since the force falls off rapidly with distance.
    —————————————

    Eernie,
    There is no experimental evidence for such assumption.
    The halo neutron with 7 times further from the cluster was detected experimentally for the 4Be11, but not for the 3Li7.

    The halo neutron of the 4Be11 has an orbit with radius 7fm, and therefore it is a proof that the strong force is not the cause of the aggregation of the nuclei, since the strong force does not actuate in distances longer than 3fm.

    .

    2)————————————–
    (3) The 7Li atom has a neutron which seems to be excessive when examined in accepted nuclear cluster theory. This neutron may exist as a Halo neutron which is located approximately 7 times further from the cluster than any of the other nucleons and thereby much more loosely bound to the nucleus by the strong force since the force falls off rapidly with distance.
    ———————————————

    Dear Eernie,
    the structure of the 3Li7, according to my new nuclear model, is shown n the Figure 13, page 17, of my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in JoNP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    What you say makes sense by looking at the structure of 3Li7 shown in the Figure 13.

    The neutron has spin-interaction with the deuteron, while the centripetal force Fc tries to expell both the deuteron and the neutron, but the magnetic force Fm pulls the deuteron toward the central 2He4, and as the neutron is tied to the deuteron via the spin-interaction, the neutron is kept in the 3Li7.

    .

    3)—————————————-
    (4)The amount of external energy necessary to strip this neutron from the 7Li atom producing a 6Li atom can be applied through thermal sources since the strong force has a small retaining force on the neutron.
    ——————————————

    Eernie,
    perhaps the extraction of the neutron from the 3Li7 can be caused by the oscillatory electromagnetic field applied in the eCat (maybe the spin-interaction deuteron-neutron can be affected by the oscillatory emf).

    Other hypothesis is to suppose that the rotation of the nucleus 3Li7 can be incresead by the application of the oscilatory electromagnetic field used by Andrea Rossi. Because the deuteron has a positive electric charge, and it is orbiting the central 2He4, and so perhaps an external electromagnetic field can change the rotation of the nucleus 3Li7. By increasing the velocity of the rotation of the 3Li7, the centripetal force on the neutron increases, and it is expelled from the 3Li7.

    regards
    wlad

  446. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Thank you for your kind expressions. What is beginning is just a period of tough work on R&D.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  447. Alessandro Coppi

    Grande Andrea Rossi, qualche volta come tanti ho dubitato, ma ero sicuro che la oltre le colonne ci fosse un nuovo mondo, tu hai ci portato frutti nuovi, che come le patate sfameranno il pianeta per i secoli a venire.

    Un saluto in italiano, una volta tanto.
    Ciao Andrea, grazie per la tua tenacia.

  448. Andrea Rossi

    Alessandro Coppi:
    Grazie!
    Cari saluti,
    A.R.

  449. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, I want to add my congratulations to the many other.
    I know this is only the first step.
    I will be very happy to watch you climb every wonderful step to the very top.
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    USA
    P.S. I am with Gherardo on the Nobel.

  450. Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    Thank you, but to reach the highest international recognition I still have to give evidence of a commercial breakthrough. A huge work has still to be done.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  451. Bernie Koppenhofer

    Congratulations Dr Rossi, now the only thing we need is the customer announcing he will save millions using your E-cat!

  452. Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    it is exactly the target we have now.
    Thank you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  453. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears followers of the JoNP

    So, finally the coroner officially declared that the body of the deceased is really dead.

    The eCat works

    Rossi survived

    And a New Era of humanity begins

    regards
    wlad

  454. Robert Curto

    Mark Fouchi, in your post you said cancer was another passion of yours.
    I am very interested in cancer patients and cancer research.
    If your want to you can send me an email, you may want to know what I am
    doing.
    BOBBYCURTO@WEBTV.NET

    Bobby
    Ft. Lauderdale

  455. Peter Wolstenholme

    Dr. Rossi:
     Congratulations: the report was issued at around the time you forecast, and it ought to raise considerable interest, although I suppose that many prominent scientists will pretend it does not exist.
    A C.O.P  -  which I prefer to call energy gain factor to distinguish it from heat pumps where the C.O.P. has a very different meaning -  of around 3.6 is of course not ideal in practical terms, because in many countries natural gas heating  costs around 30% of the cost of electrical heating. There are clearly at least two ways around this, apart from trying to heat the e-cat with natural gas. Firstly it is clear that operating at a higher temperature can increase the energy gain factor. Secondly some sort of cascading system, whereby one e-cat heats another one, could give a factor over 10. Would a triple cascade be possible, for really stunning results?  You have already written about the cat-and-mouse system, without explaining how it functions, so we are all awaiting news on that topic, which you may be able to release in the coming months.
      Regards,
         Peter Wolstenholme.

  456. Andrea Rossi

    Peter Wolstenholme:
    Let me study and understand throughly the Report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  457. Carlo Marcena

    Great!!!
    CM

  458. Andrea Rossi

    Carlo Marcena:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  459. A STUNNING (dare I say “positive”?) result.

    Congratulations.

    Rodney.

  460. Dear Andrea,

    Great news for you and your team (and for the whole world), champagne congratulations! Most interesting new public information was certainly in the chapter concerning fuel and ash analysis.

    The report was based on 32 days test run. Is there still longer term third party test run planned or even going on right now ?

    kind regards

    V. Kanninen

  461. Andrea Rossi

    V. Kanninen:
    Our R&D work will never end.
    Now our work is focused on the 1 MW plant supplied to the Customer, the Third Party par excellence: if it does not work he does not pay!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  462. RobertoM

    NOW THE “NEW FIRE” IS REALLY ON !!!!!
    GREAT ANDREA!
    MANY COMPLIMENTS AND THE BEST FOR YOUR FUTURE!

  463. Andrea Rossi

    Roberto M.:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  464. Lorenzo Stella

    Dear Ing. Rossi, let me congratulate you, for the report of the 32 days test. I’m so excited that I’m writing this even before reading the full report. This is the BIGGEST DAY for all of us human being.
    Congratulazioni infinite, il coraggio e l’ insistenza focalizzata vincono sempre.

    LS

  465. Andrea Rossi

    Lorenzo Stella:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  466. BroKeeper

    Congratulations Andrea. Your low morning input prayers resulted in very high output, perhaps COP=Infinity. :)

  467. Andrea Rossi

    BroKeeper:
    He,he,he..yes,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  468. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I cant resist the temptation to be the first to offer a scenario for your effect based on the ash report. If the ash does contain the purported isotopes resulting from the reaction starting from the reported fuel combinations, there are a few conclusions that can be made. (1) Obviously the 62Ni must be produced through neutron capture by the 58,59,60 and61Ni atoms which are all neutron deficient. (2) the neutrons must be thermal neutrons and can only come from the 7Li atoms. (3) The 7Li atom has a neutron which seems to be excessive when examined in accepted nuclear cluster theory. This neutron may exist as a Halo neutron which is located approximately 7 times further from the cluster than any of the other nucleons and thereby much more loosely bound to the nucleus by the strong force since the force falls off rapidly with distance.(4)The amount of external energy necessary to strip this neutron from the 7Li atom producing a 6Li atom can be applied through thermal sources since the strong force has a small retaining force on the neutron. The neutron thus is ejected from the 7Li atom and assumes the thermal energy plus half of the strong force energy(recoil energy) and enters a neutron deficient Ni atom such as the 58Ni creating a 59Ni which can receive another thermal neutron to produce a 60Ni until it becomes a 62Ni which is one of the most stable species of isotopes because of the nucleon bonds it possesses. The process is exothermal because the neutrons contain both the thermal energy and the portion of the strong force energy which is finally expelled by the 62Ni to equilibrate its nuclear energy balance. Thus we comply with the law of conservation of energy.
    More details as I think further about possible mechanisms. This is my first stab at it.
    Congratulations, there was no doubt in my mind that you had a viable device.
    Successful regards.

  469. Andrea Rossi

    Thank you, Giuseppe!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  470. Dear Mr Rossi a very well deserved result, I am just a simple engineer and connect wait to get my hands on a ECAT system and start design systems with it as it was intended. Do you have a time line of when the 1MW Ecats will start rolling off the production line and do you have any special design considerations when incorporating it external heating and power systems. The temps that they achieved in the report make the ECAT useful for electricity generation (as you well know) and do you see higher COP’s than stated in the report.
    Again thank you for bring this to the world

  471. Valeriy Tarasov

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Congratulation with very important publication!
    One more thing I would like to mention here (I have written this as an idea on e-catworld.com forum before). For me, the paper confirmed that thermal effect in your e-cat results from the decay of litium 7 producing alpha particle which are absorbed by surrounding material and that give the thermal effect. In result of that you have no radioactivity outside.
    Best wishes,
    Valeriy Tarasov

  472. Andrea Rossi

    Valeriy Tarasov:
    I cannot enter in this. In the report is written what has been found.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  473. Davide C.

    Well, better than I thought. And without running the device at the maximum potential, neither in the self sustaining mode. GREAT
    I would like to know which is the real limit.
    BTW Compliments, the world owe you one!

  474. Anders Lundell

    Dear Andrea Rossi!

    Congratulations!
    I belive this is good news for the world.

    Best regards
    Anders

  475. Andrea Rossi

    Anders Lundell:
    Thank you: it will be good news if the plants will work properly. We gotta work, now: the cow is harnessed, now has to pull.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  476. Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    my best compliments for the achieved result.
    You knew it but the reality is true only when shared and now it is.
    Those days nominations for the Nobel prizes are beeing announced and my best hope for you is that you’ll achieve that overdue Nobel prize.
    For the humanity the hope is that this breakthrough will fully unfold and will not be blocked or delayed by opposing economic forces.

    Complimenti ! ma non ci dimentichiamo di lavolale !!! :-)
    Gherardo

  477. Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    Now comes the most difficult part of the work: industrialization in a permanent R&D process. It is beginning with the 1 MW baby, but this is the beginning, not the end, of a very hard work.
    Lavolale, lavolale!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  478. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea.
    October seems to remain E-cat-month.
    Do you call this ITP report positive or negative ? And why ?

    This test was in idling mode, without a flow of steam. From the report we learn that the e-cat works more performant at higher power: 100Watt more input resulted in 700Watt more output. Will you publish some numbers (max COP in driven mode) of your own heavy-duty tests now ?

    On page 5, top picture, the power analyzer shows the switching of the triacs. Power is ON for some peaks and OFF during the rest of time. It is about 1/3 – 2/3 ON/OFF. Is this driven and self-sustain, or is this driven mode ? The voltages and frequencies are “OL”. I understand that some secrecy has to remain.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  479. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    Let me read and study carefully the report: I was supposed to receive it several days before the publication, but I saw it this morning, published in a very surprising way. It is complex. Let me elaborate.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  480. Michael S

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    My most sincere congratulations !

    You must be relieved – especially not having to write “positive or negative results” any more ;-)

    But I can’t resist also asking questions arising:
    - where there not more scientists involved ? Did some refuse to subscribe the report ?
    - in my understanding the test run was to last 6 months ?

    Best regards to you on this very special day,

    Michael

    Ps. Had I wanted to slightly keep areas of doubt in the report, maybe to borrow some time, I would not have done otherwise.

  481. Andrea Calaon

    Finally I have the chance to sit in front of the computer and write:
    Congratulations to you and your team Andrea!
    Well done!

    I have a few questions, but I will ask them after reading the report carefully.

    Warm Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  482. Andrea Rossi

    Andrea Calaon:
    Thank you for your kind words, also from our Team!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  483. fabio82

    Andrea, grazie di cuore! Per me sei un modello di determinazione ed integrita’.
    Fabio

  484. Andrea Rossi

    Fabio82:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  485. Dear Andrea Rossi
    congratulations on the wonderful results . This is huge success.
    Pavel Vrbovsky

  486. Andrea Rossi

    Pavel Vrbovsky:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  487. Giuseppe

    Dear Andrea,
    Congratulation to the achievement of the long-awaited result!
    Giuseppe

  488. Gianvico

    Grande Andrea GRANDE!!!
    Con infinito affetto e gioia
    Gianvico

  489. Andrea Rossi

    Gianvico:
    Grazie, Architetto.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  490. gian

    Ho atteso pazientemente 3 anni. Valeva la pena.

    L’Italia così spesso ridicolarizzata ha grazie

    ad un Grande Italiano la sua rivincita.

    Grazie Andrea. Iddio benedica Te e la tua opera.

    Gian

  491. Andrea Rossi

    Gian:
    Thank you, very kind words. But this is the beginning of the war, not the end.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  492. Andrea Rossi

    Malcom Lear:
    Yes, it has been released from the ITP very surprisingly, but now the publication has been done and everybody can read it in full and uncut version.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  493. Gian Luca

    “This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume”

    This is sufficient for all people that respect the ECAT

    Thanks a lot Mr. Rossi and Mr Focardi

    G.Luca

  494. Andrea Rossi

    Gian Luca:
    Thank you also from Prof. Focardi.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  495. Dima Redko

    Dear Andrea,
    how do you eveluate the results described in the report? Is it a success or not?

  496. Andrea Rossi

    Dima Redko:
    The important is not if it is a success or not, the important is that it worked. Now an enormous amount of work Waits for us to develope the technology.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  497. Martyn Aubrey

    Excellent News!!!

    Many Congratulations Andrea, to you and your team, on this very supportive report (I’m still reading it).

    The size of the new reactor is very small. Surely, this must mean that the 1MW plant will be quite compact – Brilliant!

    Looking forward to any more news to come.

    Happy Regards,
    Martyn

  498. Andrea Rossi

    Martyn Aubrey:
    Thank you!
    Yes, the Hot Cat based 1 MW plants will be very small.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  499. manfred

    Dear Mr. Rossi!

    Congratulations on the publication of the remarkable new 3rd party report!!!
    Just want to let you know that the link you posted
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
    returns “Forbidden page”. You might want to correct that by adjusting the link to
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

    All the best,
    Manfred

  500. Andrea Rossi

    Manfred:
    You are right!!! I wrote an incomplete address, it was the emotion, because I was not expecting it. It has been a big surprise, also because I did not expect that publication…I know the length of the report created difficulties to other publishers and the Professors wanted not to cut the report. Probably they have chosen this solution to be fast and complete. They wanted to be independent to the last, so I was totally not expecting this. I have been informed of this publication this morning at 8 a.m. from a bloggist, while I was going to see my 1MW baby.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  501. Mark Saker

    Great News Andrea,

    I’m very pleased for you! Fingers crossed this gets the attention it deserves, perhaps a nice little photo of the 1MW plant (prior to installation if you don’t want to give away client details) will help to put the icing on the cake?

    well done you clever clever man!

  502. Andrea Rossi

    Mark Saker:
    Maybe, yes, maybe… be patient.
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  503. Stan Lippmann

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Congratulations on the successful results. Do you have a theory for how the transmutations work? Are you able to share this information yet?
    Thanks,
    Stan in Shenzhen

  504. Giannino Ferro Casagrande

    GRAZIE ANDREA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  505. Andrea Rossi

    Giannino Ferro Casagrande:
    Thanks to you and to all for your attention to our work! This result comes from the work of all our great Team.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  506. renatoestri

    Dear Andrea,
    warmest congratulations for the Positive Report results :
    (page 30)
    “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.”

    Highly conservative COP calculated: > 3,2

    An huge success, what to say more ?
    Best compliments !

  507. Andrea Rossi

    Renatoestri:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  508. Dave K

    Congratulations! You have worked hard and persevered! Enjoy this moment!

    Dave

  509. Andrea Rossi

    Dave K:
    …and more work is coming.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  510. Marc Fouchi

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Congratulations on another milestone on your amazing journey!

    I have been following you since 2011, and I have become more and more passionate about your work. I strongly believe in your mission, and I love that it will also benefit families in their battles with cancer – another passion of mine.

    The eCat is too important for me to sit on the sidelines and watch. I must get involved somehow. I have sent an email to info@leonardocorp1996.com to inquire how I can help change the world.

    Sincerely,
    Marc Fouchi

  511. Andrea Rossi

    Marc Fouchi:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

  512. Martin

    Dear Andrea,

    Many many congratulations with te good results of the ITP test!!

    Early follower

    Martin

  513. Andrea Rossi

    Martin:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  514. Andrea Rossi

    Thorbjorn:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  515. Tom Conover

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Am I understanding correctly in the report that the (dummy) reactor without a charge in it output (~456 watts) the same amount of power as input (~455 watts)?

    A) yes
    B) no
    C) the report says what it says …

    Thank you for your kindness in replying to questions in this blog!

    Sincerely,

    Tom Conover

    ———————————-
    The report text is quoted below:

    “Page 20:
    Let us now compare this dissipated power with the power supply, the average of which over 23 hours of test is = (486 ± 24) W (uncertainty here is 5% of average, calculated as standard deviation). Keeping in mind the Joule heating of the power cables discussed in paragraph 4.3, we have the following results:
    Power supply (W) Joule heating (W) Actual input (W) Output (W)486 ± 24 7 486 – 7 = 479 ± 24 446 ± 10
    If we take error percentages into account, we will see that where input is at minimum possible value (455 W) and output at maximum possible value (456 W), our method overestimates by about 1 W, i.e. 0.2%. Vice versa, where input is at maximum possible value (503 W) and output at minimum possible value (436 W) our method underestimates the power supplied to the reactor by about 67 W, i.e. 14%.
    We can therefore rely on the fact that applying the very same procedure to data gathered from the E-Cat test does not lead to any significant overestimation; rather, there is a good chance that the power actually generated by the reactor is underestimated.

    Page 26:
    Considering that we do not know the internal structure of the reactor, and therefore cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside it besides the one weighed and inserted by us, we may repeat the above calculations taking the weight of the entire reactor (452 ± 1 g) into consideration:
    (1618194 / 0.452) = (3580075 ± 10%) [Wh/kg] = (3.6· 106
    ± 10%) [Wh/kg] =
    = (1.3· 104
    ± 10%) [MJ/kg] (31)
    (3580075 / 768) = (4661 ± 10%) [W/kg] = (4.7· 103
    ± 10%) [W/kg] (32)
    Even if taken from this extremely conservative point of view, the reactor lies beyond the limits of the above Ragone plot. ”
    ———————————-

  516. Andrea Rossi

    Tom Conover:
    Thank you for your attention.
    C
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  517. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Congratulations on another report that demonstrates the reality of your invention!

    One question: The reactor we see in the report — is this the cat, the mouse, or the cat and mouse combined?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  518. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Thank you.
    All combined,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  519. Claudio

    Dear Andrea, before going any further I wish to send lot of congratulations to you.

    C.R.

  520. Andrea Rossi

    Claudio:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  521. Andrea Rossi

    TO THE READERS:
    TODAY ON THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED THE PAPER “BCC LATTICE MODEL FOR NUCLEAR STRUCTURE” BY DR GAMAL A. NASSER, MANSURA UNIVERSITY, EGYPT.
    JoNP

  522. Thorbjörn

    Congratulations!

    Warm Regards,
    TM

  523. Malcolm Lear

    No matter how it was released, it seems a positive result, so may I be amongst the first to congratulate you Andrea :-)
    Cheers,
    Malcolm

  524. Andrea Rossi

    To all the Readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics:
    The Report of the Independent Third Party has been published on
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
    Warm Regards
    Andrea Rossi

  525. Malcolm Lear

    Hi Andrea,
    It seems the report is now released, is it official or a leaked early version?
    Cheers,
    Malcolm

  526. pg

    A copy of the 3rd Party Report has somehow been unofficially released and is now posted at the web site Sifferkol.se

    Link: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

    Key findings: COP of COP of 3.2-3.6 over a 32 day period and isotopic change in nickel and lithium was found to have changed substantially after run.

  527. silvio caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    In case of input power failure, how is the automatic shutdown of e-cat achieved?
    A) by a completely passive system
    B) by a low power backup system, only for powering controllers till the complete shutdown of the reactor
    C) by a high power backup system to supply the full input power for the short time necessary to complete shutdown
    Regards

  528. Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    All the options are available.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  529. Peter Forsberg

    I hope you are right Andrea. You have the same optimism as my own father in this subject matter. :)

    Good luck with the upcoming ITP-report.

    Regards

    Peter

  530. Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Thank you!
    About the ITP report, we all are very anxious.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  531. silvio caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    What would be happened if, during the six months long third party test, the input power had failed?
    A) runaway till melting
    B) automatic shutdown
    C) normal stable functioning
    And what would be happened when input power had come back?
    A) short circuit
    B) system restart
    C) normal stable functioning
    Do you know if third party testers had experienced or simulated this condition?
    Regards

  532. Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    1-B
    2-B
    I do not know if it happened.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  533. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Consider if the nickel particles within an eCat reactor were not spherical but had small nodules or cylinders. Say, if the average nickel particle size was 10 microns but each cylinder has the equivalent of a diameter of 2 nanometers. These might be what is referred to as NAE or nuclear active environments.

    On each nickel particle there might be several million small 2 nanometer diameters cylinders. These NAE cylinders would, of course, melt when a nuclear event occurred on or within them, because of their small amount of mass to absorb the nuclear energy. This would eventually remove a portion of the total number of these NAE cylinders. However, if the percentage removed was small over the six month operating period of the eCat reactor, then the eCat control system would still be able to achieve a constant thermal output.

    Of course, the spent fuel could be melted and reprocessed or commercially sold. If one of the nickel isotopes was more favorably consumed in the eCat reaction, then new “virgin” nickel might be used instead of reprocessing the used fuel. Perhaps you should consider some form of surface treatment in your eCat fuel processing? Maybe a simple analysis is in order to look at this possibility.

  534. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    I am not able to answer you; maybe Orsobubu is.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  535. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Gamal A. Nasser

    All the even-even nuclei with Z=N are stable, except the 4Be8.

    There is not explanation for the unstability of the 4Be8 by considering the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    How do you explain why 4Be8 is not stable?

    I did not see the structure of the 4Be8 in your paper

    regards
    wlad

  536. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, Proesa produces Ethanol, and enough energy to run the Plant.
    The Company Biochemtex, and the first Plant are located in Italy.
    Google:
    Proesa
    Scroll down to:
    (PDF) Download-Biochemtey
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    USA

  537. eernie1

    Bill,
    From a scientific aspect other than absorption or reflection, we were starting to explore the concept of surface plasmon polaritons(SPP)for use in the stealth program. The field was relatively new(1957) but seemed promising because we had an ideal situation, a metal conductor(free crystal electrons),against a dielectric medium(air). The concept had interest for us because incoming EM waves could be not only reflected at different angles from the incoming wave but the frequencies could also be altered. Since Nano technology was also being developed and showed in many experiments to be a viable material for reproduction of the effect(Nanoplasmotics), we were exploring theories that could be applied to our problem. The theory worked in the Nano scale because the size of the particles corresponded to the wavelengths of the infrared and visible spectrum. The question was how to reproduce the 3cm to mm sized structures(3GHz and beyond)corresponding to the sizes of the wavelengths used in radar systems. Ideas such as crosshatching the surfaces,or depositing materials containing individual crystals of the right size were proposed. However at this juncture,I left for greener pastures and lost contact with further developments.
    I suppose there were many other proposals submitted for other approaches to manipulating the incoming RF. Exciting period of time.
    Regards

  538. Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    You are right that there is no direct link between the Ebola epidemic and the evolution of the ECat. And I hope that you are right that a vaccine is developed in time.

    But if not, I am afraid that the disease will spread wildly throughout the whole world and extreme amounts of people will die, even in Italy and Sweden for example.

    When the Black Death hit London almost 60% of the population died. But that was in a time when society was more robust. More people were farmers and energy production was not centralized. If Ebola can spread unchecked through society nowadays society as we know it might well totally collapse.

    For those that do survive it would be good if the ECat could be a viable alternative to produce energy. It would help in the possibility to rebuild society.

    Regards

    Peter Forsberg

  539. Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Now I understand your thought. I am not that pessimistic, though…When the Black Death hit London the medical science was practically not existent, today the time to react properly to a new desease is much shorter. I think that, luckily, the reasons to work hard on the E-Cat are more positive, just raise the level of the life quality of People.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  540. Curiosone

    What is the “Strangeness” ( Stranezza) in elementary particles?
    Thank you for your usual patience.
    W.G.

  541. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Strangeness is a characteristic of elementary particles with mass and decay time substantially superior than the normality.
    S = y-B
    where :
    y is the hypercharge, it is the 2nd average charge of the multiplet of elementary particles
    B is the barionic number ( 0 if the e.p. is not a barion, 1 if it is).
    Strangeness is conserved.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  542. Curiosone

    Dr Rossi:
    Can you say which COP is reached by the 1 MW plant?
    W.G.

  543. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    All the publicable data regarding the 1 MW plant will be released in due time, after at least one year of operation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  544. JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi, today there were around rumors that the report had to be published today: any comment?
    JCR

  545. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    I have not information about that.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  546. JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi:
    Do you know where the report of the ITP will be published?
    JCR

  547. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    No, I do not know where the TPR will be published.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  548. DTravchenko

    Is it true that for the publication it will be necessary another month for a supplement of reviewing?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  549. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    The 1 MW plant now is the only thing I am focused on, also because it is too an R&D battlefield.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  550. DTravchenko

    At this time are you more engaged in R&D or in the 1 MW plant of the customer?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  551. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    I do not know.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  552. Dear Andrea and Pekka,

    A small clarifying comment to Pekka Janhunen concerning the mechanism of fast moving electrons in thunderstorms having less time to coulombically interact with other particles, and that a similar mechanism is making radiation therapy possible (your message October 5th).

    External radiation therapy given by a linear accelerator (linac) can be done either by using electron beam (charged particles) or photon beam (non-charged i.e. gamma radiation). Linear accelerator for radiation therapy accelerates electrons: photon beams are generated by rapidly decelerating electrons in a collimator which produces x-ray/gamma-ray spectrum via bremsstrahlung radiation.

    Electron beams in the usually used energy range of 4-20 MeV do deposit most of its energy not in the skin, but somewhat deeper. However, not really very deep, but in the depth of only 1-5 cm, depending on the energy. When the electrons have left the linac accelerator part, there is no more accelerating electric field. Thus when electrons enter to the patient, collisions cause the electrons rather rapidly lose energy. Electron beams are used to treat tumors rather close to skin.

    Photon beams are usually used in the energy range 4-25 MeV, and most of their energy is naturally transferred much deeper. In practice, photon beams are used much more often than electron beams. Thus saying that a similar mechanism is making radiation therapy possible is valid for radiation therapy where electron beams or other charged particles (like proton) are used, but not exactly so when we talk about the currently most commonly used photon beams.

    kind regards

    V. Kanninen

  553. Andrea Rossi

    V. Kanninen:
    Thank you for your clarification.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  554. Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    How are you going to safeguard your invention against the threat of society collapsing due to the ebola epidemic? If the current exponential spread continues, what will happen is something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7GXAxnfiq8

    And everything will be over within one to two years. (Calculated with a realistic figure of approximately 20 000 infected individuals to date and a factor of between 2 and 2.4 increase of number of infected per month).

    I know that you liked the movie world war Z. So did I. But this time it is for real, unless vaccines can be developed much faster than usual.

    Regards

    Peter Forsberg

  555. Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Yes, the scenario is scaring, but the race to make a vaccine is also strong. I am not able to understand in which sense my invention is connected with the epidemic, I think they are two totally different trails. Can you explain where you see a link between these two apparently unconnected fields?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  556. Gian Luca

    Dear A.R.
    in Italy one of the theories about TPR is the one that will be a very positive report but
    soft. In particular, we think that it will be declared a political COP (lower than what is actually found).
    You can no longer deny the LENR but you will look for a way to introduce the ECAT device in such a manner as not to create imbalances in the economy of that country (Russia, Arab countries … west-central Africa, USA) where the petroleum producing income is not easily re-convertible.
    Thought to be a possible scenario? What is your opinion?
    Best regards
    Luca

  557. Andrea Rossi

    Gian Luca:
    Disregard any theory regarding the Third Party report: there are not theories about the report, there will be a report that will publish precise measurements and that will be all, positive or negative as the results might be.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  558. JCRenoir

    I read the book of Mats Lewan ” An Impossible Invention”: what do you think of this book?
    JCR

  559. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  560. JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi:
    Is Global Symmetry responsible for bearing the forces?
    JCRenoir

  561. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    As usual, much ado for nothing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  562. Bill Nichols

    Eernie1:

    Thanks for your words of support. Doesn’t matter if its Vietnam, Desert Storm, Granada, Afghanistan or Iraq…the real goal is “winning the peace”.

    The Saudi’s I worked with in F-117 ops with DESERT STORM found wanted a better world for all of us, just as we did.

    Gen. Washington knew it, Gen. Eisenhower knew it and both spoke eloquently of it and the horrors of war. We must learn to solve things.

  563. eernie1

    Bill,
    Here is a fact that most people do not realize. In recorded history there has never been a period of 60 years where the ratio of war casualties to population was lower. I think that the patrols conducted by you air jockeys(respectful tag) had a big part in accomplishing this. You should be proud and the rest of the world should be grateful for the many long hours spent in providing the deterrent that made this possible.

  564. eernie1

    Bill,
    Pushed the wrong button. To continue, the team had to work through the night to finish the proposal and while I was there my first daughter was born. The team suggested that I name her the B1 bomber.

  565. eernie1

    Bill,
    The B1 was successful because it proved that stealth techniques could work. Of course because it was the first model, Andrea and you can testify to the many bugs that can arise when a device is put out into the real world. Just like the first airplane produced by The Wright Brothers we had to start somewhere.
    Bob, Hallicrafters was the leading designer developer of countermeasure equipment used by the AF not only in the RF bands but also in the Infra Red area to divert the sidewinder type missiles. We also did some work on over the horizon radar. This is why in the 1960′s Northrop purchased the company from Bill Halligan. As an amusing anecdote, the team I was part of proposing the program we were submitting to the AF

  566. George

    Dear Engineer Rossi, I wanted to let you know that today in Milan met ministers for Energy and the Environment of the European Union on the issue of energy efficiency.
    In the long term, the EU intends to achieve the goal of energy savings of 30% through the encouragement of the use of district heating.
    This is the best time to exit the Hot Cat in Europe. Good luck for the upcoming report.

    http://www.edilportale.com/news/2014/10/risparmio-energetico-e-sostenibilita/energia-le-strategie-ue-per-ridurre-i-consumi-del-30-entro-il-2030_41753_27.html

  567. Andrea Rossi

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

  568. Roberto

    Dear Andrea,
    waiting for the report we are now discussing, on my opinion, about the sex of angels, we should just wait and imagine that it is positive.

    It could also be negative, but in the assumption that it is positive how are you preparing?

    Are you aware that your life will have a radical change, many people will be happy glimpsing opportunities for business growth, the earth will be grateful as we reduce pollution; but so many other people will be against you, many economies and whole countries will be bankrupt immediately because of the collapse in oil prices.

    You will need to have very broad shoulders to support all this.

    I’ll give you my best wishes.
    Roberto

  569. Andrea Rossi

    Roberto:
    I just think that, if positive, it will integrate in the energy system.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  570. Bill Nichols

    Eernie1:

    No problem with the big ego in AF. Everyone had to fight for their money and program. Professionalism, competence, integrity and wisdom is what I saw that inspired me and others I worked with. Trust and credibility is the foundation that must not be compromised. Just hard-working quality folks that I worked with. A privileged memory.

    The higher the stakes, more the stress. Involved in stuff bigger than any new platform. Still can remember faces of the 4 stars on some issues discussed. They were just people, but humans with strengths and flaws…as we all are.

    Sounds like Gen Macfollin was typical of the above.

  571. Bill Nichols

    Eeerie1,

    No. The B-1 was the first semi-stealth plane in Stealth arena with serious issues I worked after grounded and going to AFIT to get Master’s in mid 1980s. If the name Mcfollin came up, I don’t recall. The B-1 is OK as a first order platform but had serious issues. Ppresident Reagen wanted It…not the USAF as was told to me routinely by higher ups. The serious flaws of B-1 was a takeaway we were given to push on the B-2 and Congress was on board to fix…the called them “showstoppers” which was correct. The F-117A was in-between B-1 and B-2, development in NV. This was in the 1980s military buildup as we called it, this was a chess match with the USSR (first row seat). There was the F-117A…B-2…other platforms…Star Wars (SDI)…EOTDA’s..XXX’s. The human energy was something will never forget.

    Can tell you know some basic Stealth fundamentals. Just think 2nd…3rd order phenomena extensions and interactions. Then take weather. We are all product of our experiences, we all have strengths to brings. Good organizations bring the best out in the people so the sum is truly greater better than parts. You may be able to better relate then some why I use the ill defined concepts (in my definition) of coherence, radiance and harmonics. Like a very rough sea with almost countless size(s) of waves. Take an occasional “peak” of phasing…get some unique signatures. Such as Andrea Rossi asked.

    If you worked B1 RF…then you know the sophisticated equipment and multi-frequence sensors onboard…only slightly better than upgraded B-52 attm. I then used the on board triple INS/BNS system atmospheric conditions to adjust each RF system. Are you aware of the E-M counter-measures the EWO would use? Atmosphere issues/adjustments. Tricks learned playing to infer “action at a distance” phenomena that was not explainable at the time. Only “fun” part of the job, not happy the more qualified I became, the more people I would vaporize. Line 1 alert…over a million. I rationalized it has a bridge to a better world for all of us. Look at the challenges today? Sadness…

    Went to Wright-Patterson AFB a lot for many years.

  572. eernie1

    Bill,
    Did you ever cross paths with General Rollin Olin Macfollin out of Wright Patterson? In the 1960s, he was designated the AF project head of the B1 stealth bomber. When I was a member of the research department of the Hallicrafters Co. We did a lot of preliminary RF reflection studies from different materials and at different reflective angles of incoming radiation which was used to design the bombers external shape. He had a big ego with respect to his position in the AF but almost no ego when it came to his involvement with the engineering phases. Just the perfect type of person to head an important project of this type. Hands off the engineering and keep the politicians at bay. Needless to say the project was one of the most successful I had ever worked in.

  573. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    Thank you for this pearl.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  574. Dear Andrea,
    You have said that your 1 MW plant needs to run for 1 year before considering it success. However, all energy producing plants have some downtime. Do you have a specific downtime limit, such as max 1 percent, which the plant must meet? (Probably the limit itself is a business secret, but I’m just curious if some definite limit has been agreed upon with the customer.)
    r:/pekka

  575. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Sorry, the terms of the contract are confidential.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  576. Marco

    Dear Andrea,

    regarding the comments of John L on October 4th and your reply: molten salts can help stabilize the reaction, especially for the hot cat, because probabily they have higher termic capacity than steam at 550C. A main circuit with molten salts, eventually with a big reservoir, as in solar termic plants, and a secondary circuit for the steam can give a stable, smooth and sustained operation for the hot cat, and probabily you can even put them in parallel without troubles, giving the smoothing behaviour of the high capacity molten salts reservoir.

    Best Regards,
    Marco.

  577. Andrea Rossi

    Marco:
    Thank you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  578. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    Thank you for your kind words. It is people like you who discover and develop new and once considered difficult principles of science who keep me young.
    Fond regards.

  579. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    Thank you
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  580. Alessandro Coppi

    Hi Andrea, you wrote something with capital letters: “I still do not have AVAILABLE information to give”.
    Is 12 october a good day in your opinion for an announce of a discovery?

    Terra!!!
    Alessandro Coppi

  581. Andrea Rossi

    Alessandro Coppi:
    Really, as soon as I will have available information I will be happy (or maybe unhappy) to give it to our Readers.
    Warm regards
    A.R.

  582. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    The Majorana fermion concept is as old as I(1930), and is similar to the epo(electron- positron) of Dirac and the particle(photon-anti photon) of our Wlad that theoretically fills the aether. Perhaps the investigators who claim to have seen the Majorana fermion have only found another method of extracting this energy from the aether.

  583. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    Old??? You are vivacious like a kid ! I wish I arrive to your age with your freshness of mind.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  584. Andrea Rossi

    Jean Claud Renoir:
    Mats Lewan is a man whose main characteristic is the sincerity, and his book mirrors this characteristic of his. He is a scientific-investigative journalist, with a solid cultural base ( he has an engineering degree), curious to know anything new around and to investigate about. When he writes he is honest and sincere. When he writes a thing, is because he is convinced it is fit to be reported as he has sincerely understood it. For this reason his writing is interesting, as well as interesting the Journal he writes for ( Nyteknik).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  585. Andrea Rossi

    Jean Claud Renoir:
    Global Symmetry does not produce forces, it just gives an idea that something is moving around in the fields, everywhere and uniformly, at the same time; LOCAL Symmetries ( separately, at every point) can produce connection fields that generate Nature’s forces.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  586. Xavier Pitz

    Dear Andrea,

    Concerning your answer to Silvio Caggia.

    Did you just meant “He,he,he…” or
    “He,he,he… I still do not have information to give.” ?
    :-)

    Regards from France,

    Xavier Pitz

  587. Andrea Rossi

    Xavier Pitz:
    I meant: ” I still do not have AVAILABLE information to give”. Thank you from your kind attention from the great France, where I worked very much in the Seventies.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  588. Bill Nichols

    Dear Andrea:

    Thanks for your response and question.

    Since the e cat is a closed system (as we know it), your findings/comments are reasonable. Please be open (hint) to eventual offshoots if your important e cat endeavor is as successful as we all hope it is. Perhaps a gold mine in future research.

    Regarding your question. Yes and No. First, the No portion to your question.

    No. Projects I most heavily was involved with personally did not directly measure what we call positrons since much has been learned recently. Suggest this is a tree in the energy forest. Stealth principles and survivability were also always first.

    Yes. Simply described. Offer it is part of the Cascade of Energy of radiant energy, atmospheric physics, what I describe for lacking a better word electro-chemistry (Nano-technology enhanced, localized atmospheric conditions interactions roughly defined as resonance and coherence and so on) in stealth technology properties.

    Can we agree?

    • The simpler the explanation the better, “Occam’s razor” principle.

    • Science essentially explains our world that is testable and verifiable. Nature is the judge and jury, theories are man’s opinion. History shows too much emphasis on opinion and this is dangerous.

    • Data is never pristine. Caveats are critical. In Situ and Proxy data are not the same. Even In Situ data must be fully understood to what it measures.

    • The more I learn, the less I’m certain, and more I question. That is good.

    • The 5 blind men and elephant story reflects my 4 decades journey in science and others seem to suffer the same affliction.

    • Truth is our goal for a better life for all of us, Science is the vehicle to truth, the process of inquiry is the compass and fuel.

    Consider 3 concepts in adding to key on while using existing science concepts…

    1. Frame Of Reference. Are we using the correct tools?
    2. Scale Analysis (spatially, temporally, changing properties/characteristics of 6 forms of what we commonly define as energy) continuously applied to phenomena.
    3. Differentials (more than just G gravity or Q charge).

    When I gave high level briefings to key decision-makers in USAF/USN/Army/DOD, besides keep it simple, pictures to visualize were quite helpful. Mostly with Stealth Technology, Radiant Energy Principles, Climate Change, Future Weapon Systems including high altitude platforms.

    Here’s one picture I ask you to keep in your mind and as you move to the next section…

    Our current understanding may be more like a square peg of G/Q and accompanying mathematics, while cosmology is more like a round hole that operates like a slinky (type of oscillation?). It’s close, just incomplete for fuller, better applications.

    Now,

    Since I know your very busy…basic thoughts to your question.

    A.) We learned in USAF from large scales (macro) to the smallest (micro) importance of size and shape toward energy properties. You’ve noticed this too in some of your statements.
    B.) The broad concept, the “Global Electric Circuit” is poorly understood, ask for your consideration evidence continues to increase its more dynamic and holistic involvement with earth’s weather and climate. A tome could be written on this.
    C.) The thunderstorm phenomenon is not understood well (offer at all). Experiments we did if your interested may be of utility. These data reside in very closed circles. Directed these programs if you have questions.
    D.) Blue Jet , Red Sprites, Elves, high altitude ionization appear are more dynamic and holistic to earth-atmosphere system.
    E.) Do we fully understand the “y-axis” of the x-y axis of wavelength/frequency?
    F.) Properties of stealth may share similarities to micro size-shape relations you use.
    G.) Keep in mind the propagation properties of E-M…water is a remarkable compound, alchemy? Nexus of Atmospheric parameters link to lightning is beyond basic thermodynamics you’ve learned.
    H.) My experiences as an aviator (B-52), operating the most powerful E-M platforms in 1970s and early 1980s has proven priceless before my grounding and becoming a full time scientist. Meritocracy was always first order.

    Keeping the slinky picture in mind. Perhaps positrons are not even a tree, but a leaf. Yet, a useful clue though, we are not in a desert of energy.

    On the larger scales, look at our solar system, then, add the magnetic electric sheath of solar system graphical multi-variant pictures. Can our basic principles fully explain based in “gravity” and “charge”? Visualize Galaxy groups, Galaxies, hurricanes, extra-tropical systems, eddies (tornadoes, dust devils, smaller), similar characteristics coincidence? Go on to the smaller scales. See any inconsistencies and opportunities for testing toward improved understanding? Are you aware there are world atmosphere energy changes in the 25 to 35 day period that are very close (positive statistical correlation) to sun’s rotation pattern periodicity? Is this coincidence? Are you familiar with eigenvectors and eigenvalues? Uses and limitations? Keep in mind Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy are man’s theories (opinion) with no real direct concrete evidence, at incredible scales of energy for the slinky picture analogy. Example: Are you aware of eV profiles in dust devils, Tornadoes?

    Final point. My sense is we are living in continuous foam of energy that again operates like a slinky.

    Keep an open mind, Since you mentioned your very interested, this in my military records, I was the Weather Commander at Holloman AFB, NM while bringing F-117A Stealth Fighters during DESERT STORM. Worked with Gen Curtis Le May, (contacted by him) who was very energized, desperate and sincere, just before he passed, questions he had access to. Was told me had contacts to some things we were doing to things many, many, decades before.

    If you’re very interested in positrons, on the correct path. Consider the tree and forest analogy as you move forward?

    I can understand if you and others are scratching your heads. Can only postulate nature (data) and scales of cosmological phenomena suggests much of this.

    One very, very, big one benefit and truth is there is no conflict with science and spirituality. Keep in mind 1st Principle of Thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; only TRANSFORMED.

    Trust you found this at least curious and thought provoking to your question. This is already too long, could provide much, much, more but also wrong venue due to complexity of thought and areas worked and ramifications.

    Use your gut to assess if there is value to anything above. Found truth leads to comfort, less comfort is further from the truth. Science and feelings…yes. You must digest and decide.

    Again, good luck!

    Kind Regards,

    Bill Nichols

  589. Andrea Rossi

    Bill Nichols:
    Fantastic comment!
    Let me digest it, dropped like a bomb from a B 52. Booomm!
    Gotta return to my 1 MW baby, he decided Sunday is the best day to make troubles. Especially during the night.
    Talk to you soon,
    Andrea

  590. Gian Luca

    Dear A.R.
    Majorana with his studies he was a man of the future.
    If he were here today would certainly be a supporter of
    Rossi / Focardi.
    I’m sure…
    saluti
    Gian Luca

  591. Andrea Rossi

    Gian Luca:
    The “Ragazzi di Via Panisperna” have been the pioneers of the Nuclear Physics.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  592. P Janhunen

    Dear Andrea,

    Concerning positrons in thunderstorms, I find the wpedia page “Relativistic runaway electron avalanche” to be a readable introduction to the topic.

    The main idea is that once an electron moves in air fast enough (with more than 100 eV kinetic energy or so), the average friction that it experiences due to Coulomb collisions with atomic electrons and nuclei gets smaller when the energy gets larger (for lower energies, the reverse is true). Hence, if a fast electron is created by some seed mechanism such as cosmic ray, it can be accelerated until it becomes relativistic. The limit is set by the voltage drop that exists between ground and cloud which can be several million volts. Electrons with such high energies are able to create positrons when colliding with other electrons.

    The faster a charged particle moves, the less time it has to interact coulombically with other particles when passing by. The same mechanism explains why radiation therapy is possible: when a charged particle beam moves through tissue, it deposits most of its energy at a certain depth, not at the skin.
    regards, /pekka

  593. Andrea Rossi

    P. Janhunen:
    Thank you for your interesting and correct explication.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  594. silvio caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    So you will not be allowed to tell us that you received the report (3 days before publishing)…
    But we can ask you daily if you received the report and you will answer “I still do not have information to give.”… Till that day! :-)
    This is like non-destructive quantic measuring :-D
    Quantic Regards

  595. Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    He,he,he…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  596. Dear JoNP Readers,
    while waiting for the ITPR, in my free time I gathered a sort of “LENR theory”. Yet Another one!
    I would very much appreciate any comments/suggestions/sharp criticism … . So I prepared a trivial web site with the “theory” in a pdf document and a blog page for your comments.
    The page is:

    http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/

    The “theory” is more of a collection of ideas comprising the set of what I think are the real LENR reactions (nothing really new as you will read), plus the mechanism that makes them possible. Nothing outside the realm of accepted physics.

    I hope you’ll find it interesting.

    Best regards

    Andrea Calaon

  597. John L

    Hello Andrea,
    I was thinking along the line of using hot molten salt to trigger and regulate the Rossi effect/LENR and as the same time, a medium for storage of the extra heat generated. Perhaps an integration of existing concentrated solar molten salt plant with Hotcats for electric power generation.

    Respectfully regards, John L

  598. Andrea Rossi

    John L.:
    Thank you for the suggestion, that is interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  599. Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers:
    On Science has been published the discovery of the “Majorana Fermion”, so called because it has been hypotised by Ettore Majorana ( fellow student of Enrico Fermi , when they were called “I ragazzi di via Panisperna”). This particle is extremely interesting because it is, at the same time, an elementary particle AND its own antiparticle. The discovery has been made in the Princeton University by the Group of Nadj- Perge.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  600. Hugh D

    Dear Andre,
    Thunderstorm produced positrons
    Thunderstorms produce plenty of positively charged particles and negatively charged particles by forces causing electrons to be added or subtracted by convection from aerosol particles. The result is lightning which is believed to create bursts of positrons.

    “Scientists think the antimatter particles were formed in a terrestrial gamma-ray flash (TGF), a brief burst produced inside thunderstorms and shown to be associated with lightning. It is estimated that about 500 TGFs occur daily worldwide.”

    See http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html

    I am certainly no expert on positrons or antimatter.

    Best regards,
    Hugh

  601. Andrea Rossi

    Hugh D.:
    Very interesting: when NASA is around, there is much to learn.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  602. John L

    Hello Andrea,
    Have you tried to combine a Hotcat with molten salt technologies – any productive outcome?

    Respectfully regards, John L

  603. Andrea Rossi

    John L.:
    No, not yet. What are you thinking about, precisely?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  604. To the readers of JONP:
    My book ‘An Impossible Invention — The Energy Source that Could Change the World’ is now available as an ebook on Amazon:
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O38417S

  605. Andrea Rossi

    Mats Lewan:
    Good luck for your honest and sincere book.
    Andrea Rossi

  606. Pietro F.

    e se cambiasse strategia riguardo la proprietà intellettuale e il prossimo brevetto? Potrebbe seguire il pensiero di Elon Musk, ceo di Tesla:
    And if he changes his strategy regarding intellectual property and the next patent ? Could follow the thought of Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla:

    http://www.industrie-techno.com/tesla-donner-ses-brevets-rapporte-plus-que-de-les-defendre.30696

    buon lavoro.

    Pietro F.

  607. Andrea Rossi

    Pietro F.:
    Our patent strategy is made by out patent attorneys.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  608. Joseph J

    Dear Andrea

    Is the e-cat also suitable for containerized desalination as, for example this company is offering?
    Canadian Clear http://www.canadianclear.com/desalination.html
    Or these http://www.hohusa.net/InsideViews.html

  609. Andrea Rossi

    Joseph J.:
    Maybe.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  610. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    happy Saturday and good Sunday.
    do you give us a warning, when you’ll receive the report?
    If I remember you said “…they will deliver to me the report several days before the publication”.
    “Several” = “3 to 4 days”, you said.
    Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  611. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    I still do not have information to give.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  612. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You mentioned that under the protocol, you will receive a advanced release of the independent report three days before the publication. Are you allowed to reveal that you have received that release?

  613. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  614. LucaS

    Caro Andrea,

    Ti seguo dall’inizio della tua avventura come un tifoso segue la sua squadra del cuore…. e ti auguro un grandissimo in bocca al lupo in vista del prossimo report!

  615. Andrea Rossi

    LucaS:
    Thank you for your kind comment. Let’s hope.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  616. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in October 3rd, 2014 at 2:17 PM

    Hank Mills:
    Coffee.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ————————————–

    Andrea,
    God built the world in 6 days, and in the seventh He drunk champaign.

    regards
    wlad

  617. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    He,he..yes, but I am a servant of God and I need coffee. Hungry and nervous is the perfect state to work for something.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  618. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, Google:
    Thunderstorms Make Antimatter
    Click on:
    NASA Science
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
    USA

  619. Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    Interesting, thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  620. Joe

    Dr Rossi,

    Concerning your question about positrons and thunderstorms, the following might help:

    “And under the clouds the investigators documented extraordinary strikes of “positive” lightning. These bolts were six times as powerful as ordinary “negative” lightning, and they lasted ten times as long.”
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060322sprite.htm

    Maybe that factor of six is directly responsible for the COP of six found in the E-Cat.

    All the best,
    Joe

  621. Andrea Rossi

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

  622. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 3rd, 2014 at 10:33 AM

    Wlad,

    1) ————————-
    In your remarks, you dismiss Dirac and say the difference between your theory and his is that he uses a massive particle and antiparticle(although he states the particles are made up of waves in a string) and your particles are massless photon like particles.
    ———————————————

    Eernie,
    the particle and antiparticle of the aether are not massless. They have mass, but their mass is very very smaller than the mass of electron and positron.
    QRT and Dirac’s theory are similar, the difference is the mass of the particle-antiparticle considered in the two theories.

    .

    2)———————————–
    Since you dismiss SQM do you also dismiss the Higgs field and Higgs Boson?
    ————————————-

    Of course.
    Higgs proposed his theory 60 years ago, when the theorists were sure the space is empty, as proposed by Einstein.

    The experiment published in 2011 by Nature proved that space is no empty, and therefore Higgs theory is wrong.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Light-created-from-vacuum-shows-empty-space-a-myth/articleshow/10789049.cms

    The boson detected in the LHC is not the Higgs boson.
    In 2015, when the LHC will work in full potency, other bosons will be detected.

    .

    3) ———————————
    Dirac envisions his epo as two fields(electron and positron) intertwined and phase related to maintain its character. Isn’t this similar to your particle made up of two fields?
    ————————————

    No.
    My model of double-field of the elementary particles was conceived with the aim to solve the puzzles of the hydrogen atom and the nucleus, not explained in the Standard Model.

    The model of elementary particle proposed in QRT is the following:

    1- a body-ring formed by quarks

    2- the rotation of the body-ring induces a flux of gravitons (distributed in the form of Dirac strings performing spires crossing the ring). The flux of gravitons induces an inner principal electromagnetic field involving the body-ring.

    3- the rotation of the inner principal field induces an outer secondary electromagnetic field (concentric and involving the inner field). This secondary field is responsible for the Coulomb interactions.

    When a nucleon perforates the secondary outer field of a nucleus, it is captured by the flux of gravitons produced by a central 2He4, and so the nucleon takes a place in a region within the principal field of the 2He4, where the nucleon does not experiences the Coulomb repulsions.

    So, in the nuclear model proposed in my QRT, the nuclei aggregation is not due to the strong nuclear force.
    The protons and neutrons are kept thanks to the equilibrium between centripetal force and magnetic force on them. This is shown in my paper Stability of Ligth Nuclei, published in the JoNP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    regards
    wlad

  623. Bill Nichols

    Dear Andrea Rossi…

    Two questions…

    1.) Is the e-cat reaction in any way impacted by changes in Atmospheric Conditions (even if 2nd or 3rd Order)?

    2.) If so, wouldn’t further testing potentially provide additional insight to how the reaction works and is governed?

    We know…THERE ARE KEY ASSUMPTIONS MEASURING TEMPERATURE (KINETIC ENERGY) AND HEAT (POTENTIAL ENERGY + KINETIC ENERGY).

    In other words, do we fully understand what we are measuring? Your temperature probes, a statistical based derivation of differential Q. Examples: Kirchoff’s and Plank’s laws fully valid to name a couple.

    We don’t really know what “gravity” G is…what “charge” Q is (suggest both are relativistic phenomena). Quantum physics is statistical…so essentially is Rutherford…Bohr…Wave models of the atom.

    As an Atmospheric Scientist who worked hi-levels military Stealth technology in 1980′s/1990′s with Radiant, Thermal, Nuclear, Mechanical & Chemical Energy relationships, if question 1 is valid, maybe there are some tests to consider depending on your dataset to better understand what I describe is happening within the Earth-Atmosphere-Solar-Cosmological (EASC) system. Scales of Energy leading to better understanding of our rough grasp of resonance, coherence and harmonics to name a few.

    My decades in these disciplines…offer this is the case…and much of what we have learned is incomplete. Would be surprised if your answer to question 1 is no.

    Don’t we need to understand the relationship of Q (charge…two way force) and G (“gravity”…one way “force”)…since both are used to define ENERGY? Do we really understand force?

    I saw confirmed anomalous heat in early 1990s as a research scientist. So don’t doubt the phenomena.

    If you’ve seen variances per question 1…maybe there are some basic first order tests. You may or may not have considered and done.

    Thanks for the opportunity to ask these two questions, and all the best in your endeavors and hopefully ultimately to a successful report for the e cat.

    Kind Regards,

    Bill Nichols

  624. Andrea Rossi

    Bill Nichols:
    No, atmospheric conditions cannot affect in any way the operation of the E-Cat. Thank you very much for your comment, though, and one question from me: do you know tests that gave evidence of production of positrons during thunderstorms? I am very interested to that effect.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  625. Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    If you were to go grocery shopping in the near future and were required to add one extra item to your list, what purchase do you think would be most appropriate: natural curcumin powder (a natural anxiety reliever), coffee (to get more work done), or champaign?

  626. Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Coffee.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  627. Hello Andrea,

    The rumblings are getting louder and it does seem that the independent report is soon going to be published.

    Regardless of whether the report is positive or negative, your greatest accomplishment may be that you are inspiring people to examine the possibility that existing assumptions can be incorrect, and that things can be better.

    As effective as any artist.

    You do this while attempting to retain the view that you are a spiritual part of something much larger than yourself.

    This is the great gift that I hope to have captured in my film, so that people can be see your example and be inspired to improve other things in the world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHJ6julvoMg

    I enjoyed reading Stephen Hawking’s autobiography where he communicates the idea that he is grateful to have had the opportunity to study, and that he is simply lucky because he “happened to choose an area of science that has not been proved wrong yet”. All things can be improved.

    I look forward to the story continuing.

  628. Andrea Rossi

    Thomas Florek:
    Thank you for your continue attention.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  629. eernie1

    Wlad,
    In your remarks, you dismiss Dirac and say the difference between your theory and his is that he uses a massive particle and antiparticle(although he states the particles are made up of waves in a string) and your particles are massless photon like particles. How do your particles then create mass. Since you dismiss SQM do you also dismiss the Higgs field and Higgs Boson? Dirac envisions his epo as two fields(electron and positron) intertwined and phase related to maintain its character. Isn’t this similar to your particle made up of two fields?

  630. stevehigh

    Dear Andrea:
    My beloved son is a brilliant researcher in nanophysics who is biding his time working as a postdoc at an august New England institution. I’ve been pestering him about the ECat since I first heard of it in January 2011. My question: will there be a place on your team for such a talented individual who has pretty much achieved the bending of heaven and earth in his lab? I expect to be sending him a breathless update on your progress in the near future.

  631. Andrea Rossi

    Stevehigh:
    Your son can send his C.V. and credentials to
    info@leonardocorp1996.com
    Our Group will need to hire and all the requests of employement will be duly examined.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  632. Fabio82

    Dear Andrea, why and how did you start studying lern?
    good luck, I’m very anxious too.
    Fabio

  633. Andrea Rossi

    Fabio82:
    I started few time after the press conference of F&P and the reason has been that I was interested to work with it, being already in the field of energy production.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  634. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 2nd, 2014 at 7:30 PM

    Wlad,
    Sorry, what I meant to say was can the summation of magnetic moments create the null readings in the spherical nuclei.
    ———————————————–

    Eernie,
    I made a mistake.
    Actually it is IMPOSSIBLE.

    Because if in the even-even nuclei with Z=N the total magnetic moment due to protons and neutrons was not zero, then the nuclear spin also would not be zero.
    But those nuclei have nuclear spin zero.

    Therefore the magnetic moment due to protons and neutrons must be zero.
    And so it remains the magnetic moment due to the rotation of the protons.

    regards
    wlad

  635. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 2nd, 2014 at 7:41 PM

    Wlad,
    One more thing. Santilli has a proposed structural form for his neutron. How does it compare with yours?
    ——————————————–

    Eernie,
    Santilli’s model cannot explain the spin 1/2 of the neutron, because he does not consider the helical trajectory of the elementary particles in his theory.

    Also, in my theory I propose a new gravitational Planck constant 1000 times smaller than the electromagnetic Planck’s constant, in order to explain why the electron is not expelled from the nuclei.

    regards
    wlad

  636. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 2nd, 2014 at 7:30 PM

    Wlad,
    Sorry, what I meant to say was can the summation of magnetic moments create the null readings in the spherical nuclei.
    ———————————————–

    There is no way.
    The protons and neutrons have magnetic moment. In the even-even nuclei with Z=N, each proton has a symmetric proton and their total magnetic moment is zero, and the same happens with each neutron, it has its symmetric.
    So, due to protons and neutrons, the magnetic moment is zero.

    For a total null magnetic moment, the protons and neutrons would have to have a total non-null magnetic moment, with the exact value (and with contrary signal) of the magnetic moment produced by the rotation of the protons.
    That would be a very big coincidence.

    Even if the coincidence could occur in the case of one specific nucleus, however the coincidence could not occur for all the even-even nuclei with Z=N, as 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, etc. etc…

    regards
    wlad

  637. eernie1

    Wlad,
    One more thing. Santilli has a proposed structural form for his neutron. How does it compare with yours?

  638. eernie1

    Wlad,
    Sorry, what I meant to say was can the summation of magnetic moments create the null readings in the spherical nuclei.

  639. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 2nd, 2014 at 11:09 AM

    Wlad,

    1) ———————————
    He also,like some of todays scientists and yourself,considered the aether as composed of particles and antiparticles(electron and positron).
    ————————————

    Eernie,
    however there is a fundamental difference.

    The positron and electron have big mass, compared with the mass of the particles and antiparticles proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory.

    The own positron and electron are composed by particles and antiparticles, because they are formed by quarks, and the quarks are composed by particles and antiparticles (those which compose the structure of the aether).

    .

    2) ——————————-
    He went a step further by proposing that each particle also had another opposed form of energy.
    ———————————-

    It is easier to develop a theory dealing with energy, as Dirac did, instead of proposing new particles.
    However, the question is not to find the theoretical easily way. Because in the case the structure of the aether be really composed by several particles-antiparticles, the easier theoretical way fatally will fail.

    .

    3) ——————————————–
    If you want conjectures, I cant think of a situation that allows more of them.
    ———————————————–

    It is not just a question of proposing conjectures.

    There are two sort of conjectures: the good, and the bad.

    When an author starts up by supposing good conjectures, his theory will be compatible with the phenomena observed in the Nature.

    But when an author starts up by supposing bad conjectures, his theory will fail in several aspects, and therefore will be denied by several phenomena.
    An example is the Dirac’s theory.

    .

    4) ————————————-
    On another subject, can the differences between you and the SQM people arise because of the mobility character of the particles that make up the nucleus? I think this does not allow for supposing a single geometrical form, but is composed of a summation of all the possible forms for the nucleons.
    —————————————-

    No.
    My nuclear model has a central 2He4.
    This is the reason why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, according to my Quantum Ring Theory.

    As there is not a central 2He4 in the current nuclear models, then, according to the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N must have spherical shape, and that’s why along 80 years the nuclear physicists were sure that those nuclei are spherical.

    But when I developed my nuclear model, I knew that non-spherical nuclei must have non-null quadrupole moment. As the experiments had never detected non-null quadrupole moment for even-even nucle with Z=N, I had to explain why, according my nuclear model, the experiments never detected the non-null quadrupole moment for those nuclei.
    I proposed the explanation in the page 137 of my book Quantum Ring Theory.

    The authors of the paper published by the journal Nature in 2012 faced the same problem.
    Because, as the experiments published by Nature in 2012 detected that even-even nclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, then why the experiments along the years had never detected their non-null quadrupole moment?
    The explanation proposed by the authors of the paper published by Nature in 2012 is the same explanation proposed in the page 137 of my book.

    .

    5) —————————-
    Could this account for the none null readings of magnetic moments in what is considered spherical nuclei?
    ——————————-

    You did not understand the point.
    In spite of even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape, nevertheless they have NULL magnetic moment, which is confirmed by experiments.

    However, as all the nuclei have rotation, and they have positive charge (protons), the rotation of the protons would have to induce a magnetic moment in the case of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.
    Therefore, by considering the foundations of the Standard Nuclear Physics, the even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot have magnetic moment zero, and so the foundations of the theory are denied by the null magnetic moment of those nuclei.

    So, the Standard Nuclear Physics cannot explain why the even-even nuclei with Z=N have null magnetic moment.
    And this is the reason why the nuclear physicist Dr.Lakshminarayana (author of the present paper published in the JoNP, and also the professor invited by the Dr. Seshavatharam) did not come here to explain such a question.

    regards
    wlad

  640. eernie1

    Joe,
    Good question. You are perhaps asking if there has been evidence that the coulombic repulsion between the negative hole and the electron can be decreased or compensated for in a semiconductor structure allowing the electron to occupy this site. Of course the theory that at extremely low temperatures, the coulombic repulsion between pairs of electrons is mitigated and would allow pairs to be formed(Cooper pairs) thereby producing what is called superconductivity, is similar. This possibly occurs because at decreased temperatures theoretically there is formed a Fermi gas similar to the Boson gas of the BEC. I recall that investigators at a number of institutions are pursuing this question because it could be the basis for an extremely fast 0-1 computer chip.
    I hope I have not misinterpreted your question.

  641. JCRenoir

    Andrea, now the rumors that the report id very close are becoming loud. Are you hearing any whisper of it?
    JCR

  642. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    I too hear the rumors: you said that come from 100 Harley Davidsons, I take notice of what you say.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  643. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir: I am not scared, I am anxious.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  644. DTravchenko

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    How is going the work with the 1 MW plant? Are your troubles more or less than 2 weeks ago?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  645. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    Our 1 MW plant is a magnificence and an ouvre d’art: we resolved the problems we had ( so far…). We have a great team!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  646. colurwin

    Haha ‘Listen carefully’ Andrea, Bond-James-Bond fan or not… Your attitude to internet security was already betrayed by your willingness to click links to posted on this blog!

    Maybe one has over time become blase about the nature of one’s own discoveries?

    Highest Regards
    Col

  647. Andrea Rossi

    Colurwin:
    Nor true, and I cannot explain you why…
    Warm Regards,
    Bond, James Bond

  648. Joe

    eernie1,

    Has an experiment involving the stopping (and perhaps cooling) of an electron ever been done to verify the suspected drop of a low energy electron into a negative hole?

    All the best,
    Joe

  649. JCRenoir

    Also: the rumors ( like 100 Harley Davidsons) are that the results are very important: are you scared?

  650. eernie1

    Wlad,
    I have enjoyed our discussions immensely. Perhaps I did not make myself clear when I asked how was your theory basically different than Dirac’s. He also,like some of todays scientists and yourself,considered the aether as composed of particles and antiparticles(electron and positron). He went a step further by proposing that each particle also had another opposed form of energy. One set he called negative and the other positive. The negative energy particles because they were the lowest energy, filled all the allowed energy levels of the aether and possessed 0 entropy(perhaps dark energy). The positive entities, because they were excluded by the Pauli principal, were free to manifest themselves in the sensible portion of the aether and arranged themselves into stable pairs he called epos. The movement of the epos in and out of the two regions of the aether defined some of the interactions we observe between particles and photons and allow the entire spectrum of frequencies and the mass to energy relationships that exist. If you want conjectures, I cant think of a situation that allows more of them.
    On another subject, can the differences between you and the SQM people arise because of the mobility character of the particles that make up the nucleus? I think this does not allow for supposing a single geometrical form, but is composed of a summation of all the possible forms for the nucleons. Could this account for the none null readings of magnetic moments in what is considered spherical nuclei?
    Regards.

  651. Dear Andrea,
    (Related to your answer to Joseph Fine and previous discussion about AC/DC.) So only AC works as driver, but DC gets produced. Is then DC a poison? If so, there exists counter-poison: oppositely directed DC. Even if the effect is small, maybe possible to obtain extra control parameter this way.
    regards, /pekka

  652. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    The issue is much more complex.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  653. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    He,he,he…
    By the way: the production of direct current is one of the rows of our R&D.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  654. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in October 1st, 2014 at 4:49 PM

    Wlad, We are at a crossroad in our discussion. I will close by suggesting that you reread Dirac with an open mind.
    ———————————-

    Dear Eernie,
    as you said, “Dirac believed he could explain the laws of Nature with his four particles. IMO he did a good job. HE thought that adding more would only over complicate the issues.”

    If the Nature would be working with four particles, be sure that Dirac’s theory would be able to reproduce the whole phenomena existing in the Nature.

    Dirac had supposed that Nature works by four particles. But he had supposed it because “thought that adding more would only over complicate the issues”. However such assumption is not a guarantee that Nature really works by four particles.

    The problem with the scientific method is because it does not allow conjectures.
    Dirac preferred to consider the known existing particles as the electron and the positron, and that’s why he avoided to appeal to a conjecture by supposing other more particles.

    However, if the Nature works via several particles of the aether, then any attempt by using the scientific method fails, because it does not allow conjectures.

    When I was developíng my Quantum Ring Theory, I felt that the Standard Model was not able to explain several phenomena. And then I started to think about several conjectures.
    So, when I was developing my theory, I thought to myself: “My God, the scientists will never accept my theory, because there are so much conjectures in it”.

    For instance, my model of field formed by two concentric fields is a conjecture hard to be accepted.

    But look what happened with other conjecture.

    According to my new nuclear model, the even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape. But a non-spherical nucleus must have non null electric quadrupole moment. And this is the reason why along 80 years the nuclear physicists believed that those nuclei have spherical shape.

    So, as the experiments never measured electric quandrupole moment non null for those nuclei, it seemed that my theory was wrong, and that’s why I thought to myself:
    “The scientists will never accept my new nuclear model, since the experiments never detected a quadrupole moment zero for the even-even nuclei with Z=N”.

    But in 2012 new experiments published in the journal Nature detected that those nuclei have non-spherical shape, as predicted in my theory.

    As you see, the scientists avoid conjectures, because the scientific method does not allow them, and this is the reason why sometimes they arrive to wrong conclusions.

    So, Dirac made a mistake, believing that Nature works by four particles only. He avoided to consider more particles because he wished to avoid conjectures. And he developed a wrong theory, because in the case of the structure of the aether there is need to consider conjectures.
    There is no way to solve the mystery of the aether structure without to consider conjectures.

    And the authors of the paper published by the European Physical Journal in 2013 have the same opinion of mine, since they had proposed a conjecture: the aether is formed by particles and antiparticles, like proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory:
    The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

    regards
    wlad

  655. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi:

    A current is a flow of charge. In a semiconductor, for example, there are negative and positive charge carriers: (An excess of) Electrons and a deficiency of Electrons or ‘Holes’.

    In your device, do you produce both negative and positive charges and/or currents? In this way, perhaps your results can be both Negative AND Positive at the same time!

    Positive regards,

    Joseph Fine

  656. colurwin

    Steven N Karels wrote:

    …and perhaps state-sponsored espionage too

    ——————————

    Perhaps!? I’m not a great conspiracy theorist, but I’m fairly certain there are several darkened rooms around the world devoting themselves to finding out just what’s going on in Dr Rossi’s lab.
    …cf: The Snowden Files

    Maybe The Good Doctor air-gapped his favoutite PC, but I bet the TPR reseachers didn’t.

    My guess is the Russian state is the most interested, as without a high oil price, things won’t be too rosy for them…

  657. Andrea Rossi

    Colurwin:
    How many movies of Bond-James-Bond did you watch this morning? Take it easy, turn into Mickey Mouse!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  658. BroKeeper

    Dear Andrea, while praying, don’t imagine the dark side of the moon. Its light and your work of hope will be reflected back to us all from the Son. Bless you brother.

  659. Andrea Rossi

    BroKeeper:
    Let’s just put down at work…the cow is harnessed, now has to pull.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  660. Andre Blum

    Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for all your hard work and perseverance. As (long time) spectators of your work, we have exciting times ahead, with the upcoming report!

    I was curious: where do you work out of nowadays? Are you still working (at least part time) in Italy? Or are you working more or less permanently in the U.S. now? Is your U.S. base still Florida, or are you spending most of your time in North Carolina or elsewhere?

    Best regards, good luck!
    Andre

  661. Andrea Rossi

    Andre Blum:
    I am always in the USA, mainly in North Carolina and in Florida, focused on my work for Industrial Heat and IH’s Customer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  662. Wladimir Guglinski

    Francesco wrote in October 1st, 2014 at 12:48 PM

    Hi, I can’t understand how you can accept the hypothesis of a negative result of the independent report if you are sure that the so called “Rossi effect” is real and so evident (COP6).
    I don’t want to be polemic but for me is impossible to understand how you can continue to say that the results can be negative although you have worked on this system for so long and you have a so deep comprehension of the phenomena.

    Thank you for you answer.
    ———————————

    Dear Francesco,
    My humble opinion is that Andrea Rossi is sure his eCat works.
    He thinks, though,”The final answer belongs to the scientists who are testing the eCat”.

    When the heart of person stops to work, and he stops to breathe, we are sure that he is dead
    However, we have to wait the autopsy report of the coroner, so that to consider oficially that person as dead.

    So, the test will tell us oficially what we already know: the eCat works. Otherwise Rossi is dead.

    regards
    wlad

  663. BroKeeper

    Dear Rossi, while praying, don’t imagine the dark side of the moon. Its light and your work of hope will be reflected back to us all from the Son. Bless you brother.

  664. eernie1

    Wlad, We are at a crossroad in our discussion. I will close by suggesting that you reread Dirac with an open mind.
    Fond regards.

  665. orsobubu

    Dear Andrea,

    according to Argon’s thoughtful LMAO translation machine, not only you are very near to “your labor exhaustion”, but it seems that, because “your investors need result of your work”, in the effort of “increase your work team” you’re starting a very discutible practice of “delegate …etc” Please clarify urgently this point because this is not what we intend here as a permanent social evolution.

  666. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    I did not publish your comment because “that” word has not right of citizenship in this blog.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  667. Francesco

    Hi, I can’t understand how you can accept the hypothesis of a negative result of the independent report if you are sure that the so called “Rossi effect” is real and so evident (COP6).
    I don’t want to be polemic but for me is impossible to understand how you can continue to say that the results can be negative although you have worked on this system for so long and you have a so deep comprehension of the phenomena.

    Thank you for you answer.

  668. Andrea Rossi

    Francesco:
    We must wait for thr report of the ITP and the operation of at least one year of the 1 MW plant before considering consolidated the technology. In the meantime a huge R&D work will have to be performed.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  669. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 30th, 2014 at 5:15 PM

    Wlad,
    Why do you keep insisting that the only photons in the Dirac theory are the annihilation photons of an epo(511 KeV for the electron, 511KeV for the positron)? In his theory he accounts for the production of all frequencies of the spectrum and only in special cases, for the annihilation of the epos. Why do you think that only those photons are allowed?
    ———————————————

    Dear Eernie,
    an acceptable model of photon must be able to explain the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

    According to the Dirac theory, the photons of the luminous spectrum have energy in the magnitude of 1MeV.

    1MeV is the energy of the gamma rays.

    Therefore, according to Dirac theory, all animals and the human specie would have to be blind, since the energy of the positron-electron photon would destroy the eyes of the whole live beings.

    But the energy of the positron-electron photon would destroy not only the eyes of all alive beings.
    The photons positron-electron with the energy of the gamma rays would destroy the whole life in the planet.

    Dirac theory of the photon is absurd and stupid, and I dont want to talk about anymore.

    You are trying desperately to save the Dirac theory, because you use it in your LERN theory.
    But the science does not work in such a way.
    If a theory is unable to describe a phenomenon, the theory must be discarded, because the phenomenon cannot be discarded (as you are suggesting), since the phenomenon belongs to the range of phenomena existing in the Nature.

    regards
    wlad

  670. Giuliano Bettini

    Andrea, Jean Pierre:
    maybe the issue is not:
    AC has something positive.
    Maybe the issue is: DC has something negative (which gas doesn’t have).
    As a matter of fact, things may be positive, but also negative.
    Magnetic regards
    Giuliano Bettini.

  671. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    I do not know how the consume of electricity has been measured by the Independent Third Party, but I imagine it will be described in detail in the report.
    I know, because they told me before the test, that they have treasured the experience and the critics made after the test made in 2013.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    P.S.
    As per your request, I did not publish your comment.

  672. timycelyn

    Dear Dr Rossi, regarding lead for screening. Do you forsee lead will always be needed for screening e-cats, or only while we are in the early stages of making these devices, with other screening options possible later?

    My concern is that if you look up lead in Wikipedia, current world resources – without additional demand – will be used up in around 40 years.

    My very best hopes and wishes for success!

    Tim

  673. Andrea Rossi

    Timycelyn:
    In our Team there are specialists of the necessary fields and when we need support we ask it from external specialists of our trust. Obviously the control system are a vital part of the plant and your Group can be sure we have top level engineers that have designed it. Obviously we work only with persons who got the necessary clearance, beside the necessary professionality.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  674. orsobubu

    When Steven N. Karels reads Andrea Rossi saying RCPN (Report Could be Positive or Negative), he LOLs. But when I read Steven N. Karels trying every subtle trick to know the nickel particle size from Rossi, I ROTFL. LOL.

  675. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    I agree with you. What we are doing is a team work. A strong team work. Read again the comment of Argon… and my answer to him.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  676. timycelyn1

    Dear Andrea,
    We have been discussing the 1MW plant you have installed at IH’s first E-cat customer, and the experts in our group who have background in the relevant industry and disciplines are stressing the challenge and difficulty of ganging up 100 – odd heat producing units in a heat excanger type situation, and keeping them all within acceptable performance parameters.

    Apparently it is a substantial control systems challenge, even for something as mundane as a gas burner, that could take many months to perfect.

    Our concern was that we knew the World’s ECAT experts were taking care of the ECAT modules at the heart of he 1MW device, but we wondered (no insult meant!!) to what extent you had / had access to the very best experts in these complex control system problems. One of our number summed this up with something like “They shouldn’t try to do everything themselves. They are the ultimate experts when it comes to the ECATs, but they need to get in equivalent experts for the non-ECAT parts of the project.” How do you feel about this worry – have we a point?

    Best wishes and hopes

    Tim

  677. Andrea Rossi

    Rodney Nicholson:
    nice!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  678. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    When the independent report is published and IF IT IS POSITIVE!, A big if, yes we know it can be either positive or negative, but if it is very positive, this could be very troubling for you and your firm. Think of the enormous pressure to produce, to protect your Intellectual property, the increased amount of scams and fake investments which will arise, the enormity of the opposition now becoming competition, etc. You will have awakened many sleeping giants.

    I understand you have taken provisions to obtain a patent and, perhaps, the report, IF POSITIVE, will aid in a successful outcome. But, I suspect, literally billions will flood into corporate and perhaps government research projects into this technology area. And there is the problem of industrial espionage (and perhaps state-sponsored espionage too). I trust your security (IT and personal) are good enough. I hope you are ready to ride the Wave of Success, if the report is very positive. Success can be very difficult in ways you may not have imagined. It seems you have a good Management team, seasoned and strong. And a good technology team. Your thoughts?

  679. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels,
    You have imagined the bright side of the moon. I should have to imagine the dark side of the moon. The consequences of a failure would be devastating.
    In both cases, I will continue, as always, to pray God every morning and then get down to work, because in both cases much work will have to be done by our team. First of all, we want to see the 1 MW plant work well for a long, long time, and make profits for the company of our Customer. I have to focus on this, not on the sides of the moon.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  680. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I think Argon’s suggestion was towards the thought of developing different applications, given you understand the input and output characteristics of the eCat reactor. A suitable simulator could be developed to exercise the heat transfer and/or application.

    Personally, I would think it would divert you from your primary goal of producing a production version of eCats. The industrial companies that want your eCat know best how to convert the output power into their particular application. Having an “army” of support means Management and that takes time and energy (from you). You are doing it right… keep on doing it.

  681. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Thank you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  682. Argon

    Sorry my english is a machine translation. Dear Dr. Rossi! You have a lot of months of hard work up to 16 hours a day. But the timing of the sale of E-cat and remain unclear. It is normal for the industry difficult birth of new products. Thus, the typical cars and planes are still developing teams of dozens of people, and build their thousands. And work of one person does not replace the work of the collective. May be worth more to delegate to the your slaves, increase your work team? It is doubtful that your investors need result of your works your labor exhaustion :) )). I am personally as your little client need a real product – E-cat :) ))
    After the imminent release of the report you will be throwing questions – where e-cat? when the e-cat? What that it is necessary to accelerate the production of e-cat? :) ))

  683. Andrea Rossi

    Argon:
    It is not very easy to understand what you mean, but I try.
    About domestic E-Cats: we will not put them for sale for the time being. It will take time to make it possible, for many reasons I already explained.
    About the other issues: my duty is to continue my R&D work, whatever the results of the ITP report.
    By the way: I am not exhausted, I am used to work hard.
    Suggestion: please write short phrases, so you can take under control what you say… and avoid to write stupidities as the one I cancelled from your comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  684. eernie1

    Wlad,
    Why do you keep insisting that the only photons in the Dirac theory are the annihilation photons of an epo(511 KeV for the electron, 511KeV for the positron)? In his theory he accounts for the production of all frequencies of the spectrum and only in special cases, for the annihilation of the epos. Why do you think that only those photons are allowed?

  685. Argon

    Dear dr.Rossi!
    You will need to work not thirty people, but many dozens of groups and thousands of experienced people. You can have labor subcontractors without loss of your know-how. For this you may give yous future subcontractors a full-featured simulator E-Cat.
    To save your know-how you need to give subcontractors not real E-cat, but its full-featured simulator. Having the same external characteristics. Identical dimensions, capacity, load schedule and everything else like a real E-cat. But without the contents of the active Ni-H nucleus. To put it simply, an electric boiler in the corpus of E-Cat with the electronic control circuit. With big label ‘model emulator E-cat’
    In doing so you will be able to hired your contractors other entire teams and firms. Specialists in steam turbines, energy, power electrics. Specialists in Stirling engines and heating systems of buildings, etc. etc.

  686. Andrea Rossi

    Argon:
    Sorry, but I do not see the point.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  687. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 30th, 2014 at 11:13 AM

    Wlad,
    You must be kidding that the absorption of Dirac photons by a black surface is indicative of violating the conservation of energy. The total absorption is only for the visible portion of the energy spectrum which is a very small part of the energy realm. Even so you agree that, that part of the absorption is completely accounted for and no violation of energy conservation occurs.
    ——————————————-

    No, I am not kidding.

    The energy of a photon in the visible spectrum is between 1,24eV to 12,4eV.

    The energy of a photon composed by electron-positron moving with the speed c of light is:

    E = 2.m.c² = 2x(0,5×10^6 eV/c²).c² = 10^6 eV

    Therefore the energy of the Dirac’s photon is at least 10^5 times larger than the photon of the visible spectrum.

    There is only one way to save the Dirac theory: we have to consider that the visible spectrum does not exist.
    But in this case I dont understand how can I read the comments posted here in the JoNP.

    regards
    wlad

  688. eernie1

    Wlad,
    You must be kidding that the absorption of Dirac photons by a black surface is indicative of violating the conservation of energy. The total absorption is only for the visible portion of the energy spectrum which is a very small part of the energy realm. Even so you agree that, that part of the absorption is completely accounted for and no violation of energy conservation occurs.
    As for Pamela- Boss, there are so many ways 10 MeV neutrons can be generated in nuclear transmutations and nucleus rearrangements your guess is as good as mine. Feynman diagrams will tell you the same thing. Pamela hit her solutions with a sledge hammer and like lightening produced some neutrons of varying energy.

  689. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in September 30th, 2014 at 8:34 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    As you know, I publish all your comments, even when I do not agree with your opinions. The sole comments of you that we spam are the ones in which appear phrases that we deem offensive against scientists that adhere to the Standard Model. Any comment is welcome, independently from the text, so far it does not show lack of respect for anybody who works seriously in the field. We spam as well comments that insult you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ————————————-

    Dear Andrea
    when a scientist betrays the scientific method, neglecting or rejecting some experiments which deny the Standard Model in which he believes, the lack of respect is of the own scientist against himself and against to the scientific method.

    I dont think to reject scientific experiments can be considered a serious attitude

    The serious and acceptable attitude is to be loyal to the scientific method, being honest, in order to recognize when the Standard Model is denied by some experiment, and to confess it.

    So, when a scientist refuses to accept any experiment which denies the Standard Model, the lack of respect is not mine when I call him a betrayer.

    regards
    wlad

  690. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    There is nothing that can’t be discussed with respect. This is why we will continue to spam any comment that is disrespectful toward anybody, independently from the issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  691. Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in September 28th, 2014 at 2:02 PM

    Wladimir,
    Do you ever wonder why your theories are rejected when they do make sense and why paid physicists will not answer your questions.
    ———————————-

    Dear Eric,
    the eCat is being tested by academicians, and if I comment here my opinion on the reason why the physicists do not answer my questions, my comment will not be aproved for publication here.

    Some years in the future the scientific community will realize that I am right, and the physicists in the name of the Science will ask me forgiveness, as the Pope in the name of the Church asked pardon to Galileo, 400 years after his death.

    regards
    wlad

  692. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    As you know, I publish all your comments, even when I do not agree with your opinions. The sole comments of you that we spam are the ones in which appear phrases that we deem offensive against scientists that adhere to the Standard Model. Any comment is welcome, independently from the text, so far it does not show lack of respect for anybody who works seriously in the field. We spam as well comments that insult you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  693. eernie1

    Wlad,
    I agree completely with you when you state there are numerous methods to obtain cold fusion. However I would change it a little to say there are numerous methods to obtain energy from the nucleus and I have so stated in a number of previous blogs. We have already succeeded through hot fusion of Hydrogen and cold fission of Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium. Nature does it many ways through radioactivity. I think it is easy to predict that through insight provided by people like you and other researchers, other investigators will succeed in the future to uncover other methods. Success always unlocks the door to further success by providing incentives.

  694. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 29th, 2014 at 3:31 PM

    Dear Wlad,
    I do not understand your argument about the violation of the energy-mass relationship. Dirac accounts for all the energy waves resulting from mass conversion produced by epo interactions. By the way, many experiments show that photons can be divided, enhanced(doubled in frequency)changed in polarization character, reflected and otherwise manipulated without annihilation. What do you mean when you say it strikes a surface? This will be my last comment on this subject.
    —————————————————

    Eernie,
    when the light bits a black surface, the photon is 100% annihilated, all its energy is absorbed by the surface and converted to heat.

    And from Dirac’s theory the energy of the positron-electron photon is several times biggest than the energy of the light converted to heat.

    regards
    wlad

  695. Italo R.

    Dear Dr. Rossi, have you already seen this site?

    https://pulsodream.com/en/index.html

    If you have already been informed, discard please this mine.

    Ragards,
    Italo R.

  696. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    I lost your comment for a mistake, it is gone lost in the spam when I forwarded it for publication. Sorry for that. Anyway: you asked which kind of support the Professors of the ITP asked to Prof of other institutions.
    Answer: I do not know, but we will read on the report, I think. It is totally futile to make suppositions, let’s wait for the report and eventually read it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  697. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Eric,
    a new paper suggests that the Universe can be like a Swiss Cheese, as I said some days ago.

    The name the physicists are calling such Swiss Cheese is “multiple universes”.
    See figure in the link:
    http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=inflacao-cosmica-balanca-multiverso-ganha-firmeza&id=010130140929#.VCnGcRYUpbE

    The original paper is published here:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.6530
    The new astronomical observation is eliminating the hypothesis of inflationary universe, and therefore it disproves the Big-Bang theory.

    .

    Now,
    if the physisists will finally realize that light can move with speed very lower than c=300.000km/s in the dark matter existing in the space between the multiple universes, they will conclude that the system for measuring the distance between the galaxies is wrong, and this is the reason why from the current theories the galaxies would have to be expelled under the action of the centripetal force.

    regards
    wlad

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.6530

  698. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 29th, 2014 at 11:03 AM

    Wlad,
    My theory of LENR depends greatly on some of the principals of the Dirac theory. One aspect considers that the electrons that make up the electron sphere of an atom originate from the epos contained within one of the neutrons in the nucleus. This creates a proton within the nucleus and the remaining positron of the epo gives the nucleus its + charge. The electron, depending upon the number of nucleons and their make up(ratio of neutrons to protons) remains external to the nucleus sphere within a specific distance and with an equilibrium energy. If the external electron is then forced back into the nucleus(electron capture)the result is generation of a Beta+- emission with the subsequent ejection of the captured electron and either the formation of an isotope or transmutation to another atom dependent on the ratio of neutrons to protons in a specific atomic nucleus along with a neutrino+- and a photon of various energies dependent upon the angle with which the electron approaches the nucleon inside the nucleus. Forcing the electron(most likely a 1s electron) back into the nucleus can be accomplished by applying a negative field to the exterior of the atom’s electron sphere which transmits its effect to the inner electrons through field effects. I call this the Fermi-Alvarez effect since they both were involved with formulating the theory and performing tests to verify the phenomena.
    ——————————————–

    Eernie,

    1- I think there are several different mechanisms for cold fusion, instead of only one. Each mechanism depends on the conditions used in the experiment

    2- How do you explain the emission of neutrons with energy 10MeV in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment?

    In his paper Neutron Emission in the Cold Fusion Phenomenon, Hideo Kozima eliminates one of the d-d fusion as possible explanation for cold fusion:

    “The neutron energy spectra extending up to about 10 MeV and the existence of the CFP in protium systems exclude the CFP in protium systems exclude the d-d fusion from fundamental nuclear reactions responsible for events in this phenomenon.”
    http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.jp%2Fhjrfq930%2FPapers%2Fpaperr%2Fpaperr28.pdf&ei=g7spVNaiAYqF8gG90IHQCA&usg=AFQjCNGHDYJjh5hIgwj-t2VRXD6euoKMew&sig2=lfbBJ8S2pNeT2Hx61pJyng&bvm=bv.76247554,d.b2U

    In the Discussion and Conclusion Kozima says:
    The occurrence of the nuclear reactions resulting in neutron emission in protium and deuterium systems is a decisive evidence of new mechanisms other than d-d reactions supposed to be a cause of the CPF by the pioneers of this wonderful field

    However,
    such conclusion can be wrong, because perhaps the excess energy of the neutrons emitted can be due to the energy of the helical trajectory of the electron, not considered in the standard theories, as I show in the article available in Peswiki:
    How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment

    See the Fig. 9, where the electron loses its helical trajectory when occurs the fusion p+e=n:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:AAAfig9-coldFUSION-pamelaMOSIERboss.gif

    As you may realize,
    to solve such question of the emission of neutrons with 10MeV is fundamental for the understanding of several experiments in the field of cold fusion.

    regards
    wlad

  699. eernie1

    Dear Wlad,
    You continue to misrepresent or read something into my remarks that are not there. You are the one insisting upon the annihilation of the epos as a function of the process and the annihilation of any subsequence photons. You criticize Dirac’s theory based on his relativistic treatment of the Schrodinger equation. Since you insist on not reading into his theories, how can you criticize them? He hardly compares them or can they be compared to any religious form since they are deterministic rather than philosophic.
    I do not understand your argument about the violation of the energy-mass relationship. Dirac accounts for all the energy waves resulting from mass conversion produced by epo interactions. By the way, many experiments show that photons can be divided, enhanced(doubled in frequency)changed in polarization character, reflected and otherwise manipulated without annihilation. What do you mean when you say it strikes a surface? This will be my last comment on this subject.

  700. Dear Andrea and Readers,

    Warning for fraudulent websites claiming ECAT partnership
    29 Sep 2014/in ECAT News/by ECAT
    It has come to our knowledge that a fraudulent website “Pulsodream” has surfaced on the Internet. They are illegally seeking investments related to ECAT products by Leonardo Corporation. “Pulsodream” do NOT have any licenses or rights to sell or market the ECAT under Leonardo Corporation, NOR representing any other Licensee of Leonardo Corporation.

    “Pulsodream” is a total fraud and has been reported to the appropriate authorities.

    Please be aware.

    /The ECAT Team

    - See more at: http://ecat.com/news/warning-for-fraudulent-websites-claiming-ecat-partnership

    Yours Sincerely,
    Magnus Holm,
    Hydro Fusion Ltd

  701. Andrea Rossi

    Magnus:
    Thank you for the repetition. Our specialists have discovered that the Pulso Dream website, apparently from Russia, is in reality directed from Greece. We are continuing to investigate the real source to file a suit.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  702. eernie1

    Wlad,
    My theory of LENR depends greatly on some of the principals of the Dirac theory. One aspect considers that the electrons that make up the electron sphere of an atom originate from the epos contained within one of the neutrons in the nucleus. This creates a proton within the nucleus and the remaining positron of the epo gives the nucleus its + charge. The electron, depending upon the number of nucleons and their make up(ratio of neutrons to protons) remains external to the nucleus sphere within a specific distance and with an equilibrium energy. If the external electron is then forced back into the nucleus(electron capture)the result is generation of a Beta+- emission with the subsequent ejection of the captured electron and either the formation of an isotope or transmutation to another atom dependent on the ratio of neutrons to protons in a specific atomic nucleus along with a neutrino+- and a photon of various energies dependent upon the angle with which the electron approaches the nucleon inside the nucleus. Forcing the electron(most likely a 1s electron) back into the nucleus can be accomplished by applying a negative field to the exterior of the atom’s electron sphere which transmits its effect to the inner electrons through field effects. I call this the Fermi-Alvarez effect since they both were involved with formulating the theory and performing tests to verify the phenomena.
    Regards.

  703. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 28th, 2014 at 10:51 PM

    1)———————
    Wlad,
    We are not talking about electron positron annihilation where the combination mass is converted to energy. It is well known that it results in photons of 1MeV. You didn’t have to calculate it. Are you trying to dazzle me with your knowledge of math?
    —————————————–

    No, dear Eernie.
    I am speaking about the energy-mass conservation law

    When a photon formed by electron-positron hits a surface and is annihilated due to to the collision, all the energy of the photon is transfered to the surface.

    Therefore,
    the Dirac’s photon composed by electron-positron violates the energy-mass conservation law.

    .

    2)——————————–
    I was talking about the results of epo interactions within a physical system where the relationship of electron wave to positron wave produced a wave of a frequency which depended upon all the characteristics of the system.
    ———————————-

    And I am not interested in a theory which works only in those conditions interested to the author (Dirac) and his followers, but it fails in others fundamental aspect, as for instance the conservation of the energy-mass.

    .

    3)——————————
    If you insist that only complete annihilation is the only outcome of epo reactions, we cannot continue discussion.
    ——————————–

    And I cannot bamboozle myself by supposing that the photon does not suffer complete annihllation when it hits a surface, since it is stopped due to the collision and its velocity becomes zero.

    Dirac theory would be very good if the photons were not annihilated with he hits a surface (when they do not have reflection, refraction, etc).

    Unfortunatelly,
    dear Eernie,
    the photon has total annihilation. And I can not pretend it does not happen, just to please the followers of the Dirac theory.]

    I can believe in phantasies, but not when they belong to the field of the science.

    .

    4)—————————–
    If you want to get into a math contest, don’t start with basic relationships. You can get them in any first year physics manual. I don’t appreciate spending time reading perhaps your misinterpretation of my statements. Where do you think those frequencies you mentioned came from. When I was doing electron spin absorption studies in free radicals with magnetic alignments one of the prominent absorption bands was in the 300 GHz region of the spectrum. Please read Dirac’s theory.
    ——————————–

    I cannot waste my time reading a theory proposed by an author who pretends that some phenomena of the Nature do not exist.

    What Dirac proposed is not a scientific theory. Instead of, he actually proposed something like a religious dogma.
    He believed that Nature works only with four particles, because, as you said, “he also believed that the smallest number of proposed particles was the best approach to describing a physical system( Four fundamental particles in his analogy)”.

    Unfortunatelly,
    the Nature does not shares the Dirac belief, and she uses more than four particles (probably because she came to the conclusion that it is impossible to produce all the phenomena by the use of only four particles).
    If the Dirac’s dream would be possible, be yourself sure that the Nature would use it, since she always uses the most simple solutions.

    Regarding to your other words: “He would not be to happy with your use of all the different forms you use to describe your analogy”, I am not interested if Dirac would be happy, or not.
    I have concluded that it is the unique way so that to explain all the phenomena.

    The best would be if Dirac would complain to the Nature, saying: “I am not happy with your use of all those different forms you use to produce the phenomena”

    And she would simply reply to him:
    “Sorry, dear Dirac, I cannot produce all the phenomena I need with only four particles, as you did”

    regards
    wlad

  704. eernie1

    Wlad,
    We are not talking about electron positron annihilation where the combination mass is converted to energy. It is well known that it results in photons of 1MeV. You didn’t have to calculate it. Are you trying to dazzle me with your knowledge of math? I was talking about the results of epo interactions within a physical system where the relationship of electron wave to positron wave produced a wave of a frequency which depended upon all the characteristics of the system. If you insist that only complete annihilation is the only outcome of epo reactions, we cannot continue discussion. If you want to get into a math contest, don’t start with basic relationships. You can get them in any first year physics manual. I don’t appreciate spending time reading perhaps your misinterpretation of my statements. Where do you think those frequencies you mentioned came from. When I was doing electron spin absorption studies in free radicals with magnetic alignments one of the prominent absorption bands was in the 300 GHz region of the spectrum. Please read Dirac’s theory.

  705. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in Sep eernie1
    September 28th, 2014 at 11:24 AM

    Wlad,

    For your other inquiry, Is this a trick question? Of course the spectrum between 3KHZ and 300GHZ can be generated by the epos.
    ————————————————–

    The mass of the electron and positron is m= 0,5×10^6 eV/c²
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass

    The energy of a photon composed by electron-positron moving with the speed c of light is:

    E = 2.m.c² = 2x(0,5×10^6 eV/c²).c² = 10^6 eV

    The energy of the electromagnetic wave with frequence 3Kz is 12,4peV = 12,4×10^-12 e/V = 10^-11eV

    So, the energy of a photon composed by positron-electron is 10^6/10^-11 = 10^17 times larger then the photon with frequence 3Kz.

    .

    The situation is worst with photons with extremelly low frequence, with 3Hz, which energy is 12,4feV.

    Their energy is E = 12,4×10^-15eV = 10^-14eV
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

    So, the relation between the energy of the positron-electron photon and the photon with extremely low energy is:

    10^6 / 10^-14 = 10^20

    regards
    wlad

  706. Andrea Rossi

    DEAR READERS:
    WE HAVE DISCOVERED WHO ARE THE FRAUDSTERS OF “PULSODREAMS”: IS A GANG WHO MADE A CORPORATION IN THE SEYCHELLE ISLANDS; THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS A PAVEL ASIMOV. THE SOURCE OF THEIR WEBSITE IS IN RUSSIA, BUT WE ARE DISCOVERING THE REAL LOCATION OF THIS GANG. OUR ATTORNEYS ARE PREPARING ACTION. PLEASE DISREGARD WHATEVER THEY OFFER, BECAUSE IS A TOTAL, UNDISPUTABLE, FRAUD AND WHATEVER MONEY YOU WILL GIVE THEM, IT WILL BE LOST, BECAUSE WE NEVER GAVE AND NEVER WILL GIVE TO THESE CRIMINALS ANY RIGHT REGARDING OUR PRODUCTS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY UNDER EITHER AN INDUSTRIAL OR FINANCIAL POINT OF VIEW.
    NOW YOU HAVE BEEN DULY INFORMED, BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT.
    WARM REGARDS,
    DR. ANDREA ROSSI, CEO OF LEONARDO CORP.

  707. Alessandro Coppi

    Hi Andrea, I was waiting for a message with capital letters, but not this one!

    …ch’anco tardi a venir non ti sia grave.

    Alessandro Coppi

  708. Andrea Rossi

    Alessandro Coppi:
    He,he,he..
    A.R.

  709. Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, Thanks for your reply regarding my thoughts and your comment about having no time to dwell upon that which you are unable to prove as I know you are busy. I find your comments interesting and food for thought. As for Dirac I was unaware that he distilled physics down to four particles. My simple understanding is that there are only four major densities within nature. Solid-Liquid-Gas-Aether. Three of them being comprised of Aether substance which has the least density when as an unstructured mass. To me the figuer four runs throughout nature. As an after thought and I am curious. Do you ever wonder why your theories are rejected when they do make sense and why paid physicists will not answer your questions. I was once asked in a discussion what’s the difference between a secret and a mystery I said “very little” with no further comment. Best Regards Eric Ashworth.

  710. eernie1

    Wlad,
    Dirac believed he could explain the laws of Nature with his four particles. IMO he did a good job. HE thought that adding more would only over complicate the issues.
    For your other inquiry, Is this a trick question? Of course the spectrum between 3KHZ and 300GHZ can be generated by the epos. Superconductivity and semiconductors are explained by electron-positive holes and pairing of entangled electrons which are a manifestation of epo interactions as a pipeline for electron-positive hole movement without environmental interaction(resistance).Do you have a reason to believe this cannot be accomplished? By the way, have we beaten this subject to death yet?

  711. Italo R.

    Dear Dr. Rossi

    Only for joke: you have to learn chinese language, too..:-))

    Mandarin Regards,
    Italo R.

  712. Andrea Rossi

    ITALO R.:
    I THANK YOU FOR THIS INFORMATION AND I REPEAT AGAIN THAT PULSODREAM IS A FRAUD. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY LICENSE, WE DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND THEIR IS AN ATTEMPT TO STEAL MONEY FROM YOU. IT IS A FRAUD AGAINST WHICH OUR ATTORNEYS ARE ALREADY WORKING. WE DO NOT EVEN YET KNOW WHO THESE CLOWNS ARE !!!
    WARM REGARDS,
    DR ANDREA ROSSI, CEO OF LEONARDO CORPORATION

  713. Pietro F.

    .. se nessuno l’ha ancora informata:
    https://pulsodream.com/en/index.html

    Buon lavoro

    Pietro F.

  714. Andrea Rossi

    PIETRO F.:
    THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION: AS I ALREADY ANSWERED TO PIERO MONGIOJ, THIS IS A FRAUD. EVERYBODY BE AWARE NOT TO PAY TO THESE CLOWNS ANY SUM OF MONEY, BECAUSE WE DO NOT EVEN KNOW THEM AND THEY ARE TRYING TO STEAL MONEY FROM YOU. IT IS A TOTAL FRAUD, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORIZATION AND ALL THEY PUBLISHED IS ABUSIVE.
    PLEASE NEVER PAY MONEY TO ANYBODY THAT OFFERS YOU OUR PRODUCTS WITHOUT FIRST ASKING US IF THEY ARE AUTHORIZED LICENCED SELLERS.
    YOU MAY ASK US WRITING TO INFO@LEONARDOCORP1996.COM
    WARM REGARDS,
    DR ANDREA ROSSI, CEO OF LEONARDO CORPORATION

  715. Piero Mongioj

    Dear Andrea,
    Are they concerned with you?

    https://pulsodream.com/en/index.html

    Un caro saluto,
    Piergiorgio

  716. Andrea Rossi

    Piero Mongioj:
    THANK YOU FOR YOUR INFORMATION: DEAR READERS: IT IS A TOTAL FRAUD.
    PULSODREAM IS TOTALLY UNKNOWN TO US, THEY HAVE USED OUR NAME, MY PHOTOGRAPHY, THE PHOTOS AND EMBODIMENTS OF OUR E-CATS WITHOUT ANY AUTHORIZATION. THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL INVESTMENTS RELATED TO OUR PRODUCTS WITHOUT HAVING EVER CONTACTED US OR OBTAINED ANY AUTHORIZATION.
    THEIR OFFER OF INVESTMENT IS A TOTAL CLOWNERY.
    PLEASE BE EXTREMELY AWARE TO PAY THEM ANY SUM, BECAUSE IT IS A FRAUD AND YOUR MONEY WILL BE TOTALLY LOST.
    OUR LEGAL STAFF IS ALREADY WORKING ON THIS ISSUE.
    AGAIN: DO NOT GIVE ANY SUM OF MONEY TO “PULSODREAM” BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE OUR PRODUCTS, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY LICENSE, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORIZATION OF SORT TO DEAL WITH ANY OF OUR PRODUCTS.
    I REPEAT: IT IS A TOTAL FRAUD.
    WARM REGARDS
    DR. ANDREA ROSSI, CEO OF LEONARDO CORPORATION

  717. Wladimir Guglinski

    UVS.Seshavatharam wrote in 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
    ——————————————

    COMMENT:

    Two couple of days have gone, and nobody did come here to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero, according to the Standard Nuclear Physics

    The nuclear physicist Dr S.Lakshminarayana did not come.
    And also did not come the professor invited by Dr Seshavatharam.

    Dear Mr Jr:
    you use to claim that current Theoretical Modern Physics is able to explain all the physical phenomena

    So,
    may you tell to us why the nuclear physicist Dr S.Lakshminarayana and the professor invited by Dr Seshavatharam did not come here to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero ?

    Perhaps they did not come because they do not know that your stupid definition of nuclear magnetic moment which violates a fundamental law of Physics, according to which the magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N is, BY DEFINITION, equal to zero

    Mr JR
    please invite them to come here to share the solution proposed by you

    regards
    wlad

  718. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 27th, 2014 at 11:03 AM

    he also believed that the smallest number of proposed particles was the best approach to describing a physical system( Four fundamental particles in his analogy). He would not be to happy with your use of all the different forms you use to describe your analogy.
    —————————-

    Eernie,
    science is not a question of taste

    A theoretical model must be able to describe the physical phenomena

    If the smallest number of proposed particles is not able to describe what we observe in the Nature, then we cannot keep our believe that “the smallest number of proposed particles was the best approach to describing a physical system”

    You did not respond to my question:

    The electromagnetic radio waves (frequence between 12,4 feV to 1,24meV) are also formed by positron-electron?

    regards
    wlad

  719. hrabal

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    first of all, thank you for what you did so far, it’s simply wonderful.

    Then a question:

    Could the 1M plant be used to give electricity power to houses or residential buildings?
    I wonder if it may be or will be suitable for giving power to small villages or other different kinds of communities.
    I believe the e-cat’s actual revolutionary strength lies in the use of single domestic units, but, as you said, it needs time for certifications, so I’m eager to see it working even in not a perfect situation to let it speak by itself and give impulse to others in spreading it’s use.

    high regards

    riccardo

  720. Andrea Rossi

    Hrabal:
    So far we are making industrial plants to make heat. One of the main goals of our R&D process is the production of electric energy. About domestic application, you already gave the answer. We are working also in that direction.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  721. eernie1

    Wlad,
    One other thought. You seem to be working in a 4 dimensional relativistic Riemann system space with only time as a non Abelian dimension. Since in such a space the geometry is spherically oriented, and is highly dependent on the velocity factors in the particle(massive or massless) motion, I think many of the values such as magnetic moments can vary continuously with time and what we measure is average or statistical values. This is the basis of many of the theories proposed in SQM, QED, QCD and Relativity. The interpretation of these effects IMO is what leads to the disagreements between scientists.

  722. eernie1

    Wlad,
    Dirac did use the phase differential among other considerations to explain why the electron did not fall into the nucleus. I don’t want to get into a discussion of fundamental criteria, but of course frequency is the number of times the fields of the particles(massive or massless)go from maximum to minimum per second. The variance can be achieved in a number of ways such as the amount of phase difference between interacting entities, angle of approach, dipole length, and many more physical relationships between various particles or waves. Dirac treated all systems as waves stating they all wave. All the above situations of course have been observed and investigated through multiple scientific programs and can explain all the observed frequencies. he also believed that the smallest number of proposed particles was the best approach to describing a physical system( Four fundamental particles in his analogy). He would not be to happy with your use of all the different forms you use to describe your analogy. Dirac was attacked by mainstream scientists(Heisenburg, Plank) using the same arguments you have presented to me. As you know mass and energy are interchangeable and can assume either form at different phases of existence. Please do not become as narrow minded as them?

  723. JCRenoir

    Another question: how is going on the work on the 1 MW plant?
    ICRenoir

  724. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    I cannot answer to questions related to what happens inside the E-Cats, in positive or in negative. Nevertheless, I can answer to your question independently from the E-Cat operation.
    Electrical current is a flow of electrons through a medium plus a transmission of vibration induced by electrons bouncing against each other. This fact produces also a resistance, as if you kick many balls inside a pipe and they proceed in disorder making reciprocal obstacle : this of course makes their path less easy, which means that this produces a resistance, due to the mass od electrons, which are fermions, therefore carry matter ( while bosons carry only force). But: at very low temperatures electrons can team up in pairs so that their spin sums up to an integer number ( electrons have spin never integer, but always plus or minus 1/2, and electrons have spin 1/2): once they combine an integer spin they are turned into bosons ( bosons have spin integer) and bosons do not carry matter, so that their new status allows them to proceed in the condensed matter of the conductor without encountering resistance.
    If you want to understand better, can Google ” BCS Theory”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  725. Curiosone

    Dear George:
    Excuse me for my late answer, but I read only now your comment of 22 september that answered to my comment regarding the “5 Stelle” position on the LENR.
    I am sorry to have misunderstood your position and I understand your reaction. I want also to say that I have given to your movement my vote, because I think that you are the sole political force not rooted by corruption. So I never intended to damage you, I just wanted to ask to Andrea Rossi his opinion about the financing of LENR by the government. What I wrote ( erroneously, as you explained) has been caused by the fact that in the internet ( please sdo not ask me where, because I do not remember) has been written in a journal that in the list of the waste of money spent by the government there were also 4 million euros given to somebody ( not specified) for R&D on the LENR that produced nothing. So I was curious to ask Andrea Rossi’s opinion, that’s all; I never wanted to damage you. Please go ahead with your good work,
    W.G.

  726. JCRenoir

    How can you explain that electrons do not find resistance in a superconductor ? Is this related to the Rossi Effect?
    JCRenoir

  727. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    We are patiently fixing the problems step by step, improving the situation day by day. “Non mollare mai” ( Never give up).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  728. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 25th, 2014 at 9:36 PM

    Wlad,
    Dirac explained that the spins(1/2) of the two particles were out of phase in the string and thereby could not combine.
    —————————

    Eernie,
    there is not in Theoretical Physics an explanation for the reason why the electron does not fall down within the proton

    If the solution proposed by Dirac based on the spins out of phase was acceptable, the theorists would also apply it as explanation why the electron does not falls down within the proton

    ,

    eernie1 wrote in September 26th, 2014 at 10:51 AM

    1) ——————-
    Of course the energy of the generated photon is dependent on its frequency(hv) The frequency of the emitted photon is dependent upon the method of interaction with the external force causing the phase transformation.
    —————————

    Eernie,
    this is the sort of phantasmagoric solution based on the Heisenberg phantasmagoric scientific criterium

    What would be the PHYSICAL MECHANISM capable to produce different frequencies in a photon composed by two corpuscles with the same mass???

    What is the physical mechanism reponsible for the frequency of such a photon??

    What is frequency ??

    Two particles with the same mass, moving always with the same speed c, cannot have different frequencies

    Dirac model of the photon is absurd, it makes no sence from the PHYSICAL VIEWPOINT

    But obviously, from the MATHEMATICAL viewpoint, one can propose any sort of nonsenses (from the PHYSICAL viewpoint), as Heisenberg did

    2) —————————–
    This allows photons to be created throughout the spectrum.
    ———————————

    No, it does not allow it
    The spectrum is possible only if the particle-antiparticle of a photon A have DIFFERENT masses of a particle-antiparticle of a photon B

    The frequency of a photon depends on the mass of the particle-antiparicle

    3) ———————
    All this can be derived by using the Dirac wave equation. Dirac was a quantum rebel since his theory disrupted many of the cornerstone ideas of the leading scientists and he was attacked often. But many of the observed atomic values were able to be derived using his formulas.
    ————————-

    Dirac supposed the aether formed by positron-electron because experiments showed that positrons are created in some reactions

    His theory can work better by considering that aether is formed by elementary particles of the aether (electricitons, magnetons, gravitions, etc)

    ,

    Eernie,
    1- as Dirac suppoosed the photon as a particle, how did he explain the wave feature of the photon?

    2- How did he explain the polarization of light following statistical laws?

    3- What about the electromagnetic waves with very low energy, in the infrared, microwave, and radio?

    The electromagnetic radio waves (frequence between 12,4 feV to 1,24meV) are also formed by positron-electron?

    regards
    wlad

  729. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    In my 40+ years of working in engineering, I have rarely seen a new installation go without problems. Would you characterize the more significant problems as:

    1. Failure by the developer to consider how the eCat was to preform in the customer’s environment?
    2. The Customer not clearly expressing his requirements and needs?
    3. Operator error?
    4. Installation errors?
    5. Performance problems?
    6. A rush to deliver the unit before it was completely tested?
    7. Combinations of the above?

  730. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    As you correctly say, it is impossible that an important plant does not have an initial period of assessment. Our plant is a very complex thing and we are making all the necessary work to deliver it respecting all the guarantees we gave to our Customer. Obviously this work is not public and in due time we will give the due information regarding the operation of the plant.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  731. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Andrea,
    does the ITP have the optimized control systems and, if so, do they have access to the software, or did they just receive a basic drive ?
    Are they allowed to tamper with everything ?

    You continue to answer and comment everyday on this blog. You do this very strictly, even when there is not so much news. It is as if the world is pregnant and we can listen daily only to the heartbeat of the baby.
    I think lots of us are longing to see her/his face and hear the first cry.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  732. Andrea Rossi

    Koen Vandewalle:
    The report, I suppose, will define exactly the protocol of the test. I am not allowed to give any related information before the publication.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  733. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    Is the reluctance of the customer to allow observation of his production setup related to perhaps his not wanting to reveal some of his intellectual property involved in his program?

  734. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    The industry of the Customer is not a theater, nor a show room…it is an industry, with specific issues regarding safety, production and confidentiality. When visits will be allowed and at which conditions will be decided exclusively by the Customer, for obvious reasons and only when all will have been stabilized and consolidated.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  735. eernie1

    Wlad, Since the epo of Dirac is in the form of EM spinor fields, they can move as a massless unit such as the photon. Of course the energy of the generated photon is dependent on its frequency(hv) The frequency of the emitted photon is dependent upon the method of interaction with the external force causing the phase transformation. This allows photons to be created throughout the spectrum. All this can be derived by using the Dirac wave equation. Dirac was a quantum rebel since his theory disrupted many of the cornerstone ideas of the leading scientists and he was attacked often. But many of the observed atomic values were able to be derived using his formulas.

  736. The Wright Brothers took years after their first flight to make a public display their world changing invention. If you actually have something, you must know it will have a greater effect on our world than a mere aeroplane, and your name will describe a new age. Then again, if you have nothing to show after all these months, you must know your name will have other connotations.

    I’m glad I have other things to think about.

  737. Pietro F.

    Buongiorno ing. Rossi,

    il vostro cliente é un fornitore di servizi (tipo riscaldamento) o un produttore industriale?
    Your client is a provider of services (such as heating) or an industrial manufacturer?

    Buon lavoro

    Pietro F.

  738. Andrea Rossi

    Pietro F.:
    Our Customer is a manufacturer, and uses the 1 MW plant for his production.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  739. H-G Branzell

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    You say that a negative third party report will encounter no obstacles to be published by a reputable scientific journal. I beg to differ with that opinion. You have told us that a negative report would be one that finds a COP < 1 + error margins. Considering the very low interest that the established scientific community has shown in the Rossi effect I think that a negative report will meet with the same interest from the scientific journals as a report stating that apples are still falling to the ground in the autumn.
    Kind regards, H-G Branzell

  740. Andrea Rossi

    H-G Branzell:
    You may be right. Anyway, the report will be published by the ITP independently from the fact that it can be positive or negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  741. Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    What would happen if the customer were forced to stop his production suddenly by some reason, so that the 1 MW plant would have to go in idle mode, without prior warning? Is there already a solution for such a scenario?

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  742. Andrea Rossi

    Andreas Moraitis:
    Of course. Also is provided a solution in case of malfunction of the 1 MW plant, by means of a back up made using the traditional energy source.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  743. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I understand that you believe my previous comment about “poisons” was another attempt to extract information that you do not want to reveal — which it was. The question came up when I saw a video on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)which claims to be much more efficient (compared to uranium reactors) at using the available nuclear energy, that it is inherently safe and, if true, it might be a serious competitor to the Rossi Effect reactors for large scale energy production.

    In the video, the thorium is consumed, releasing the energy. At some point in time, you will reveal how the energy is generated with the Rossi Effect. Why not now?

    In the future, I suspect, you will describe what is required in the reconditioning process to recycle the fuel and to ensure it can be done in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. These actions will be required before the Rossi Effect reactors will be publically accepted as being among the viable energy production technologies. So you will answer the questions, it is only a matter of when.

    And of course, I must comment that my reaction to your response could have been either positive or negative. (LOL)

  744. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Surely in due time and situations we will give due information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  745. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 25th, 2014 at 9:36 PM

    Wlad,
    Dirac explained that the spins(1/2) of the two particles were out of phase in the string and thereby could not combine. When they were in phase(Caused by an external force)the spins added and formed a photon(spin 1) which then traveled at the velocity of light down the connected strings.
    —————————

    Eernie
    then all the photons would have to have the same energy, since the electron and the positron have always the same mass, and they always move with the speed of light.
    But each photon has a different energy.

    In QRT the particle is formed by the agglutination of positive electricitons. The more quantity is of electricitions, heavier is the energy of the photon. While the antiparticle is formed by the glue of negative electricitons.

    2)
    This is why the photon always assumes the velocity of light with respect to the position of the observer since the rotation of the EM fields in the strings was at the speed of light. He would say your photon was the combined fields of a positron and an electron.
    —————————–

    As the electron and the positron have mass, having the speed of light they would have infinite mass, according to the Einstein’s equation.

    Besides, an aether formed by positron-electron would be detecable by experiments

    regards
    wlad

  746. eernie1

    Wlad,
    Dirac explained that the spins(1/2) of the two particles were out of phase in the string and thereby could not combine. When they were in phase(Caused by an external force)the spins added and formed a photon(spin 1) which then traveled at the velocity of light down the connected strings. This is why the photon always assumes the velocity of light with respect to the position of the observer since the rotation of the EM fields in the strings was at the speed of light. He would say your photon was the combined fields of a positron and an electron.

  747. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    In conventional nuclear reactors, there are elements and isotopes generated during the normal nuclear reaction which eventually “poison” the reaction, thus necessitating the removal and reprocessing of the nuclear rods.

    1. Is there an equivalent in the Rossi Effect reactor?

    2. Are “poisons” created or generated which require the reprocessing of the fuel?

    3. Or does the portion of the “fuel” that is active in the reaction disappear or become inactive/ineffective?

  748. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Do you understand that this comment of yours ( and my answer) can make of Orsobubu a permanent LOL- contortionist ?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    P.S.: Steve, my friend: I am not laughing at you, I am laughing WITH you. You understand why, I’m sure.

  749. Giuliano Bettini

    Roberto:
    eventually, I think, if the results are positive, Italy will receive a “golden tapir”, to have lost an opportunity.
    http://nonciclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Tapiro_d‘oro.jpg
    Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  750. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    Maybe.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  751. Dear Dr. Rossi,

    You have stated that the Third Party Report could have positive or negative results in their summary. A third possibility is that the results of their testing could be reported as “inconclusive” due to repeatability problems with inconsistent startup and shutdown issues, or sudden shutdown or temperature control variations. Based on your current research and testing do you feel that an “inconclusive” summary judgement in the Third Party Report is unlikely or is this a probability due to the technology not yet being mature?

    Again I wish you the best of luck to counter the 1,000 scientists who say “Climate change is not statistically” real. The earth needs your help.

    Best Regards,

    Daniel G. Zavela

  752. Andrea Rossi

    Daniel G. Zavela:
    I do not know.
    Thank you for your kind wishes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  753. eernie1

    Wlad,
    My question was based on your claim to have proposed a particle antiparticle structure for space. That is what Dirac proposed when he suggested space was comprised by the electron(particle) positron(antiparticle)combined in an EM field string. Can you elaborate on how this is different from your proposal?

  754. Wladimir Guglinski

    Wladimir Guglinski
    September 25th, 2014 at 3:55 PM

    eernie1 wrote in September 25th, 2014 at 10:43 AM

    Dear Wlad,
    How does your theory of the aether differ from that of Dirac. He proposed that the aether consists of strings composed of a positron and an electron whose form is an electromagnetic wave(epo) rotating at the speed of light.
    —————————————–

    eernie,
    but the main difference between my theory of aether and that of Dirac is because his theory is impossible.
    Because an electron and a positron have fusion when they meet together, producing pure energy. The Universe filled by the aether conceived by Dirac would instantaneously explode in a big bang.

    In my model of aether the particle and antiparticle have no fusion, because the repulsive gravitons avoid them to fuse together.

    Thanks to the repulsive gravitons the particle and antiparticle of the photon do not have fusion.

    Such a question was not solved by the authors of the paper published in 2013 by the European Physical Journal, because in spite of they had proposed that the space is filled by particles and antiparticles, however they do not explain why the particle and antiparticle do not fuse together.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7#page-1

    The reason why the authors of the paper published by the European Physica Journal did not solve such question is because they did not conceive a complete structure for the aether.
    They proposed an ad hoc theory, so that to explain the experiment published in 2012 by the journal Nature, which proved that the space is not empty.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Light-created-from-vacuum-shows-empty-space-a-myth/articleshow/10789049.cms
    As because the experiment showed that space is not empty, and it is able to create light, the authors of the paper published by the European Physical Journal felt the need of proposing a structure for the aether.

    Unlike, my model of the aether had been conceived taking in consideration several questions, as the structure of the photon, the structure of elementary particles as the proton and electron, and the structure of the atomic nuclei.
    That’s why I arrived to a complete structure for the aether

    regards
    wlad

  755. eernie1

    Wlad,
    Are you saying that Dirac is wrong? The epo is totally existing as an EM field in the string until it exits the string and converts to what is perceived as mass or as an ejected photon traveling at the speed of sound. The mass differential in the conversion of a neutron to a proton is due to relativistic velocity considerations between the quarks in the nucleus. Please review his theory.
    Regards.

  756. Dear Andrea.
    Thank you for responding. My query in a nut shell is that alternating current and its associated accompanying magnetic field are associated with a REVERSAL over a cycle and as time goes by.
    DC does not provide this. The ECAT does not work on DC, only on AC.
    I cannot see that a gas heated ECAT is associated with any
    REVERSAL effect. Therefore, since DC does not work then why
    should gas heating? I hope you can provide the missing link?

    Keep up the good research and the very best wishes to you.
    Jean Pierre.

  757. Andrea Rossi

    Jean Pierre:
    Sorry, I cannot give you this information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  758. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in September 25th, 2014 at 10:43 AM

    Dear Wlad,
    How does your theory of the aether differ from that of Dirac. He proposed that the aether consists of strings composed of a positron and an electron whose form is an electromagnetic wave(epo) rotating at the speed of light.
    ————————

    eernie,
    a space composed by positron and electron makes no sense, because they both have mass, and the space would interact with the matter with motion, having friction.

    Besides, the light could not travel in such a space

    regards
    wlad

  759. gillana

    Dear A. Rossi
    Considering the type of reaction absolutely abnormal, compared to the classical nuclear fusion (not hard gamma rays nor neutrons), and any other reaction capable of a COP> 1, it is understandable that scientists are very careful before producing a report on an accredited peer reviewed magazine, for which the delays are understandable. Report in question is confined to verifying that the energy produced is greater than the energy provided or could provide a scientific analysis of the data that may bring to a theoretical explanation of the phenomenon?
    Many regards
    Gillana

  760. Andrea Rossi

    Gillana:
    I will be able to answer when the report will be delivered. I have not a clue. I know that the Professors of the ITP asked help from other important institutions. We’ll see.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  761. alutam

    Andrea,
    Problems?!
    Please repeat after me:
    “I don’t have problems, I have opportunities!”
    Doesn’t that feel better?
    Best regards.

  762. Andrea Rossi

    Alutam:
    I don’t have problems, I have opportunities ( x 10)
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  763. Dear Andrea,
    (Off-topic)A recent physics news: black holes don’t exist (http://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/).

    They performed a coupled hydrodynamics and general relativity numerical simulation of stellar collapse, including also self-consistently the effects of Hawking radiation emission. The result: an event horizon never forms, the star loses mass by Hawking radiation just fast enough to prevent horizon (black hole) formation. To an external observer whose time is much dilated in comparison to the object itself, it looks like a very dark almost holelike region, but internally what happens is that the star collapses to a minimum size and then bounces back because it loses a lot of mass by Hawking radiation. The bounce back looks internally like an explosion (or “fireworks” as the authors say), but to an external observer is looks like the faint Hawking radiation which slowly evaporates the object away.

    Probably a lively discussion among physicists emerges from this. To me the analysis looks good and seems to make physical sense.
    r:/pekka

  764. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Very interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  765. barty

    Dear Andrea,

    thank you for that information. It’s good to hear that this problems are “only” minor problems.
    Such kind of problems you always have to resolve ;)

    But it is good to hear that the problems are not major resp. “critical” about your “rossi effect” (not working at general or something else).

    Good luck and best regards from germany!
    barty

  766. Andrea Rossi

    Barty:
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  767. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    What you have in your installation program are bugs which are uncovered in any first field test. Just look at Apple with their introduction of the I-phone6 or Boeing with the 787. Nothing unusual.

  768. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    Yes, exactly; anyway, in my life I have designed and installed hundreds of industrial plants, never had the luck to see one pass through the first period of several months without troubles. This is NOT an exception.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  769. barty

    Dear Andrea,

    are the problems your team has to resolve minor or major problems?
    Maybe you only have to adjust some values to fit your customers needs?

    Best regards from germany
    barty

  770. Andrea Rossi

    Barty:
    We have a lot of minor problems; obviously I cannot give the particulars; also, we have to adjust the plant to the particular needs of the Customer, as you correctly said, therefore, as usually, from problems are born more problems. Lot of work to do.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  771. Dear Andrea,
    Perhaps your robot has dumped my two previous emails to you at JONP (Rossi Blog Reader) The first was on 20Sept 2014 and the
    second was on 24 Sept 2014. I am well-disposed to both you and your research. I would at least very much appreciate an acknowledgement of the arrival of these two emails even if you
    are not prepared to answer my question. I have been following JONP comments for about three years now and this is the first time that I have submitted a question to you. I am like curiousone (ie curious) and have only good intentions. Jean Pierre

  772. Andrea Rossi

    Jean Pierre:
    We did not receive your former comments, probably the robot anti-spam has eaten them. Please send your comments again, possibly from another address, or be sure you have not links with advertising.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  773. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for your response regarding the 1 MW plant. Are you still planning on allowing visits to the plant in the near future?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  774. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    In the near future is impossible. In future yes, but I cannot give a scheduling, because it depends on what the Customer thinks: we are not in the factory of Industrial Heat, we are in the factory of a Customer. Presently we have problems to resolve.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  775. eernie1

    Dear Wlad,
    How does your theory of the aether differ from that of Dirac. He proposed that the aether consists of strings composed of a positron and an electron whose form is an electromagnetic wave(epo) rotating at the speed of light. One end of the string is positive and the other end is negative and the strings aligned +- throughout space. This is the reason for instantaneous causality and gravitational attraction. In this sea of epos there exists clumps of epos that make up the particles we call quarks that make up the protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus. The fundamental particle is the neutron that degenerates into the proton with the emission of an electron from one of the epos inside the neutron and which is then captured as a field rotating about the nucleus. All other characteristics of matter can also be explained both empirically and mathematically by further analysis of his analogy. His theory also contains a possible quantum state below the lowest allowed energy level(Deep Dirac Level(DDL))which can explain the proposed Hydrino.

  776. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    What’s the current status of the E-Cat plant you have installed at your customer’s site?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  777. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    We are resolving problems, in a preliminary phase. It will take at least one year before considering consolidated the situation.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  778. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi, Chris Johnson,

    Here is the link to abstracts from the Supercritical CO2 conference:

    http://www.swri.org/4org/d18/sco2/abstracts.htm

    Please turn on the lights!

    Joseph Fine

  779. Andrea Rossi

    Joseph Fine:
    Thank you!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  780. Wladimir Guglinski

    ON THE FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE

    Dear Eric,
    the Big-Bang theory was conceived from the idea that the space is empty, and therefore not suitable to have contraction.

    By considering the space filled by aether, we are able to suppose that the Universe is like a Swiss cheese , where the holes are the galaxies (with aether with low density), and the cheese is the dark matter (aether with big density).

    Our system to measure the distance between stars works well only within our Milky Way galaxy.

    As the light moves slowly in the dark matter, the method to measure the size and the distance between the Earth and stars in other galaxies is wrong.

    So, suppose that the cosmologists calculate as being R the radius of a galaxy. Such size R is based on the calculation taking the speed of light as being c=300.000km/s.
    Therefore the velocity of the stars situated in the perimeter of the galaxy is v= w.R , where “w” is the angular velocity.
    The observations are showing that with such velocity v= w.R the stars of the galaxy would have to be expelled by the centripetal force.

    And suppose that the speed of the light in the dark matter is actually c=30.000km/s, i.e., 10 times slowly.

    The angular velocity w of the rotation of that galaxy is not changed by the error of calculation, because the time for the galaxy to make a full turn does not change.

    However, as the speed of light in the dark matter is c/10, and not “c” as the astronomers use, then the radius of the galaxy is actually R/10.
    So, the true velocity of the stars in the perimeter of that galaxy is v= w.R/10, a velocity 10 times slowly than the cosmologists are calculating.
    And therefore the stars in the periphery of the galaxy will not be expelled, as wrongly believe the cosmologists.

    Obviously I have taken as c=30.000km/s the speed of light in the dark matter only as an example, because we actually dont know what is the true speed of light in the dark matter.

    So, I think the cosmologists have to change their ideas with respect to the formation of the Universe by discarding what the idea of Einstein’s empty space had suggested to them up to now.
    They have to start to consider the aether in their reflections on the formation of the Universe.

    However, it is hard to hope they will do it.

    regards
    wlad

  781. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in September 24th, 2014 at 8:46 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Of course the Journal of Nuclear Physics is open to publish any answer or comment the EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL deems opportune to react with vs your declaration.
    =================================

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    of course I will enjoy very much if the Editor of the EJP come here to explain why I have not the right of the paternity on the proposal for the structure of space formed by particle-antiparticle, published in my Quantum Ring Theory in 2006, and the merit for the paternity is actually due to the authors who published their paper in 2013 in the European Physical Journal.

    However, as a thief never comes back to the place he had stolen, I have doubts if the Editor-in-Chief of the European Physical Journal decides to come here to explain the reasons why the paternity of the idea is not mine.

    regards
    wlad

  782. Chris Johnson

    Dr. Rossi,

    Are you aware of the Echogen supercritical CO2 electrical generator? The first units are in final industrial testing at Dresser Rand, a large steam turbine company.

    See http://www.echogen.com/documents/waste-heat-to-power-applications.pdf and http://www.echogen.com/our-solution/

    In their testing, they use a heat exchanger in the 400C flue gasses to drive the closed CO2 loop. I’m sure that it would be even more efficient with the higher temperatures available with the Hot Cat. Their test units are 300KWe, but they are working on a 7.5MWe unit.

    GE has licensed the technology for marine applications, and Dresser Rand is an investor in the company. They had a presentation at the DOE supercritical CO2 symposium earlier this month (see http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Events/2014/co2%20power%20cycles/Supercritical-Symposium-program-2014-FINAL.pdf) .

    Best Regards,
    Chris Johnson

  783. Andrea Rossi

    Chris Johnson:
    Thank you for the interesting information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  784. Wladimir Guglinski

    LAW SUIT AGAINST THE European Physical Journal, BECAUSE OF PLAGIARISM

    Dears readers of the JoNP

    In 2013 the Eureopean Physical Journal had published a paper where the authors proposed a structure for the space, which would be formed by particle and antiparticle.

    Such structure of the space (aether) formed by particle and antiparticle was proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory, published in 2006.

    The Editor-in-Chief of the EPJ did not accepted my suggestion so that to publish a note in the journal, in order to credit to me the paternity of the theory.

    I dont have money, so that to suit in law the European Physical Journal, by plagiarism.

    That’s why I went with an interpellation in court against the sbf Brazillian Society of Physics-SBF, where I require to the SBF to suit in law the European Physical Journal.

    My request has judicial merit, because according to the Statute of the SBF that entity has the obligation of taking care about the rights and interests of the Brazillian physicits.

    The Law Suit against the European Physical Journal is translated to English by the Google and published in the Peswiki link bellow:

    Law suit against European Physical Journal
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Law_suit_against_European_Physical_Journal

    regards
    wlad

  785. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Of course the Journal of Nuclear Physics is open to publish any answer or comment the EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL deems opportune to react with vs your declaration.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  786. Wladimir Guglinski

    THE FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE

    Eric Ashworth wrote in September 24th, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    3. When people refer to dark matter are they referring to aether? because I would say this is a mistaken label.
    ==========================================

    Dear Eric,
    I dont think the Big-Bang is a good theory.

    In 1990 I supposed another mechanism for the formation of the Universe, by considering the space filled by aether, as follows.

    In the beggining, there was only aether.
    Due to the contraction because of the actuation of the gravity, in several places of the Universe the aether started to have a big density, under big pressure. Each of these places would become a galaxy.

    When the pressure in several points of those places became very high, suddenly the very dense aether started to have a collapse (a big implosion). In such implosion the aether was converted to the form of hydrogen (protons and electrons).
    Each of those points were stars.

    But each of those implosions consumed aether. In order that, in the space of each galaxy the density of the aether had a strong reduction.

    However, in the regions between two galaxies, in spite of the aether had a big contraction (and therefore it became very dense), nevertheless the pressure was not sufficient for the ignition of the implosions.
    Therefore in the regions between the galaxies there is today aether with very big density. And perhaps such very dense aether is just dark matter.

    The speed of light in the aether with big density (outside the galaxies) is very slowly than here in the interior of the galaxies, where we live, and where we make our experiments, by supposing that the density of the space is the same in the whole Universe, and where we measured the speed of light as being c=300.000km/s.
    So, our system of measuring the distances between the Earth and the stars is not correct.

    However, this is only speculation.
    And that’s why I have no interest to discuss it, since I cannot prove it.

    regards
    wlad

  787. Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in September 24th, 2014 at 2:09 PM

    1. The understanding of an aether substance. Because aether has no charge and it only responds to empty space it is undetectable by equipment because equipment is not empty space.
    ============================================

    I think aether is undetectable by equipment because the elementary particles of the aether do not interact directly with the matter (atoms) via experiments with low speed. Aether does not interact even with light. The aether supplies the electricitons, magnetons, and gravitons for the formation of the body of the photon and its gravito-electromagnetic field. Such supply of particles and antiparticles by the aether is the unique interaction with the light, and so there is no way to detect the aether.

    Aether interacts with matter via experiments where the speed of the particle is near to the speed of light.
    For instance, the experiment which measured the growth of the mass of the electron moving very fast. The growth of mass according to Einstein’s equation is consequence of the interaction with the aether.

    2. Aether represents a value of absolute size. Empty space represents a value of absolute volume.
    =========================================

    Empty space does not exist.

    3. When people refer to dark matter are they referring to aether? because I would say this is a mistaken label.
    ==========================================

    I dont know what is dark matter.
    Such a hypothesis comes from the cosmology. I think that, as some misunderstandings are occurring in the atomic and subatomic levels, probably in cosmology also some mistakes are occurring.
    For instance, we dont know if the density of the aether is the same in the all regions of the universe far away of the presence of stars.
    In the case the density of the aether is larger in the perifery of the galaxies, this could explain why the stars are not expelled from the galaxies by the action of the centripetal force.

    However, I dont want to discuss on the puzzles of the cosmology, because we have so many puzzles in the atomic and subatomic levels, and we have to solve the earlier than the puzzles of the cosmology.

    3. Regards energy. This I believe is connected to a charge which is matter and of which is comprised of aether. The degree of energy is directly related to the velocity value of the charge. Compressed aether has more energy than that which is less compressed. Aether whether as a free substance or in the make-up of matter has an affinity for empty space.

    4. To provide for a duration of life between two pieces of matter with strong opposing charges there is need for a resonating barrier of aether matter able to expand and contract and thereby repulse each charge from the resonator thereby maintaining a necessary distance between the two opposing charges.
    ==========================================

    In my model of elementary particles, the electron does not fall dawn into the proton because the inner field Sp(e) of the electron has repulsion with the inner field Sp(p) of the proton.

    The attraction proton-electron is due only to the Coulomb attraction between their outer fields Sn(e) and Sn(p).

    When the outer field of the proton is perfurated, so that two protons share a common outer field, they do not experience the Coulomb repulsion, and this is the reason why there is no need the strong nuclear force for the aggregation of the nuclei. The nuclei are aggregated by magnetic forces.
    The reason why two protons cannot form a stable diproton is explained in my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published here in JoNP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    regards
    wlad

  788. Italo R.

    Dear Dr. Rossi, today it is Sunday and in this day people generally rest from own work.
    How are you passing the time today?
    Kind Regards,
    Italo R.

  789. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    You say that new rumors hit your ears: was it a brumm brumm or a bramm bramm? If you specify, I can better understand: maybe a Harley Davidson, but also could be masons working to remake the facade of a building. Unless it is a whisper: in this case can be Andrea Rossi that suggests you not to take in any consideration the rumorists. I do not know how the report will be and I do not know when it will be published and if I do not know these things you can be sure that the rumorists are just displacing idle acoustic waves using their tongues as propellers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  790. H-G Branzell

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    If the long-awaited report turns out to be negative do you think that any scientific journal will publish it?

    Kind regards, H-G Branzell

  791. Andrea Rossi

    H-G Branzell:
    If the report of the Independent Third Party ( again thank you for the proper correction) will turn out to be negative, do you think there will be anybody, in the scientific context and outside, that will not publish it ?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  792. Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, While you are waiting for a reply from Dr Lakshminarayana. Perhaps you could comment on some of my thoughts with regards to aether and energy as I am intrigued by it. This is what I think and I shall try to keep it brief. 1. The understanding of an aether substance. Because aether has no charge and it only responds to empty space it is undetectable by equipment because equipment is not empty space. Aether represents a value of absolute size. Empty space represents a value of absolute volume. A value of size will always fit within a value of volume. This strange terminology is because I am refering to aether. The same applies to matter which is comprised of aether. When people refer to dark matter are they referring to aether? because I would say this is a mistaken label. For me matter has to have gravity and thereby has physical attributes. 2. Regards energy. This I believe is connected to a charge which is matter and of which is comprised of aether. The degree of energy is directly related to the velocity value of the charge. Compressed aether has more energy than that which is less compressed. Aether whether as a free substance or in the make-up of matter has an affinity for empty space. To provide for a duration of life between two pieces of matter with strong opposing charges there is need for a resonating barrier of aether matter able to expand and contract and thereby repulse each charge from the resonator thereby maintaining a necessary distance between the two opposing charges. If velocity of a charge is responsible for the energy content then maybe the conundrum regarding P+E = N could be explained by the acceptance that nature being physical comprised of aether is not static in its evolutionary progression but travels a distance over a duration of time. I shall attempt to explain. When the proton, the electron and neutron are formed providing a physical mass, the neutron maintains its necessary work of resonating between the proton and the electron. With evolution and the change of environment due to progression i.e. into a more positive zone that activates fission the proton responds accordingly and fuses down being a value of size energy while the electron fisses out being a value of volume energy. The neutron resonating between also responds accordingly and thereby travels a greater distance over the same duration of time and in doing so increases the energy content of the unit. If this is so, then time-distance-velocity is part of the energy equation. Could any of what I think help explain some of the puzzles in modern physics. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  793. Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in September 23rd, 2014 at 11:49 PM

    Wladimir,

    Am I correct in assuming that your theory is something to do with what I have breifly described.
    ——————————————–

    Dear Eric,
    it is hard to know it, because there is no way to understand your theory without figures.

    My model of field is like a desire of engineering, with figures showing the two concentric fields and the fluxes of the particles of the aether moving in them.

    When my paper will be published by the JoNP, you will be able to verify if your theory is similar to the mine

    regards
    wlad

  794. Wladimir Guglinski Sir

    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

  795. Hi Andrea. We have done research and found similarities between old ineffective computer software, and ineffective personal relationships. We present the results of our research in this song.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UICS8g20nUA

    (As always, reviews of the song could be positive, or negative).

    :-)

  796. Andrea Rossi

    Thomas Florek:
    Thank you, very nice.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  797. domenico canino

    Dear Andrea,
    a few days ago, Rockefeller family, one of the most important in US financial area, announced they to leave their fossil fuel energy investments. Do they know (and do you know) if something of game changing energy world assets is happening?
    Clear regards

  798. Andrea Rossi

    Domenico Canino:
    Let’s wait for the results of the ITP and the R&D on course, positive or negative as they might be.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  799. Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of the JoNP:

    I sent the email ahead to Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana:

    ————————————————–
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com; lnsrirama@yahoo.com
    Subject: your paper published in Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics
    Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:30:44 -0300

    Dears Dr. Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana

    I posted a comment in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, where I ask your opinions about a fundamental question in Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    wlad
    ————————————————–

    .

    Dr. Seshavatharam sent me the following reply:

    ————————————————–
    Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:05:49 +0430
    Subject: Sir, please send by mail if possible …… Re: your paper published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics
    From: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    ————————————————–

    .

    Then I sent to his email the comment posted here in the JoNP, and he sent me the following second reply:

    ————————————————–
    Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:24:20 +0430
    Subject: Please let me have a couple of days.. sir
    From: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    ————————————————–

    .

    Dr. Lakshminarayana. who works in the Dept.of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
    Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India, did not send me any reply.

    So, it seems to me that nuclear theorists know that it is impossible to explain the magnetic moment zero of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, but they neglect such unforgivable failure of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    Therefore, sincerelly it seems to me that nuclear theorists do not face seriously the challange of eliminating the inconsistence of the Standard Nuclear Physics, because there is no way to eliminate the inconsistences by neglecting fundamental questions which point out to them that they are working in the wrong way.

    Such sort of theoretical work is a clear manner that any theorist can use so that to deceive himself, and also they deceive peoples as our friend Mr. JR, hidding to them the fundamental questions where the current nuclar models have not solution for the puzzles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  800. Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of the JoNP:

    In my comment of September 23rd, 2014 at 7:23 PM I made a mistake, saying that 6C12 has four protons. But such mistake is because in my nuclear model there is a central 2He4, and only four protons gyrate in orbit with radius R.
    However, the quantity of protons makes no difference. The existence of any quantity of electric charge in the even-even nuclei with Z=N imply that their magnetic moment cannot be null, because of the rotation of the nucleus.

    regards
    wlad

  801. Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, As I have told you many times I am not academic and therefore lack technical language. You state, in my paper ‘Aether Structure for Unification between gravity and electromagnetism’ submitted for publication in JONP it is shown etc. etc. that all elementary particles have two concentric grivito-electromagnetic fields. Am I to understand that you theorize that every elemental particle has gravity within it producing an inner field i.e. one that penetrates to the inner gavity and an outer electric field that circumvents the exterior and that these fields have a common point of origin. If this is what you have theorized then your theory is in keeping with my own which I have demonstrated as the unifying field factor and embodied it into a technology. The inner field/gravito field of any structure I refer to as ‘the economy flow system’ and is responsible for maintaining the structure for a specific duration of time. It’s the intensity of the inner gravity together with its field that dictates the lifetime of the structure hence the word economy. The outer electro magnetic field is the connection to the outer exterior gravity/environment. Between the inner gravity and the exterior gravity is where these two circuits have a common location and are responsible for unifying the structure into a stable mass. As the mass progresses along its path of evolution the structure enters into more positive zones of fusion which produces more fission energy. The two circuits respond to the environment and consequently the gravito/economy field collapses and the outer magnetic field increases, hence the structure falls to pieces under evolutionary law, which I believe could be stated as ‘that which is created must eventually be destroyed’. Am I correct in assuming that your theory is something to do with what I have breifly described. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  802. Wladimir Guglinski

    Fundamental question to be responded by Dr. Seshavatharam and Dr. Lakshminarayana, authors of the paper herein published:

    Dears professors,

    There are fundamental questions in Theoretical Physics which, if not responded by a theory, imply in the unacceptability of the theory.
    It is the case of a fundamental question impossible to be solved by any nuclear model based on the Standard Nuclear Physics, from whose fundamental principles is impossible to explain the null nuclear magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with Z=N.

    Indeed, consider for instance the nucleus 6C12. It has null nuclear spin and null magnetic moment, because the spin and magnetic moment of each pair proton-neutron is cancelled by a symmetric pair proton-neutron.

    However, all nuclei have rotation. So, as the 6C12 has four protons, and they have electric charge, the rotation of the four charges induces a magnetic moment. And therefore, the 6C12 cannot have null magnetic moment, according to the current nuclear models based on the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    To solve such question is fundamental for the enterprise of eliminating the inconsistences of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
    Any nuclear model, unable to explain why even-even nuclei with Z=N have magnetic moment zero, is unacceptable.

    In my paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in JoNP four months ago, it is shown that the null magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with Z=N can be explained by considering that all elementary particles (as proton, electron, neutron, mesons, quarks, etc.) have two concentric gravito-electromagnetic fields.

    So, if we finally realize that such puzzle of Nuclear Physics can indeed be solved via the adoption of a double-field for the elementary particles, it means that the current nuclear models of the Standard Nuclear Physics cannot solve the puzzle because they are developed from the concept of mono-field existing in the current Quantum Field Theory.

    Besides,
    suppose that the double-field exists in the Nature.
    This means that is impossible to solve the puzzles of the Standard Nuclear Physics by any theory developed from the concept of mono-field, as the nuclear theorists are trying nowadays.
    The nuclear theorists are trying to solve the puzzles of Nuclear Physics via the adoption of mathematical solutions, but if the physical structure of the field of elementary particles existing in Nature has a double-field structure, then obviously any attempt made via the concept of mono-field cannot be successful.

    In my opinion such fundamental question regarding the null magnetic moment for even-even nuclei with Z=N cannot be neglected in the Nuclear Physics, because if the the nuclear theorists neglect it they will never succeed in their challenge of eliminating the inconsistences of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    Besides, such question is fundamental for the answer of another fundamental question:
    Is it possible to eliminate the inconsistences of the Standard Nuclear Physics via the current concept of mono-field considered in the current Quantum Field Theory?
    Or
    there is need to adopt the new double-field concept of elementary particles?

    I would like to know the oppinion of yours, regarding such fundamental question

    regards
    wlad

  803. Vincenzo Bonomo

    Egregio Dr. Rossi, come forse ricorderà dalle mie precedenti mail dove affermavo che Lei aveva realizzato sostanzialmente un acceleratore atipico di particelle, sono qui ad interrogarmi sul perchè non abbia mantenuto il fattore di forma toroidale della sperimentazione di Bondeno, rivelatosi molto efficace nella fase di autosostentamento come constatò lo stesso Prof. Focardi, inoltre è mia ferma convinzione che alla base dell’Effetto che porta il Suo nome ci sia la superconduttività dell’idrogeno metallico, fenomeno favorito dal catalizzatore segreto noto solo a Lei.
    A proposito di quest’ultimo ho elaborato un’ipotesi che vorrei sottoporre al Suo giudizio (negli ovvii limiti di riservatezza del caso) anche per avere il Suo benestare per la pubblicazione sul blog 22Passi dell’amico Daniele Passerini, ovviamente se per qualunque motivo ritenesse opportuno rimandare più in là nel tempo la pubblicazione di quest’ipotesi mi adeguerei senza problemi alla Sua decisione.
    Dalla pubblicazione del Prof. Fabio Cardone “VERSO IL NUCLEARE PULITO” riporto il seguente stralcio: “Sin dal 1939 era stata stilata e poi sempre più perfezionata la tavola periodica dei nuclei atomici usando come criterio la massa del nucleo, data dal numero dei suoi componenti, e l’energia di legame specifica ottenuta dividendo l’energia di legame del nucleo per il numero dei suoi componenti, questa veniva chiamata l’energia di legame per componente. Tutti i nuclei a partire dal più piccolo, il deuterio, fino al più grande, l’uranio, erano ordinati secondo il valore crescente di questa energia di legame per componente. Tra i due estremi vi è il ferro che si trova circa a metà tra deuterio ed uranio, inoltre il ferro possiede il valore più alto della energia di legame per componente tra tutti i nuclei degli elementi ed in più il ferro è inerte cioè non è radioattivo. Per questa sua proprietà di avere l’energia di legame più alta il ferro è il più svantaggiato per produrre energia nucleare ed anche il meno incline a farlo. Scherzando si può dire impropriamente che il suo nucleo è e quindi sarebbe l’elemento meno adatto da considerare, almeno secondo il normale buon senso, come avrebbe detto Fermi. Ma tutto questo in condizioni normali, ossia di spazio piatto. Viceversa nello spazio deformato delle forze nucleari, il ferro si trova invece in posizione avvantaggiata. Infatti se vi è una soglia di energia da raggiungere, che è al disopra di tutte le energie di legame, il nucleo con l’energia più alta è quello più vicino, quello che a parità di potenza fornita la supera per primo tra gli altri nuclei e, cosa più importante, nel minor tempo.”
    Ebbene mi chiedevo se il ragionamento del Prof. Cardone si poteva applicare al nitruro di titanio che da superisolante in opportune condizioni di temperatura, pressione, ecc. poteva trasformarsi insieme all’idrogeno metallizzandolo e rendendolo superconduttore.

    In attesa di un Suo cortese riscontro Le faccio i miei migliori auguri per il Suo importantissimo lavoro e Le invio i più cordiali saluti.

    Vincenzo Bonomo

  804. Andrea Rossi

    Vincenzo Bonomo:
    Our protocircuit in Bondeno was just experimental and not fit for industrial applications. It was not a particle accelerator, just a water loop. For the rest of your comment, I respect your opinion, but it has nothing to do with our work. Next time you send us a comment, please translate it in English, because most of our Readers do not speak Italian. I published it anyway, maybe some Italian Reader is interested to what you wrote. My answer, anyway, contains the substance of your question; regarding the work of the competitor you cited, I never comment the work of our competitors.
    Thank you for your kind wishes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  805. @george

    since I can only judge of M5* question via google translate, can you confirm that M5* simply
    - state that LENR show promising development including some commercial (E-Cat among I suppose)
    - ask what is the plan of the government for public research and initiative

    Is it correct ?

    It seems far from the idea to close ENEA LENR research ?

    from this report
    http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf
    and this conference
    http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/news/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect-paving-the-way-for-a-potential-new-clean-renewable-energy-source/
    it seems ENEA too try to push LENR in Europe ?

  806. Gian Luca

    Thanks a lot Mr.George for your clarifications.
    This is very important for all italians who follow LENR
    and the energetic destiny of their country.

  807. George

    Curiosone, please check rigorously your source of information, to avoid to spread around wrong news.
    Regards,
    George

  808. Andrea Rossi

    George:
    Thank you for the correction of the information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  809. George

    Dear Curiosone, before making statements FALSE on M5S should inquire or mention the source.
    Stop throwing mud at those who work on issues such as difficult as the LENR.
    I enclose the link that proves its falsity and reliability. Shame on you

    However, Andrea Rossi has repeatedly said he is not interested in public funding.
    http://banchedati.camera.it/sindacatoispettivo_17/showXhtml.Asp?idAtto=15181&stile=6&highLight=1

  810. Curiosone

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    I read that the “Movimento 5 Stelle” party has proposed to the Italian government to cancel the funds so far granted for the research in the LENR field made in the Frascati Laboratory by Francesco Celani, saying that that work has produced nothing in years and costed to the taxpayer millions of euros. Did Celani or his laboratory participate to your R&D or to your work in some measure?
    Thank you,
    W.G.

  811. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    First of all, I never comment the work of our competitors. Therefore, without commenting the quality of the work made by the Competitor you cited, I must say that we never worked with that Laboratory, directly or indirectly and also that we are not interested to their work, based on what they have published so far about their results. In line of principle, as you know, I repeatedly said that I do not believe in public funding of LENR, for many reasons; we always have refused any proposal of funding coming from Taxpayers. This is a personal point of view . If an apparatus works, money comes from the Customers and from private investors. Obviously my opinion can be wrong and I perfectly understand that it is connected with the vast and complex issue of the pure research, independent from immediate application opportunities. But many distinctions have to be made if we enter in this universe.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  812. Curiosone

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    Did you see the documentary “Particle Fever”, of Kaplan? Is the story of the quest for the iggs Boson in the LHC of CERN, from the initial fier in 2008 to the discovery of the Higgs; I liked it very much.
    W.G.

  813. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Yes, I watched “Particle Fever” and I agree with your opinion. Is very interesting and is a successful example of how difficult physics issues can be explained in a way to be understood from the non physicists.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  814. Wladimir Guglinski

    Lex wrote in September 16th, 2014 at 3:45 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    The generally adapted theory on the creation of elements in the universe states that new elements can only be created under extreme energy level conditions. Now it seems that inside your E-Cat nickel is transformed into cupper at low energy level conditions, what would that mean for the theories on the creation of elements and the creation of the universe? Does your E-Cat fits in this theory?
    ———————————————

    Andrea Rossi replied in September 16th, 2014 at 4:22 PM

    Lex:
    LENR are not that simple, and you cannot resolve the problems just thinking that you can have nuclear reactions with low level energy: it is not that simple. What does not happen in Nature can happen with a mechanism that in Nature does not exist. Nature can take one billion years to make a stone travel from the Alps to the Adriatic sea, but with a truck you can make it faster and without all the meteorytes crush tests, the earthquakes, the floodings, the hurricanes, the you think it you put it, that you need to get Nature make the logistics.
    What I can say is that the so called Rossi Effect does not violate any law of the Standard Model.
    ————————————————–

    Eric Ashworth commented in September 20th, 2014 at 1:03 PM

    My understanding of your reply is that what does happen in nature can be accelerated using a mechanism. Therby the Rossi effect is a process of nature that does not violate the standard model.
    ———————————————

    COMMENT:

    Dear Lex,
    cold fusion occurs only in special condictions, and one of them is the need of having resonance between the nucleons which have fusion.
    In order to have such resonance, there is need to apply a suitable electromagnetic field with a specific frequence.

    Cold fusion does not occur in core of the Sun, because the extreme condictions does not allow two nucleons to have fusion withe help of that suitable frequence.

    However, perhaps cold fusin may occur in the heliosphere of the Sun, where perhaps the condition is more favorable for the occurence for cold fusion. Indeed, the heliosphere has a temperature of 1.000.000ºC, while the temperature of the surface is only 6.000ºC.
    There is no explanation for such phenomenon according to the current theories of Physics, and perhaps the high temperature in the heliosphere is due to cold fusion.

    In spite of Andrea Rossi claims that the Rossi Effect does not violate the Standard Model, but even if that it is true however the Standard Model is violated by the results of two experiments, one made by Don Borghi (1993) and other made by Elio Conte (1999).

    The two experiments show that a neutron can be formed from the fusion proton+electron at low energy (this is impossible according to the Standard Model).

    In the Borghi experiment, he used an oscillatory electromagnetic field which frequence is in the same magnitude of that used in the Rossi’s eCat. So, the resonance in the Borghi experiment occurs in a way similar of that which occurs in the Rossi’s eCat.

    Rughero Maria Santilli tried to repeat the Borghi experiment in several universities of the Europe, between 1994 and 2000. He was banned from all the universities.
    So,
    as all the universities in Europe had refused to repeat the Borghi experiment, then Santilli undertook to repeat it in the laboratories of the Institute for Basic Research, in 2006:
    Confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment on the synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons
    http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608229

    Cold fusion occurs via some mechanisms which violate the Standard Model.

    If the Rossi’s Effect violates, or not, the Standard Model, is another question. In order to respond such question, there is need to know what elements and condictions exist within the eCat, and we dont know them.

    As Andrea Rossi knows what exists within the eCat, he is in a best condition to propose a theory. However, after the moment when he reveals what he uses within the eCat, we will analyse his theory, so that to verify if, indeed, the theory explains the Rossi’s Effect without to violate the Standard Model.

    regards
    wlad

  815. Alexvs

    Dear Mr. Rossi.

    Could you recommend an available book upon atomic nucleus?.

    Thanks in advance.

    Alexvs

  816. Andrea Rossi

    Alexvs:
    I strongly recommend:
    Norman D. Cook – “Models of the Atomic Nucleus”, Springer ( Berlin ) – 2010 ( 2nd edition).
    Find it also by Amazon.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  817. Steven N. Karels

    Roberto,

    The 2009 patent states “… hydrogen is injected into the metal tube containing the highly pressurized nickel powder having a pressure, preferably though not necessarily, from 2 to 20 bars.” The bar is a metric unit of pressure, defined by the IUPAC as exactly equal to 100,000 Pa. It is about equal to the atmospheric pressure on Earth at sea level.

  818. Roberto

    Caro Andrea,
    probably you can’t give this information, anyway, how is the hydrogen inside the E-CAT: is it at atmosferic pressure or higher?
    Ciao, Roberto

  819. Andrea Rossi

    Roberto:
    I gave this information in the patent granted to me in 2009, with priority April 2008: the pressure is higher.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  820. Curiosone

    Why so much time is necessary before an important paper is published? I am asking independently from your specific case.
    Thank you for your patience,
    W.G.

  821. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Obviously you are talking of the “OPERA” team of CERN, experiment made in March 2012. That has been a very unfortunate case: they got 5 Sigma, before making the press conference. If you remember, I published a comment on this blog, immediately after the press conference, writing that there was probably a mistake due to the error margin of the instrumentation. When you obtain a result that is very, very close to the error margin of the instrumentation, the hunch’s Sigmas could not tell the whole story. As a matter of fact it turned out that a loose cable that connected their master clock to a GPS receiver led to a delay in the timing that has been measured by their detector.
    Who doesn’t make mistakes cast the first stone.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  822. Eric Ashworth

    Andrea, Regards your reply to Lex Sept. 16th What you state is ‘What does not happen in nature can happen with a mechanism that does not exist in nature. Nature can take a billion years etc. but with a truck you can make it faster etc.. Also the so called Rossi effect does not violate any law of the standard model’.

    My understanding of your reply is that what does happen in nature can be accelerated using a mechanism. Therby the Rossi effect is a process of nature that does not violate the standard model. It is this reference to the standard model involving the evolution of energy within nature that I have always thought was an unknown and why LENR have not been taken seriously. Am I correct? or am I missing something?. My own theory is that nature, excluding the two absolutes, is sandwiched between these two extremes, these being the absolute fission and fusion states but nature moves from the beginning of fusion which is out of fission into full fusion and consequently into fission. Transmutations I believe are a neccesary requirement to adapt to a foreign environment or you could say adapt into a more positive environmental state thereby distance and time are part of the transmutation equation with regards nature. Just a thought prompted by your analogy. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  823. Andrea Rossi

    Eric Ashworth:
    I confirm what I said. Thank you for your insight.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  824. DTravchenko

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    How much is the pressure from journalists in this period?
    Warm Regards,
    D.T.

  825. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    No pressure at all: I am declining any request of interview from any side since December 2013, friendly or hostile as it could be. It’s time to work, not to talk.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  826. Steven N. Karels

    Hank Mills,

    I have also heard speculation about adding some level of deuterium to natural hydrogen to increase the eCat reaction efficiency. I recall in the early days, Andrea Rossi reportedly enhanced the isotopic distribution of his fuel. Back then, we all assumed he was referring to nickel. But in a general sense, the hydrogen could also be considered a fuel. So adding deuterium would be consistent with AR’s earlier comments. Going against this are some tests reported earlier that adding deuterium “poisoned” the nickel-hydrogen reaction but that was not done in the eCat configuration.

    Obviously, we do not need to worry about particle size for the hydrogen or deuterium as they are gases at the operating temperatures. Still, if a catalyst was found to convert their diatomic nature to a single atom, that might facilitate the eCat reaction. But, this is all speculation. I can neither confirm nor deny whether it is positive or negative (LOL).

  827. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    rotfl

    rolling on the floor laughing

  828. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Got it!
    Rolling Regards,
    A.R.

  829. Curiosone

    Do you remember what caused the error of the “discovery” of neutrinos faster than light in CERN ? How many Sigma did obtain the physicists who made it before making a press conference?
    Thank you,
    W.G.

  830. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    The steps are:
    1- make the test
    2- data are collected and distributed to all the authors
    3- if the data are millions, thousands of discussions and emails will be exchanged by the authors
    4- the authors have to make independently their own analisys on data, samples, etc
    5- the authors will ask to their peers to replicate the analisys on data, samples, etc
    6- data have to be compared with expectations
    7- every author writes his part of the report, based on his specialization
    8- when a draft of report is ready, every author reviews the parts of the other authors, and they reciprocally review their work and their calculations, analisys, etc
    9- when a text of report is agreed upon, the authors ask further reviewing from colleagues
    10- the report is given to the magazine, which makes its own peer reviewing.
    Said this, use as a calculator your good sense and tell me: do you think a total time between 6 month and 1 year is reasonable ?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  831. DTravchenko

    Attention: you are receiving “innocent” questions that, bit by bit, are stealing IP…
    Warm Regards
    D.T.

  832. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    In this blog I receive important information too. It’s a matter of leverage.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  833. JCRenoir

    If you cannot answer, I understand, thank you all the same,
    JCRenoir

  834. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    One year from the start up.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  835. Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    You have already said this before, but to quench some speculation taking place on the internet could you state again, for the record, no deuterium (other than the tiny amount found in ordinary light hydrogen) is added to the E-Cat or Hot Cat?

    Thank you.

    Hank

  836. Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    I do not give information about this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  837. orsobubu

    In the answer to Italo R., who says that wars are due to oil, Andrea Rossi writes that “the roots of wars are deeper: during the stone age men killed each other not for lack of stones. Cain did not kill Abel for lack of apples.”

    This is absolutely correct. Most of the wars today are placed in the new framework of global relations that began to take shape in the 90s, with the federation of the Euro and the rise of Asia and China in particular. In the relations between powers, what matters is not the specific event but the historical process leading to the event and that is intrinsic to the structure of the system itself, the capitalistic production system and the imperialistic political order (Kissinger). It is from the womb of politics that the wars take their origin (Klausewitz), being the result of objective causal chains, from a society in which the human species is not consciously master of its own destiny. The states and the wars between the states are irreconcilable expressions of the conflict between classes: the uneven economic and political development changes the relationship between the powers, calls for a strength showdown and leads to the breakdown of the international order. (Guido La Barbera, La nuova fase strategica, 2014)

  838. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    Rolling On The Floor Laughs ?
    Laughing Regards,
    A.R.

  839. JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi:
    How much time will you need the 1 MW plant work before considering it reliable and start a mass production?
    Thank you for your time to answer,
    JCRenoir

  840. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobibu
    ROTFL: ?
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  841. Andrea Rossi

    Got it.
    Thank you,
    Warm regards
    A.R.

  842. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    LOL

    abbreviation
    informal

    Laughing out loud; laugh out loud (used chiefly in electronic communication to draw attention to a joke or amusing statement, or to express amusement):
    ‘I love how you said ‘coffee is not my cup of tea’. LOL!’

  843. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I knew that you could not comment on the nickel particle size or anything else that goes on within your eCat reactor. However, you previously stated that the nickel particle size does affect eCat performance. This analysis confirms that statement. Of course, the analysis maybe incorrect or correct, so it may be viewed as either positive or negative. (LOL)

  844. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    In some comment, as in your last one, I found the acronym “LOL”: forgive me for my ignorance, what does it mean, exactly?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  845. Steven N. Karels

    Particle Size Analysis – eCat 10kW Reactor

    Given a Hot eCat, can we derive the minimum nickel particle size consistent with the particle not melting?

    Nickel specific heat capacity: 0.44 Joules/ (g * C)
    Nickel melting point: 1,455C
    eCat External Surface Temperature: 1,000C
    Nickel density:7.81 g/cc
    eCat reactor average output: 10kW

    Assume allowed nickel particle temperature increase is 200C.
    Assumed nuclear energy released per nuclear event: 3MeV
    Assumed amount of nickel fuel in one eCat reactor: 5 grams

    Assuming the nickel fuel is in the form of small particles (spheres) located immediately inside the eCat cylinder, then the average nickel particle temperature must be around 1,200C. So the nickel particle size must be larger enough to absorb a single nuclear event energy release without melting.

    Amount of energy released = 3MeV = 4.8 * 10^^-13 Joules per nuclear event.
    So the amount of mass of each nickel particle must be equal to or greater than 4.8 * 10^^-13 J / (200C * 0.44 J/(g * C) = 5.45 * 10^^-15 grams. The volume of such a particle would be 5.45 * 10^^-15 g / 7.81 g/cc = 6.98 * 10^^-16 cc. The volume for a sphere is 4/3 * pi * radius^^3. So the diameter must be about 11 microns.

    Number of nickel particles: 5 grams / 5.45 * 10^^-15 grams per particle = 9.2 * 10^^+14
    Nuclear events rate: 10,000J/sec / 4.8 * 10^^-13 J/event = 2.1 * 10^^+16 events / sec
    Average event rate for a single nickel particle = 2.1 * 10^^+16 events/sec / 9.2 * 10^^+14 particles = 22.7 events / sec

    Given the larger number of assumptions used, I would guess the nickel particles are 1 micron or larger.

  846. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    All I had to say is written in my patent.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  847. WaltC

    Dear Andrea,
    This may be premature, but do you know if the publisher of the ITPR2 will require payment for us to access the ITPR2 journal article?

    Thanks,
    Walt C.

  848. Andrea Rossi

    WaltC:
    I hope the Report will be published also in a way that will allow free access to the Readers, but, as you know, this does not depend on me.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  849. Tom Conover

    Hello Andrea,

    Just wondering, you mentioned that September you would be exceptionally busy this year. 3 questions not related to IP for you to consider, if possible.

    1) Are the automated production lines running properly?
    2) Have you shipped 5 or more 1MW plants during Aug and Sept?
    3) How many man hours does it take to assemble a 1MW plant?

    Thank you for answering if you are able to do so, and for your pioneer work and perseverance!

    Warmest regards,
    Tom

  850. Andrea Rossi

    Tom Conover:
    1- We are not yet in a situation that justifies an automated production line, but we have already part of them and the designs for the complete operation. Obviously, before we launch a mass production we need first of all to evaluate the report of the Independent Third Party, the results of at least one year of operation of the 1MW plant in the factory of the Customer and the follow up of our R&D process. Probably you think all this takes too much time: you have not idea of the thousands of thousands of particulars you have to adjust; the more you work, the more you have to work because new problems are born from former ones. It is a permanent ( Hi, Orsobubu!) struggle.
    2- No.
    3- This information is not available to the public.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  851. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    On the topic of nickel particle size, you referred me to your Italian patent and then said the question was previously answered. I offer this analysis to bound the particle size:

    Particle Size Analysis – eCat 10kW Reactor
    Nickel specific heat capacity: 0.44 Joules/ (g * C)
    Nickel melting point: 1,455C
    eCat External Surface Temperature: 1,000C
    Nickel density:7.81 g/cc
    eCat reactor average output: 10kW
    Assume allowed nickel particle temperature increase is 200C.
    Assumed nuclear energy released per nuclear event: 3MeV
    Assumed amount of nickel fuel in one eCat reactor: 5 grams

    What is the smallest size particle diameter that could function within an eCat reactor?

    Assuming the nickel fuel is in the form of small particles (spheres) located immediately inside the eCat cylinder, then the average nickel particle temperature must be around 1,200C. So the nickel particle size must be larger enough to absorb a single nuclear event energy release without melting.

    Amount of energy released = 3MeV = 4.8 * 10^^-13 Joules per nuclear event.

    So the amount of mass of each nickel particle must be equal to or greater than 4.8 * 10^^-13 J / (200C * 0.44 J/(g * C) = 5.45 * 10^^-15 grams. The volume of such a particle would be 5.45 * 10^^-15 g / 7.81 g/cc = 6.98 * 10^^-16 cc. The volume for a sphere is 4/3 * pi * radius^^3. So the diameter must be about 11 microns.

    Number of nickel particles: 5 grams / 5.45 * 10^^-15 grams per particle = 9.2 * 10^^+14
    Nuclear events rate: 10,000J/sec / 4.8 * 10^^-13 J/event = 2.1 * 10^^+16 events / sec
    Average event rate for a single nickel particle = 2.1 * 10^^+16 events/sec / 9.2 * 10^^+14 particles = 22.7 events / sec

    Given the larger number of assumptions used, I would guess the nickel particles are 1 micron or larger.

  852. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    I can’t comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  853. Lata

    Hi Andrea,

    You had recently said that you can selectively activate the Rossi Effect in a single nano grain of fuel. Is it possible to build a small pebble or lump of NiH fuel with a few grains always activated? The pebble will always be smoldering like the small pilot flame on gas stoves. Then you can ignite the whole pebble when needed.

    Regards,
    Lata

  854. Andrea Rossi

    Lata:
    I did not say that. You probably misunderstood what I wrote.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  855. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 17th, 2014 at 6:43 PM

    Wladimir,

    You write,
    “Therefore, as the experiment detected a magnetic field, it means that there is need to have an electric field too.”

    But if there would be an electric field, that means that there would necessarily also be a nonzero resultant electric charge on the photon (perhaps under certain conditions). But since the photon is never observed as charged, the presence of a magnetic field is unexplainable in the context of QRT (as well as QM and QFT).
    =========================================

    Joe,
    as I said, the particle and antiparticle are separated by a distance “d” very short regarding the size of the electromagnetic field.
    The two particles behave as they were in average one unique corpuscle.

    There was not up to now a technology able to detect the non-zero resultant of the electromagnetic field.

    The non zero magnetic resultant also was never detected before the experiment published in August 2014 in the Nature Photonics.

    But now, thanks to the new technology, we know that the photon has a non zero magnetic resultant ( in spite of, in average, the magnetic field is zero).

    regards
    wlad

  856. Joe

    Wladimir,

    You write,
    “Therefore, as the experiment detected a magnetic field, it means that there is need to have an electric field too.”

    But if there would be an electric field, that means that there would necessarily also be a nonzero resultant electric charge on the photon (perhaps under certain conditions). But since the photon is never observed as charged, the presence of a magnetic field is unexplainable in the context of QRT (as well as QM and QFT).

    All the best,
    Joe

  857. Nava Lina

    Chi ha finanziato il test e i testers?
    Who gave the funds necessary for the Independent Third Party Test and the Professors who did it and the Report ?
    Regards
    Lina

  858. Andrea Rossi

    Nava Lina:
    I do not know. Possibly in the report will be acknowledged who funded the test.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  859. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe
    September 17th, 2014 at 4:00 AM

    Wladimir,

    It would be understandable if the experiment had detected just one of the two magnetic fields within the QRT photon. But that would have been on the order of 10^-30m (the distance d between the two particles) and not on the order of 10^-11m (19 orders of distance further away). At that latter distance, both magnetic fields would cancel if the two particles propagated symmetrically. But since a magnetic field is detected at that greater distance, the two particles must necessarily be propagating asymmetrically. And if such is the case, an electric field (and its associated electric charge) would also be detected. But that does not occur.
    =============================================

    Joe,
    they did not make the experiment so that to the detect an electric field.

    The aim of the experiment is to detect the magnetic field

    However, we know that the electric field and the magnetic field of the photon move together ( DxE = -dB/dt, Maxwell equation). The light is a propagation of an electromagnetic field in the space.

    Therefore, as the experiment detected a magnetic field, it means that there is need to have an electric field too.

    regards
    wlad

  860. DTravchenko

    Are you open to sell other commercial licenses besides the licenses you already sold?
    Warm Regards,
    D.T.

  861. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    No.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    p.s. attention: your comment has been casually fished from the spam, wherein our robot has sent it: check that the address you sent it from is not connected with an advertising of some sort.

  862. JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi:
    Which month will be most likely the publication month:
    1- September 2014
    2- October 2014
    3- November 2014
    4- December 2014
    JCRenoir

  863. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    October 2014, I think, but I could be wrong.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  864. Marco

    Dear Andrea,
    Regarding my previous question: I know you use common AC current, but I would like to know if you tried AC current with different frequencies or even better measure the frequency response in a reasonably broader band (maybe 10-100000 Hz?) of some parameters like COP etc…
    By the way, if you do that, yo can do a Bode or Nyquist diagram and design a PID controller to enhance the stability… Just a suggestion…

    Regards.

  865. Andrea Rossi

    Marco:
    I cannot give this infrmation, in positive or in negative.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  866. georgehants

    Dear Mr. Rossi, are you at this time satisfied with the progress you are making with your job in Research and Development.
    Are things moving in-line with your hopes.
    Have you encountered any major unforeseen difficulties in your progress with the Rossi Effect.
    Best wishes

  867. Andrea Rossi

    Georgehants:
    We are working cutting our way through a jungle.
    The compass says we are going in the right direction.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  868. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in September 17th, 2014 at 3:26 AM

    Curiosone:
    After the press conference of CERN regarding the finding of the Higgs boson , the the physicist Joe Incandela, spokesperson of the team that made the job, to a journalist that asked if at that point their work was finished, answered: ” Sometime they think after a success the job is finished, but for us any success is the beginning of a new work”.
    ==============================================

    COMMENT
    But in the case of the Hiigs boson, I suspect that after that success wrongly interpreted as success the physicists will discover that the beginning will be a new work in a different way they are expecting.

    In 2015 the LHC will work at its full capacity, and I think the physicists will have many unexpected surprises.

    regards
    wlad

  869. manfred

    Dear Hank Mills,

    I definitely feel that quantum tunnelling is important to explain the Rossi effect, but I’m not so sure about the Casimir effect. Quantum field theory is fascinating and worth studying any time but before diving deeper into that subject I was hoping to know your opinion if it will also benefit my understanding of the Rossi effect.
    From my rather humble phenomenological approach to understand the Rossi effect, I always felt that phonon resonance effects might be more relevant for its explanation.

    All the best,
    Manfred

  870. Joe

    Wladimir,

    It would be understandable if the experiment had detected just one of the two magnetic fields within the QRT photon. But that would have been on the order of 10^-30m (the distance d between the two particles) and not on the order of 10^-11m (19 orders of distance further away). At that latter distance, both magnetic fields would cancel if the two particles propagated symmetrically. But since a magnetic field is detected at that greater distance, the two particles must necessarily be propagating asymmetrically. And if such is the case, an electric field (and its associated electric charge) would also be detected. But that does not occur.

    All the best,
    Joe

  871. Curiosone

    When the report will be published your work will be substantially finished, if the report will be positive?
    W.G.

  872. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    After the press conference of CERN regarding the finding of the Higgs boson , the the physicist Joe Incandela, spokesperson of the team that made the job, answered to a journalist that asked if at that point their work was finished: ” Sometime they think after a success the job is finished, but for us any success is the beginning of a new work”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  873. Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    In regards to the question about quantum tunneling and the Casimir effect, I think both are active in the E-Cat.

    Recently, I’ve read how researchers have seen quantum tunneling between the tips of tubercles on nickel powder. Even when the tips are not touching, the high amount of charge at the tips allows for current to pass between them. If there is hydrogen present, it can transform into a superconducting form at the tips. This could allow nuclear reactions to take place.

    When it comes to the Casimir effect, at the small distances between cracks, there can exist newtons of force. These forces may manipulate hydrogen and allow for energy extraction from the zero point energy field.

    My guess is there are multiple phenomenon taking place in the E-Cat. Some may be desirable and others may not.

    Have you ever attempted to stimulate nuclear reactions via a spinning permanent magnet – presenting alternating fields to the reactor – and a non-magnetic reactor casing? It would be interesting to see how it affects the reactions.

  874. Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    You already know my answer,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  875. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    How many full time staff do you expect will need to be employed by companies that install your industrial plants to operate them?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  876. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Very difficult to say now, but the potential scenario could be proportional to that of a diffused utility.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  877. Dima Redko

    Dear Andrea,
    in your opinion what might be reason for the 3-d party testers to take so much time to release their report? If I understood correctly the test itself ought to be complete by March 2014.

  878. Andrea Rossi

    Dima Redko:
    The peer reviewing of an important paper usually needs 6-12 months of reviewing.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  879. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 16th, 2014 at 4:46 PM

    If asymmetry occurs, BOTH those fields should appear, not just the magnetic one.
    ==============================

    Joe,
    note that the size of the magnetic field of the photon (the range of its actuation) has the magnitude of 10^-11 meter.
    While the magnitude of the distance “d” in the photon has a magnitude shorter than 10^-30 meter.

    So, the distance “d” within the photon is practically zero regarding to the size of the magnetic fields of the particle and antiparticle.

    Therefore the existence of an effective magnetic field for photons can be detected only via a phenomenon of resonance, and that’s why it can be detected only via the use of an interferometer.

    Also,
    note that such resonance (thanks to which it is possible to detect the existence of the effective magnetic field for photons) occurs because of the existence of the distance “d” between the particle and antiparticle.

    If the distance “d” would not exist between particle and antiparticle, the resonance would not occur, and the experiment published in the journal Nature `Photonics would detect nothing.

    regards
    wlad

    regards
    wlad

  880. Wladimir Guglinski

    silvio caggia wrote in September 16th, 2014 at 5:41 PM

    @Wladimir Guglinski
    Now I am a bit confused about your model of photon linear polarization… Photon linear polarization info is contained in distance “d” between particle and antiparticle OR in angular position between particle and antiparticle?
    How are these two info related?
    ===============================================

    Silvio,

    1- The angular position between particle and antiparticle defines the polarization of the photon.

    2- The distance “d” defines the ability of the photon either to be polarized, or not.
    Because the polarization is a resonance phenomenon (the ability of the polarizer to change the angular position between particle and antiparticle depends on the resonance between the distance “d” in the photon and the distance “D” between two consecutive atomic planes within the polarizer; if the distance “d” in the photon is not able to get resonance with the distance “D” in the polarizer, then the polarization does not occur).

    regards
    wlad

  881. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in September 16th, 2014 at 4:46 PM

    Wladimir,

    In QRT, it is the symmetrical motion of the charged particle-antiparticle pair within the photon that is responsible for the seeming lack of electric and magnetic fields. Those fields cancel. If asymmetry occurs, BOTH those fields should appear, not just the magnetic one. And the electric charge should become nonzero as would be indicated by the presence of a newly appeared electric field. So QRT has to explain how we can have a magnetic field without an electric field (and its associated electric charge).
    ==========================================

    Joe,
    in average the electric field of the two corpuscles is null.
    As the particle and the antiparticle are very small, and also is very small the distance “d” between them, they behave as if they were one unique particle with electric charge zero.

    There is no way to detect each one of the two electric fields by experiments.

    And the magnetic fied acually does not appear in the experiment published by Nature. The existence of such magnetic field is deduced from the use of an interferometer, as said in the paper:
    “We experimentally observe an effective magnetic flux between 0 and 2π corresponding to a non-reciprocal 2π phase shift with an interferometer length of 8.35 mm and an interference-fringe extinction ratio of 2.4 dB. “

    regards
    wlad

  882. silvio caggia

    @Wladimir Guglinski
    Now I am a bit confused about your model of photon linear polarization… Photon linear polarization info is contained in distance “d” between particle and antiparticle OR in angular position between particle and antiparticle?
    How are these two info related?

  883. Joe

    Wladimir,

    In QRT, it is the symmetrical motion of the charged particle-antiparticle pair within the photon that is responsible for the seeming lack of electric and magnetic fields. Those fields cancel. If asymmetry occurs, BOTH those fields should appear, not just the magnetic one. And the electric charge should become nonzero as would be indicated by the presence of a newly appeared electric field. So QRT has to explain how we can have a magnetic field without an electric field (and its associated electric charge).

    All the best,
    Joe

  884. manfred

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Which one of the two effects do you think are more relevant to explain the Rossi effect?

    - Quantum Tunnelling
    - Casimir Effect

    Wishing you all the best and keeping my finger crossed for the energy revolution!

    Thanks,
    Manfred

  885. Andrea Rossi

    Manfred:
    Whattaya think?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  886. Lex

    Dear Andrea,

    I’m following your story with great interest because to me its clear that this is a big promise for the future of my kids. One question keeps running in my mind since I started reading about the E-Cat and LENR 3 years ago.
    The generally adapted theory on the creation of elements in the universe states that new elements can only be created under extreme energy level conditions. Now it seems that inside your E-Cat nickel is transformed into cupper at low energy level conditions, what would that mean for the theories on the creation of elements and the creation of the universe? Does your E-Cat fits in this theory?

    Kind regards,

    Lex Steigenga

    Lex

  887. Andrea Rossi

    Lex:
    LENR are not that simple, and you cannot resolve the problems just thinking that you can have nuclear reactions with low level energy: it is not that simple. What does not happen in Nature can happen with a mechanism that in Nature does not exist. Nature can take one billion years to make a stone travel from the Alps to the Adriatic sea, but with a truck you can make it faster and without all the meteorytes crush tests, the earthquakes, the floodings, the hurricanes, the you think it you put it, that you need to get Nature make the logistics.
    What I can say is that the so called Rossi Effect does not violate any law of the Standard Model.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  888. Wladimir Guglinski

    To the readers of the JoNP:

    New experiment with light published by the journal Nature Photonics corroborates photon model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.

    Non-reciprocal phase shift induced by an effective magnetic flux for light
    http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n9/full/nphoton.2014.177.html

    In the experiment the photon had interaction with a magnetic field.

    But according to Quantum Mechanics, the light is a propagation of a duality wave-particle, which electric charge is null.

    First of all, we have to note that a particle with charge zero cannot have magnetic field.
    So,
    according to the concept of photon considered in Quantum Mechanics we had to expect that would be impossible to have interaction between the photon and a magnetic field.

    Such experiment can be explained only by considering the photon model proposed in Quantum Ring Theory, because as there is a distance “d” between the particle and the antiparticle, it is possible the existence of an effective magnetic field for photons, in spite of its total electric charge is null.

    There is no way to explain the phenomenon by considering a photon with electric charge null as considered in Quantum Mechanics.

    In the paper published in the journal Nature, the authors say in the Abstract:
    “However, recent theoretical work¹,² has shown that an effective magnetic field for photons can exist if the phase of light changes with its direction of propagation”.

    But in spite of the recent theoretical work mentioned in the paper had proposed the existence of an effective magnetic field for protons, however it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain WHY the phenomenon occurs, because it makes no sense to consider that a wave-particle propagation with electric charge zero could be able to produce such magnetic field.

    This is always the problem with Quantum Mechanics. The authors of a paper propose something, but they cannot explain WHY that occurs, because from the models of Quantum Mechanics there is no way to find the cause of the phenomenon.

    regards
    wlad