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. JCRenoir

    The main stream media of the world are beginning to take seriously your work. Does this help your work?
    JCR

  2. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    The only thing that can help our work are well working products. Mass media go with the wind: masses of matter make the wind, otherwise it’s just blabla.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  3. Bernie Koppenhofer

    I am sure you have read the articles about Bill Gates being briefed on LENR. Do you agree, with more money for research, there could be for example, 10 or more pilot installations and research projects which would speed the introduction of the Rossi effect?

  4. Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    The fact that we moved the mountains with our hard work is positive.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  5. eernie1

    Dear Andrea C and Wlad.
    Fermi, Alvarez and Wick have shown both theoretically and experimentally that the injection of an electron into the nucleus occurs naturally in some of the heavier atoms, causing them to be radioactive, emitting Beta particles. These electrons(usually s or p level) are considered present in the nucleus either field wise or particle wise dependent upon whether the investigator treats them as particles or an EM field. The process is called Reverse Beta, conversion electrons, or just Beta decay since the electron presence is subsequently ejected form the nucleus along with a Beta+ or Beta- particle, a Neutrino and a photon whose energy depends on the angle of entrance of the electron. Once the influence of the electron is felt in the nucleus, its spin and its field energy can play havoc with the equilibrium of the resting nucleus resulting in perhaps some strange outcomes. The inner electrons can also be induced to enter the nucleus by imposing an outer negative field on the electron sphere(perhaps a negative Hydrogen ion?).
    Energetic regards.

  6. Gio51

    Dear Dott. Rossi
    Underdeveloped countries need DESPERATELY your devices…!!!!! Pleaase, please, hurry up..!!!
    Gio

  7. Andrea Rossi

    gio51:
    Our Team is working as hard as possible and resolving problems.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  8. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, they have a Machine that will melt snow. They have 4 Machines.
    The smaller one, number two, consumes 40 to 60 gallons of diesel per hour. The fuel tank holds 550 gallons.
    Could an E-Cat supply heat at a lower cost ?
    Google:
    Snow Dragon
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  9. Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    This is one of the possible applications.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  10. Joe

    Andrea Calaon,

    Are you saying that an electron can orbit beneath the ground state of an atom?

    All the best,
    Joe

  11. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in November 20th, 2014 at 7:33 AM :

    Let me spend a few words to advertise my theory .
    In the reactions above I explicitly added (+e) because I believe that the “secret” of the LENR is a coupling with the electron. Li7 in a uncommon “physical-chemistry” event in the metal matrix, couples with one electron becoming a sort of “new particle”: Li7e. Then this pseudo-particle, which is neutral already at picometric scales, can easily couple (through the same mechanism) with a Ni isotope: Li7eNixx. Li7 and Nixx become forced to travel inside the “circular” electron potential well. Soon they reach “nuclear contact” (at 2-3 [fm]) with very low excess kinetic energy, and can exchange the neutron because it is energetically convenient and probably Li7 offers it on the plane orthogonal to its magnetic moment, right where Nixx can easily “grab it”.

    —————————————————————————

    Dear Calaon,
    I have analysed your idea on the “new particle” Li7e, taking in consideration my nuclear model, and I have arrived to some interesting conclusions.
    Let me explain it.

    Figure 1 ahead shows the nucleus 2He4 with its positive electric field, produced by the two protons.

    FIG. 1:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    The nucleus 2He4 has spin about the z-axis shown in the Figure 1.
    However, the two protons have residual repulsion (not in that magnitude of the repulsion considered in the Standard Model, because the electric fields of the protons are immersed within the electric field of the 2He4), and due to the repulsion the two protons have oscillations (zig-zag motion), and since the neutrons are bound to the protons via the spin-interaction, the neutrons also oscillate.

    Due to the oscillation of the two protons and two neutrons, the z-axis is changing its direction all the time. By this reason in average the positive field of the 2He4 is spherical, as shown in the Figure 2, and the two electrons in the electrosphere take the levels s1 and s2.

    FIG. 2:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png

    Now consider the 3Li7 nucleus, shown in the Figure 3.

    FIG. 3:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE3.png

    The magnetic field of the 3Li7 is shown by North-South (blue-pink).
    The magnetic force which links the deuteron to the central 2He4 is induced by the rotation of the proton. The neutron has no charge, and therefore it does not induce magnetic force. The centrifugal force tries to expel the neutron, but it is bound to the deuteron due to spin-interaction.

    The radius of the orbit of the deuterion is 0,405fm, while the radius of the orbit of the neutron is 2,391fm. The two values are calculated in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei published in JoNP, based on the equilibrium between magnetic force on the proton and the centrifugal force on the deuteron-neutron, and I had used the magnetic moment of the 3Li7 measured in the experiment so that to calculate the values 0,405 and 2,391.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    As the neutron in the 3Li7 is bound to the deuteron via the spin-interaction, but the radius orbit of the neutron is very big (2,391fm), it means that the neutron is weakly bound to the deuteron (and it is the deuteron that avoids the neutron to be expeled by the action of the centrifugal force).

    As happened in the case of the 2He4, the three protons of the 3Li7 are submitted to oscillations due to repulsions, and as the neutron is bound to the deuteron, also the neutron has oscillation.
    So, in spite of the deuteron-neutron move about the z-axis, however the z-axis has a chaotic motion, changing its direction all the time.
    Therefore, in average the positive electric field of the 3Li7 due to the three protons is spherical, and the distribution of the electrons in the positive electrosphere of the Li7 takes the levels shown in the Figure 4.

    FIG. 4:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE4.png

    In the page 3 of the Lugano Report it is said:
    ”Three braided high-temperature grade Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors wound in parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor.”

    Therefore the electric current in the coils induces an internal magnetic field inside the alumina cylinder of the reactor, and when a nucleus 3Li7 approaches to a nucleus 28Ni58 and they couple chemically, both the Li7 and the Ni58 align their nuclear z-axis toward the axis of the alumina cylinder of the E-Cat.

    Being the two z-axis of both Li7 and 58Ni aligned toward the same direction, the two nuclei couple their nuclear magnetic moment, and by this way both the nuclei of 3Li7 and 58Ni stop to gyrate chaotically, and so the nuclear z-axis of the 3Li7 and 58Ni stops of changing their direction: their nuclear z-axis keep the same direction of the axis of the alumina cylinder.

    As the two nuclei stopped to gyrate chaotically, then the two positive electrospheres of 7Li and 58Ni lose the spherical shape they had when they were gyrating chaotically. In other words, both nuclei of 7Li and 58Ni get back the shape of electrosphere shown in the Figure 1 for He4 and Figure 3 for Li7.
    This changing in the electrosphere of the 7Li is shown in the Figure 5, where we see that the electrons s1, s2, and p1 change their orbits.

    FIG. 5:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE5.png

    But note that the electron of the level p1 occupies an unstable level, because its negative charge is attracted not only by the positive electrosphere of the Li7, but it is also attracted by the positive electrosphere of the Ni58.
    So, the electron of the level p1 is attracted by the electrosphere of the Ni58, and then the electron p´1 changes its orbit, taking the place shown in the Figure 6, between the nuclei Li7 and Ni58.

    FIG. 6:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE6.png

    The orbit of the electron of the level p1 works now like a coil inducing a strong magnetic moment toward the direction of the two nuclear z-axis of the two nuclei 7Li and 58Ni.

    As the neutron in the 7Li is weakly bound, and it has a big magnetic moment (-1,913), it will be pulled by the magnetic field of the electron p1 toward the direction of the nucleus Ni58.
    Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving, and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole” in the electrosphere of the Ni58.

    NOTE: look at the Figure 3 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei the magnetic moment of the neutron within the nuclei depends on the position of the neutron. When the neutron is crossed by a flux-n(o) down being in the outer side of DOUGLAS, its magnetic moment becomes positive: +1,913.
    FIG. 4 of the paper Stability of Light Nuclei:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Fig._3.JPG

    Therefore, the 7Li transmutes to 6Li, and 58Ni transmutes to 59Ni.
    The same happens with the isotopes 60Ni, 61Ni, 62Ni.

    I think your theory has chance to be correct, dear Calaon. But it seems there is no way to conciliate your theory with the Standard Model.
    I think your theory requires my nuclear model so that to explain the Rossi’s Effect.

    Regards
    Wlad

  12. Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    I see that silicon is present in the ash. Could the following reaction be possible?

    27Al + 7Li + e -> 28Si + 6Li

    This would effectively remove the aluminum from the fuel and leave the silicon in the ash. Note the 28Si is major isotope in naturally occurring silicon.

    If the above reaction is possible, then the reaction within the eCat could be explained as well as the total energy output for one gram of fuel estimated and the percentage of fuel expended computed.

  13. Herb Gillis

    Andrea Calaon:
    In your response to my last question you said:

    “The LENR do not take place between ANY of the nuclei present in a reacting powder/surface/whatever. The access to the reaction is controlled by chemical properties, not nuclear properties. So even admitting that any neutron rich isotope (apart from Li7) could work as a donor, then you would face the problem of having it react in the LENR.”

    1) Do you have any ideas on what the relevant chemical properties are (for accessing LENR)?

    2) If it turns out that only Nickel [or Ni/Li] has these chemical properties; then do you think it might be possible to use Ni [or Ni/Li] as a matrix alloy (ie. solid state “solvent”) for promoting neutron transfer reactions between other combinations of nuclei?

    Thank you for your insightful remarks.
    Regards; HRG.

  14. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Joe,
    electron, proton and neutron are not points, they have intrinsic sizes.
    The wave function of all s orbitals overlaps significantly with the nucleus. But electrons do not fall into the nuclei of atoms. Fortunately :)
    If you would like to visualize an electron (I am not offering you the perfectly canonical description of the electron … ) imagine a point charge that runs along a helical trajectory at the speed of light. The diameter of the trajectory is fixed: 386 [fm]. And the frequency of the circular component of the motion is fixed as well: about 2.47E20 turns per second. Very quick indeed! The nature of the particle has to do with these fixed parameters. So that you can not have an electron without them. Now the radius of the hydrogen atom (as the most probable distance between the proton and electron in a hydrogen atom in its ground state) is 52.9 [pm]. Therefore the size of the electron is about 0.36% that size. Not a point that would fall onto the nucleus, nor something as big as the orbital.
    The best equations we have for the electron describe how the plane of the intrinsic rotation evolves (for dynamical conditions) or how is distributed on average in stationary conditions (like an atomic orbital).
    The problem of the precise size of the proton arose for an experiment where the size of the proton is estimated thanks to the interaction between an orbital and the nucleus. The experiment uses muons instead of electrons only because they, having a mass 207 times that of the electron, form orbitals that are 207 times more tight around the nucleus than an electron does. And the ratio between the size of the orbital and that of the nucleus is smaller.
    See for example: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-physicists-surprisingly-small-proton-radius.html

    Best Regards
    Andrea Calaon

  15. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, GENeco is a company in the UK that has a Plant that can convert food waste, and human waste, to provide fuel to power 8,500 homes, as well as to provide fuel for a Bio-Bus.
    With one tank of fuel the Bio-Bus can travel 200 miles, and emit 30% fewer emissions then a Diesel Bus.
    Google:
    GENeco
    Click on:
    GENeco
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  16. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Herb Gillis,
    The only energetically possible neutron swap reaction with Ni64 acting as a donor is this:
    Ni64 (+ e) + Ni61 -> Ni63 (+ e) + Ni62 + 0.94 [MeV].
    I think however that Li7 acts as a donor in the LENR because it has very special nuclear properties, not found elsewhere.

    Ni64 is only 0.9% of all natural Nickel atoms. So in any case its role can only be minor both energetically and isotopically.

    The LENR do not take place between ANY of the nuclei present in a reacting powder/surface/whatever. The access to the reaction is controlled by chemical properties, not nuclear properties. So even admitting that any neutron rich isotope (apart from Li7) could work as a donor, then you would face the problem of having it react in the LENR.
    As far as I know the Hot Cat is the first device that seem to be based on a neutron swap mechanism activated by the LENR.
    Regards,
    Andrea Calaon

  17. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Steven N. Karels,
    I agree with you, probably some grains or some other parts of the powder reacted fully, some others, not measured, much less.
    If 6Li can be turned into 7Li:
    Li6 + e + p -> Li7 + neutrino + (max) 6.47 [MeV]
    then hydrogen has a role, and turns into a neutron (together with one electron) first in this reaction. Then the neutron is transferred to xxNi.
    Therefore possibly it is not necessary to have all 7Li in the fuel powder at the beginning.
    Best Regards
    Andrea Calaon

  18. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    extremely interesting the news that some lab was able to replicate the Rossi Effect (even in a minimal part) .
    A question, if I may:
    1. which lab?;
    2. is it “excess heat” (generally speaking)? or
    3. specifically what you call “Rossi Effect”?
    Thanks, kind regards,
    Giuliano Bettini

  19. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    As you know, in our laboratory we have analysed all the claims of the competitors and reproduced their apparatuses. We found one that works. I already spoke of it, but it is not correct that I speak on his behalf.
    I suppose publications will follow. For now, I just have to say, honestly, that this competitor of us has made a good job.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  20. JYD

    Dear Andrea

    It could be the best friend for a Spatial HOT-Cat
    http://www.techno-science.net/?onglet=news&news=13372

    Futuristic regards
    JYD

  21. Andrea Rossi

    JYD:
    Thank you for this interesting information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  22. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    In case you are not aware, there is a new paper published by Carl-Oscar Gullstrom titled “Collective Neutron Reduction Model for Neutron Transfer Reaction”.

    He writes by way of introduction:

    “So I have improved the neutron transfer theory. In my first attempt the radiation was still a bit high but it is solved now. The trick is to not have high energy protons to drag out the neutrons but instead neutrons that are so low in energy that they can’t enter the nucleon but at the same time they could drag out more neutrons. If it is of interest I attached a document with some simple calculations.”

    Link:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/247067779/Collective-Neutron-Reduction-Model-for-Neutron-Transfer-Reaction

    Kind regards,

    Frank Acland

  23. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Of course I know also this paper that I received last week from Oscar Gullstroem (I write Gullstroem because I have not the dieresis to put on the “o”). I am studying it since I received it. It is worthwhile the time to be studied carefully.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  24. Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    I have not had a chance to go over your numbers in detail. Given the problem of producing too much energy than the measured test energy is a better scenario than the situation of not being able to produce the measured amount of energy with the measured or estimated components in the fuel.

    Perhaps Dr. Storms concept of a Nuclear Active Environment (NAE) is applicable and the ash was from such an environment and all the nickel at that site was converted.

    My original posting that you responded to asked whether the produced and naturally occurring 6Li could be transformed into 7Li. I understand you said you think it could be so transformed. If this is correct, then the supply of 7Li is only limited by the amount of hydrogen present.

    The Laguno report did not say all the fuel was consumed nor give any indication that the reactor was nearing fuel exhaustion. So the measurement that the ash was fully transformed to Ni62 only tells us what happened at the local site where the ash was produced.

  25. Joe

    Andrea Calaon,

    How can an electron get so close to a nucleus, in order to form a pseudo-particle, without the electron being forced to enter the nucleus due to electrostatic attraction?

    All the best,
    Joe

  26. Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in November 20th, 2014 at 8:59 AM

    Wladimir, is this interesting, about strong force?

    http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2014/11/lhcb-experiment-observes-two-new-baryon-particles-never-seen
    ——————————————–

    Dear orsobubu
    many new unstable particles can be created.

    However, they represent NOTHING for the working of the universe.
    By using the properties of the particles (baryon number, lepton number, parity, strangeness, etc), it is possible to predict new particles, because those properties of the particles is decurrent from the laws of intereaction for the formation of new particles, composed by the agglutination of the elementary particles of the aether (electricitons and magnetons).

    Strong force must be actually a kind of dynamic gravity (the magnitude of the strong force interactions depends on the velocity of the particles which are interacting).

    In spite of the strong force (dynamic gravity) can be responsible for the agglutination of the quarks in order to form the proton and the electron, it does not means that the nuclei are bound via the strong force.

    regards
    wlad

  27. Herb Gillis

    Andrea Calaon:
    Thanks for responding to my question in such detail.
    As a possible alternative explanation: Do you think it possible that the Ni64 may be acting instead as a neutron donor to one of the lighter Ni isotopes (ie. 58, 60, 61) via the same mechanism as Li7? If this is true then perhaps LENR reactions can be achieved between any pairing of a relatively neutron poor nucleous and a relatively neutron rich nucleous?
    Regards; HRG.

  28. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Steven N. Karels,
    the reaction
    6Li + e + p -> 7Li
    is possible, for what I know. And, given that Lithium7 is able to couple with the electron in the stimulated Hot-Cat powder, because we know it most probably reacts with Nixx, I would guess that Li6 should react as well. The magnetic dipole moment of Li6 is +0.8220.. [muN] whereas that of Li7 is 3.2564… [muN], therefore my theory would suggest that in the same conditions, Li6 should react significantly slower than Li7. And Li7 should do something like:
    7Li (+ e) + p -> 2He4 (+ e) + 16.84 [MeV]
    Another point is the abundance of protons in the Nickel metal structure. Is their number high enough to make this reaction “visible” among the neutron swap?
    The experimental results seem to suggest that Li can play the role of an interstitial like the proton. A LiH substructure in the Nickel? I really do not know.

    Checking today the data of my “energy analysis” of yesterday, I noticed a mistake in summing the number of atoms of Ni in the isotopic shift chain.
    I will not repeat the whole thing, but just give the (hopefully) right and important numbers:
    As a reference one gram of natural Nickel contains:
    6.985E21 nuclei of Ni58
    2.691E21 nuclei of Ni60
    1.170E20 nuclei of Ni61
    The total number of single one neutron shifts for a complete forward shift to Ni62 in one gram of Ni is 6.1377E22.
    The experimental average energy of a unitary Nickel forward shift reaction, would be around 1 [MeV]. Far too low.
    These data, together with the energies of the Ni isotopic shifts obtained via neutron swap with Li7 given yesterday, say that:
    A complete isotopic forward shift of Ni58, 60 and 61 to Ni62 of 0.55 [g] of Nickel would liberate 3.757 [MWh]. It is 2.5 times the energy measured during the test.
    For a 1.5 [MWh] are enough 0.22 [g] of natural Nickel, plus 0.17 [g] of natural Lithium.
    The minimum ratio between the weight of Lithium and the weight of Nickel in the powder for guarantying a complete isotopic shift of Ni is 77.4%.
    These corrected data say that the discrepancy between the energy measured and the isotopic and weight analysis is even wider than guessed yesterday. Possibilities:
    The shifts are due to a different reactions with an even lower energy. Does it exists?
    The estimated quantity of Ni in the charge was wrong. Ni was slightly more that 0.22 [g] and it underwent an almost complete isotopic shift.
    The sample showed a complete isotopic shift, but the value was not representative for the whole ash. In reality only 40% of the Nickel particles shifted completely while the others did not react. The non-reacted part was not present in the analyzed grains.
    What do you think?

    Best Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  29. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Herb Gillis,
    Ni64 can not be given a neutron from Li7 because the reaction
    Ni64 (+ e) + Li7 + 1.15 [MeV] -> Ni65 + Li6 (+ e)
    requires 1.15 [MeV] to take place and apparently there are no such energetic photons around.
    Neither it is possible for Ni64 to shift “back” and lose one neutron to a Li6:
    Ni64 (+ e) + Li6 + 2.41 [MeV] -> Ni63 + Li7 (+ e).

    Therefore the disappearance of this Nickel isotope must happen in a different way.

    Let me spend a few words to advertise my theory :) .
    In the reactions above I explicitly added (+e) because I believe that the “secret” of the LENR is a coupling with the electron. Li7 in a uncommon “physical-chemistry” event in the metal matrix, couples with one electron becoming a sort of “new particle”: Li7e. Then this pseudo-particle, which is neutral already at picometric scales, can easily couple (through the same mechanism) with a Ni isotope: Li7eNixx. Li7 and Nixx become forced to travel inside the “circular” electron potential well. Soon they reach “nuclear contact” (at 2-3 [fm]) with very low excess kinetic energy, and can exchange the neutron because it is energetically convenient and probably Li7 offers it on the plane orthogonal to its magnetic moment, right where Nixx can easily “grab it”.

    Back to Ni64
    Remember that Andrea Rossi for a certain time (about 2011-2013) stressed that he had a way to enrich isotopically Ni in number 62 AND 64. Now we know something of what that process is. However that process in its present form seems to consume Ni64 as well.
    Since I believe the mechanism at the base of LENR is always the electron coupling, Ni64 couples with an electron that is itself coupled with another nucleus. In this case most probably the other nucleus is a proton, and the most likely result is:
    Ni64 (+ e) + p -> Cu65 (+ e) + 6.94 [MeV]
    In a small percentage of the reactions the electron crosses the two nuclei right while they are reacting and takes part in the nuclear reaction. This leads to the production of Ni65, which decays beta with a half life of about 2.5 [h]:
    Ni64 + e + p -> Ni65 + neutrino + 5.32 [MeV]
    Ni65 -> Cu65 + e + antineutrino + (max) 2.138 [MeV] (beta decay)

    With the tiny charge the presence of the second process and its beta decay should almost be undetectable (but I haven’t done the numbers).

    I will later answer to Steven N. Karels as well.
    Thank you all for these interactions

    Regards
    Andrea Calaon

  30. Marco Serra

    Dear Andrea,
    you said that “We cannot feed more information to our competition, which now is very powerful”. My question is: how can any competitor be powerful without knowing the core effect that drive the ECat ? Do you know of any lab that succeded in replication of the Rossi Effect even in a minimal part ?

    God bless you
    Marco

  31. Andrea Rossi

    Marco Serra:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  32. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    Thank you for the information.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  33. Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    An interesting analysis. Thank you. Please consider if the reaction
    6Li + e + p -> 7Li
    is possible.

    If this were to occur, would not the available amount of 7Li increase?

    Perhaps the rate equations favors the 7Li + Ni over the 6Li -> 7Li to establish the ash lithium isotropic ratio?

    So what would happen is the 7Li fuses with the Ni to become 6Li and the next Ni isotope. Then occasionally an hydrogen nucleus fuses with a 6Li to replenish the 7Li nuclei. And the reaction continues until the hydrogen is depleted. Since there are four times as many hydrogen atoms in LiAlH4 than lithium atoms, the “fuel” is larger than you assumed.

    Thoughts?

  34. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you: fantastic translation. Happy Thanksgiving (in advance) to you and all our American Readers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  35. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi, Silvio Caggia,

    The Navajo message translates as “Thanks, Warm Regards.”

    ” Jo, jo, jo. ”

    Happy Thanksgiving (in advance),

    Joseph Fine

  36. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You mention Leonardo Corporation bought back some licensing contracts from licensees. Going forward, are there any licensees that will continue with their licensee status?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  37. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    We offered to all our Licensees to buy back from them the licenses. Some of them have accepted the offer, and signed an Agreement that is under NDA, some preferred to hold the licenses: obviously, the licensees that preferred to hold the licenses have continued their Licensee status.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  38. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Can you comment on the accuracy of The Report regarding the fuel composition?

    a. Was LiAlH4 used as the source of hydrogen?
    b. Was the nickel content in the fuel 55% by weight?
    c. Was the lithium content of the fuel higher than The Report estimated?

  39. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    No, I cannot comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  40. Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: It has been suggested safety certification will be a lot easier for the Gas Cat than for the Electric Cat. Is this true?

  41. Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    No, it is not true. The point is not the fuel.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  42. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in November 19th, 2014 at 10:35 AM

    I am convinced that these are the reactions Andrea Rossi is investigating (remember his excitement at the article speaking about nucleus tunneling between Lithium7 and Nickel?). Note that, if the nuclear binding energy is not related to the nuclear force (as suggested by many and as in my theory), these reactions do not even involve the Weak interaction: They are purely electromagnetic.
    Here are the reactions and the energies:
    Ni58+Li7 ->Ni59+Li6 + 1.749 [MeV]
    Ni59+Li7 ->Ni60+Li6 + 4.138 [MeV]
    Ni60+Li7 ->Ni61+Li6 + 0.570 [MeV]
    Ni61+Li7 ->Ni62+Li6 + 3.346 [MeV]

    =================================================

    Dear Andrea Calaon
    Actually we have to be astonished with the question: why did not the nuclear theorists realize 80 years ago that strong nuclear force cannot be responsible for the nuclear binding energy of the nuclei??? Because if the strong force was interaction which responsible for the attraction proton-neutron and neutron-neutron, then the dineutron would exist in the nature.
    Two neutrons linked by the strong force cannot be separated by the isospin proposed by Heisenberg, because only a force of repulsion would be able to win the attraction by the strong force between two neutrons, and an abstract mathematical concept as the isospin cannot create a force of repulsion.

    So, from a simple question of logic, the strong force must be discarded as the responsible for the attraction proton-neutron and neutron-neutron within the nuclei.

    But the question is not so easy as it seems.
    By considering the Coulomb repulsion in the distances of 1fm between protons and neutrons within the nuclei, the electromagnetic interaction is not able supply the necessary force for the agglutination of the stable nuclei. There is need an interaction 100 times stronger than that promoted by the electromagnetic interaction in a distance of 1fm, and this is the reason why the nuclear theorists had discarded 80 years ago the electromagnetism as the promoter of the nuclear binding energy, and they had adopted the strong nuclear force, which interaction is 100 times stronger than the electromagnetism in the distance of 1fm.

    And now finally the E-Cat is showing what the logic was suggesting to us, when we had faced the obvious: as two neutrons do not form the dineutron, then the strong nuclear force cannot promote the agglutination of the nuclei.
    And the consequence: the nuclear theorists will be obliged to accept this unavoidable fact.

    Nevertheless a problem arises: as the nucleus is not bound via the strong nuclear force, but in the distances of 1fm there is need a force 100 times stronger than that promoted by the electromagnetism, how can the nuclei be bound via the electromagnetism?

    Obviously an acceptable new nuclear model must be able to explain such paradox, and the nuclear theorist will discard the theories which do not solve the puzzle.

    You said: “as suggested by many and as in my theory”.
    However, how do you (and the many) explain it ?

    .

    In the nuclear model proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory the puzzle is solved as follows:

    1) The nuclei are surrounded by an electric field.
    See Figure 1:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:FIGURE_1-_3_fields_of_the_proton.png

    2) Suppose a proton fuses with a nucleus. The fusion occurs as explained ahead.

    3) The proton must perforate the electric field of the nucleus, so that to be captured by the nucleus.

    4) When the proton perforates the electric field of the nucleus and they have fusion, the electric field of the nucleus has no repulsion with the electric field of the proton, because the two electric fields fuse by forming one unique electric field, surrounding the nucleus and the proton. By this way, the proton is not submitted to that Coulomb repulsion considered in the Standard Nuclear Model, in the order of 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic interaction.

    5) The equilibrium of the newborn nucleus formed by the proton+(original nucleus) is promoted via the equilibrium between the action of the centrifugal force trying to expel the protons and neutrons of the newborn nucleus and the magnetic force actuating on the protons.

    6) The stability of the light nuclei via equilibrium between magnetic force and centrifugal force is shown and calculated in my paper Stability of Light Nuclei, published in the JoNP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Stability%20of%20light%20nuclei.pdf

    .

    As the nuclear theorists are now accepting the reality of the cold fusion, thanks to the performance of the E-Cat, sure that they will realize that there is need a new nuclear model for explaining the results obtained by Andrea Rossi.

    And as the results obtained by the E-Cat are pointing out that the strong nuclear force cannot be the responsible for the agglutination of the nuclei, then facing the question on what will be the new nuclear model to be chosen (between the many new nuclear models proposing the electromagnetism as the cause of agglutination of the nuclei) of course they will consider only those models capable to explain the puzzle:
    how can the electromagnetism to promote the agglutination of the nuclei, since there is need a force 100 times stronger than that promoted by the electromagnetism?

    The best new nuclear model able to solve the puzzle will be chosen.

    Regards
    wlad

  43. Andrea Calaon

    Dear All,
    if Andrea Rossi allows me I will shortly abuse of the JoNP for a personal message.
    Immediately after my last post, despite the grammatical and lexical mistakes, many peopled re-accessed the site where I have my theory written down.
    I would like to stress that the documents in my theory-site are not up-to-date with the latest “news and changes”. Still new things appear on a daily basis, therefore I will wait first the ideas to settle a bit and then I will write them.
    When a complete review of my theory will be ready I will communicate it in one of my messages to the JoNP.
    Best Regards,
    Thank you Andrea

  44. Herb Gillis

    Andrea Calaon:
    How does your proposed reaction mechanism explain the observed reduction in the concentration of Ni64?
    Regards; HRG.

  45. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi, Silvio Caggia.

    I have not translated the earlier comment made using the Navajo Codetalkers ‘dialect’.

    http://asecuritysite.com/challenges/nav

    Best regards,

    Joseph Fine

  46. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Readers of the JoNP,
    Andrea Rossi a few days ago, commenting the recent exchange of ideas about reactions that can justify the large isotopic shifts in Nickel and Lithium, said:
    “The contradictions or errors possibly emerging from such kind of comments or articles cannot be commented by me”.
    In the “comments” of the Readers (like myself) for sure there are mistakes. But what is Andrea referring to with the word “articles”?
    My guess is that if he could he would have criticized the conclusions of the report regarding the total content of Li and Ni in the powder and in the ash (may be not only these …).
    The ICP-AES sample was 0.21% of the total powder and ash. Since the powder is a mixture of grains of different origin, the sample could well be not representative of the whole population. And so the real total content of Li7 could have been much more than 0.0117 [g] (1.17% of the charge powder), or conversely the Nickel content could have been much less than 0.55 [g].

    In the last few days I eventually extended the study of the reactions to the energy they produce, comparing it to the measured energy released in the experiment. Well, …. I am a bit late, now is one and a half month after the publication of the report. But better late than never. The conclusions I arrive at contradict some of my guesses so far. Fortunately they also strongly point towards interesting conclusions.
    Two starting points:
    - 1.5 [MWh] are equal to 3.37E22 [MeV],
    - The number of Nickel nuclei 58, 60 and 61 (all the forward shifting) present in the 0.55 [g] of Nickel (if the w% estimation is correct) are respectively: 3.84e21, 1.48e21, 6.433e19. (You have to actually to do some numbers from those in the report to get these). These values are obtained using the isotopic ratios.

    Thus the average energy of a unitary Nickel forward shift reaction, FORGETTING LITHIUM, would be around 1.83 [MeV] (you have to consider that the number of reacting nuclei of Ni60 in a complete shift is actually equal to Ni58 plus all initial nuclei of Ni60, and that Ni58 reacts twice since it has to shift by two neutrons, …). If Lithium were added as a separate shift the average value would decrease. 1.83 [MeV] is a particularly low value for isotopic shifts.
    Let us now compare this average energy with the energies that would be released by Nickel shifting separately from Lithium, and starting from lowest masses: father nucleus plus proton plus electron. Here they are:

    Ni58+e+p ->Ni59+neutrino+ (max) 8.22 [MeV]
    Ni59+e+p ->Ni60+neutrino+ (max) 10.61 [MeV]
    Ni60+e+p ->Ni61+neutrino+ (max) 7.04 [MeV]
    Ni61+e+p ->Ni62+neutrino+ (max) 9.81 [MeV]

    Well, it is not necessary to check that the average (in the sense explained above) energy of all these reactions is far above the average experimental value. An this is only for the Nickel isotopic shift, than you should add the reactions that would shift Lithium. Conclusion: in the Hot Cat used in the first 32 days these reactions are not taking place.

    Then let us look at the reactions in which Li7 swaps a neutron with the Ni isotopes. These should be the reactions providing the lowest possible energy, since they realize the two isotopic shifts without further father particles (energy).
    I am convinced that these are the reactions Andrea Rossi is investigating (remember his excitement at the article speaking about nucleus tunneling between Lithium7 and Nickel?). Note that, if the nuclear binding energy is not related to the nuclear force (as suggested by many and as in my theory), these reactions do not even involve the Weak interaction: They are purely electromagnetic.
    Here are the reactions and the energies:

    Ni58+Li7 ->Ni59+Li6 + 1.749 [MeV]
    Ni59+Li7 ->Ni60+Li6 + 4.138 [MeV]
    Ni60+Li7 ->Ni61+Li6 + 0.570 [MeV]
    Ni61+Li7 ->Ni62+Li6 + 3.346 [MeV]

    All these reactions, in the case of a complete forward isotopic shift of 0.55 [g] of natural Nickel would have liberated a total energy 2.248 [MWh]. This value is about 1.5 times the measured energy (with an almost complete isotopic shift towards Ni62. But is as near as I can get.
    I think there are no realistic reactions with lower released energy.

    My conclusions are now these:
    - The reactions that take place in the Hot Cat are those in which the neutron is exchanged between Li7 and Nickel.
    - Hydrogen would seem unnecessary, apart from its possible lattice distortion effects.
    - The reaction of Ni61 to Ni62 should be more “efficient” than the others because experimentally there was absolutely no Ni61 left, whereas all other shifts lead to Ni61 before the final jump to Ni62. In fact the theory I am proposing says that this reaction should be quicker than the others, since Ni61 is the only Nickel isotope that has a magnetic dipole moment.
    - I think that the sampling of the powder for the ICP-AES was not lucky and led to numbers that can be misleading. The almost total isotopic shift of Ni and the analysis above tell me that most probably the charge powder contained a lower % of Ni: more or less 0.37 [g] for each gram. The corresponding Li (with natural isotopic ratio) for a complete Nickel shift would be 0.156[g] for each gram of fuel. Of which Li7 would be 0.144 [g] and Li6 0.0118 [g]. Is looks like the quantity that has the weight indicated in the report (0.0117 [g]) is precisely Li6, and not Li7. The other 47.4% in weight of the charge is made of the other nuclei as described in the Report.

    I am convinced that who is studying this phenomenon for commercial purposes did similar analyses immediately after the report arriving to similar conclusions, independently from the theory applied.

    Best Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  47. Andrea Rossi

    Andrea Calaon:
    I appreciate your efforts. Obviously I cannot comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  48. Silvio Caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Than-zie Lin Wol-la-chee Nesh-chee Klizzie-yazzi Dibeh,
    Gloe-ih Wol-la-chee Gah Na-as-tso-si Gah Dzeh Klizzie Wol-la-chee Gah Be Dibeh!

  49. Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    Ugh!
    A.R.

  50. Andrea Rossi

    Daniele Passerini (blogger of “22 Passi”)
    You asked me few days ago about why some of our commercial Licensees have cancelled their websites. The reason is that we decided to offer to all our commercial Licensees to buy back their licence at a price, obviously, superior to the price they paid for it. Some of our Licensees have accepted our proposal and sold us back their license.
    The details of the agreements are covered by NDA ( Non Disclosure Agreement).
    We maintained with our former Licensees a friendly and collaborative relationship, open to the possibility of future collaboration upon specific issues.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  51. Buck

    The news about CF has reached a critical point as far as the Oil Industry is concerned.

    Gulf News, the largest English language newspaper in the Gulf region (UAE, Dubai, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia), with a daily circulation of about 110,000, has just reported that India is moving towards getting back into CF research. Your work, the China Nickel Energy connection in Baoding, and Bill Gates’ recent visit with Vittorio Violante were cited in a factual positive fashion.

    To me, the tone takes on an alarmist quality as it presents CF phenomena as fact and CF technology as imminent.

    LINK>> http://gulfnews.com/news/world/india/indian-government-urged-to-revive-cold-fusion-1.1413814

  52. Andrea Rossi

    Buck:
    As I wrote on this blog one hour ago, now the competition is very serious. Thanks to the work of my Team, LENR, that 5 years ago were very “low”, not only in temperature, but also in global consideration, have gained momentum at high level. My Team merits recognition for this: our action and our fight have been the real game changer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  53. silvio caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I understand that you can use electric current in order to “communicate” with the e-cat reactor in a sort of morse-code like:
    ———- (Prepare)
    ………. (Activate)
    ———- (Deactivate)
    But with gas e-cat what will you use? “Smoke signals” like native Cherokees? :-D

  54. Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    Navajo dialect: between Navajo and Cherokees cultural exchanges were frequent. Please keep this a jealously guarded secret: must remain strictly between you and me.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  55. Franco Sarbia

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    1) In the gas fueled Hot Cat, the gas feeding performs a function of “starter” required for
    a) bring the system to operating temperature and make it independent from any network or external power supply?
    b) or also for operating at the regime?
    2) This means that, in both cases, the Hot Cat functioning at regime through its own generator can feed itself the reaction and its electronic control?
    3) The total autonomy in each stage would make safe and completely self-sufficient its cogeneration capacity for the production of electricity and heat even in hostile and remote environments, without any connection to wired networks, eliminating the supply of powerful, expensive, and dirty accumulators to start a Hot Cat System equipped with a battery of hundreds of modules, necessary to provide electricity and heat at homes and production activities of a small town or an urban neighborhood, both in developed countries and in the underdeveloped countries not yet equipped with wired electrical infrastructure. Can you confirm this strategic purpose?

  56. Andrea Rossi

    Franco Sarbia:
    Gas fuel will substitute electric energy to activate the reactor and drive it; I cannot give more particulars until we will have a product ready for the market. We cannot feed more information to our competition, which now is very powerful. We need to reach extreme commercial competitivity before leaking more information. When we will have reached the necessary economy scale our prices will discourage any competition, but before that phase we must be aware of the fact that our Competitors are eating voraciously any single bit of information we are leaking.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  57. Eric Ashworth

    Dear Andrea, Your reply November 17th to Steven N. Karels. You say if the temperature reaches the safety limit the reactors turn off by a law of nature, whatever the source of the heat that causes a rise of the temperature.

    I have several questions regarding your answer:-

    1. If the reactors turn off by a law of nature/response mechanism can you be absolutely positive that a limit of safety has actually been reached?.

    2. Would you consider this law of nature to be a hindrance to the performance of LENRs?.

    3. Your ongoing R&D with regards the e-cat, is this with regards (a) the possible applications of the e-cat?. (b) An attempt to overcome this law of nature?. or
    (c) Both?.

    Regards Eric Ashworth.

  58. Andrea Rossi

    Eric Ashworth:
    1- yes
    2- no
    3- among others, a, not b.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  59. Wladimir Guglinski

    Errata:

    In my last comment,

    instead of the relative kinetic energy of the deuteron regarding the 3Li7 is E= 0,5.m.(V² – v²)

    actually the relative kinetic energy is E= 0,5.m(V-v)²

    regards
    wlad

  60. Wladimir Guglinski

    How cold fusion may contribute for the solar nucleosynthesis

    • Rafael wrote in November 12th, 2014 at 8:23 AM :

    Maybe the sun is the product of a LENR, why not you try to mix the same chemical elements that has in the sun to see if you not create an artificial sun or get electricity or make a nuclear fusion propellant with less chemical elements, we already know what the sun is made of, just see on the wikipedia. Do not forget that the sun also has chromium nickel and calcium.
    —————————————————–

    Dear Rafael
    All the current theories of Modern Physics had been developed from the concept of empty space. So, the concept of field considered in the QFT–Quantum Field Theory does not take in consideration any structure for the space.

    That’s why in the Standard Nuclear Physics the electric field of the particles as the proton, the electron, and also the electric fied of the nuclei, is considered as a spherical field involving the particles, or the nucleus.

    This electric field of the nuclei considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics is a homogeneous sphere (it means that in any point of the field the value of the electric vector is always the same). Therefore, when a particle as the proton is forced to enter within a nucleus because it is submitted to very high pressure and temperature, the energy necessary to win the Coulomb repulsion is always the same (because no matter where is the point of the electric field of the nucleus where the proton enters, since the energy necessary is the same in any point of the electric field of the nucleus).

    Such concept of field adopted in the QFT introduced several puzzles in the Standard Nuclear Physics.
    For instance, when an alpha particle (2He4) exits the nucleus 92U238, it leaves out with an energy lower than the energy necessary to put an alpha particle within the nucleus 92U. Such paradox was solved by Gamow. However his solution is not acceptable, because he introduced another paradox in his solution. Besides, if the 2He4 should exit the 92U as proposed by Gamow, because the electric field of the 92U is spherical the 2He4 would have to exit the 92U with a tangential line (because of the rotation of the 92U). But the experiments show that the 2He4 exits the 92U with a radial line.

    Other puzzle is the emission of solar neutrinos by the Sun, as we see from the paper published by the journal Nature in 1984:
    Solar neutrinos and other problems and their relation to energy production in the Sun:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v312/n5991/abs/312254a0.html
    Models of the solar interior, based on the usual physical assumptions, predict a neutrino flux several times greater than that observed in the Davis 37Cl experiment. If, as is widely accepted, this discrepancy represents a ‘flaw’ in the standard solar model one would expect this flaw to manifest itself in other ways also. Here we point out some less well known discrepancies between theoretical predictions of the standard solar model and relevant observations. ”.

    The problem is not solved yet, as we realize from the last updated on 23 September 2013 version of the paper The 3He(α,γ)7Be reaction for big bang and stellar nucleosynthesis:
    http://www.york.ac.uk/physics/research/nuclear/nuclear-astrophysics/big-bang/

    ”…; looking for physics beyond standard model of particle physics. Naturally, the reaction attracted early attention of experimentalists and theoreticians alike in the 1950’s. Surprisingly, even today much work needs to be done via nuclear physics experiments to understand this reaction and provide information to the colleagues working on big bang nucleosynthesis, standard solar model and standard model of particle physics.

    Perhaps the puzzle of the rate of solar neutrinos cannot be solved via the Standard Model because they are not considering the cold fusion in the Sun. The emission of neutrinos from cold fusion reactions occurs in a rate very lower than that occurring in hot fusion.

    Probably some steps in the nucleosynthesis of some elements in the Sun occurs via cold fusion. And therefore it is impossible to conciliate any theory developed from the Standard Model with the experimental astronomical observations.

    .

    An experiment published in 2011 proved that space is no empty
    The experiment was published in the journal Nature. Light was produced by the space. And therefore the space cannot be empty. It must have a structure, so that to be able to emit light.
    A vacuum can yield flashes of light
    http://www.nature.com/news/a-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light-1.12430

    Therefore the concept of electric field adopted in the Quantum Field Theory must be wrong.

    A new concept of electric field, based on the concept of a space having a structure is proposed in the Quantum Ring Theory.
    And here a crucial point emerges: there is no way to propose a spherical shape of electric field by considering the space with structure.

    Therefore the concept of field adopted in Quantum Field Theory cannot be correct.

    Other fundamental puzzle impossible to be solved by considering the concept of field adopted in QFT is concerning the null magnetic moment of even-even nuclei with equal quantity of protons and neutrons, as 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc. Due to the monopolar nature of the electric charge. For instance, the 2He4 has two protons. As the nucleus has rotation, the rotation of the two protons has to induce a magnetic moment. So, by considering the model of field adopted in QFT, it is impossible to explain the null magnetic moment of the 2He4, and all the other even-even nuclei with equal quantity of protons and neutrons.
    I had challenged several nuclear theorists for coming to Rossi-Focardi blog Journal of Nuclear Physics-(JoNP) so that to explain how such puzzle could be solved according to the Standard Model. No one nuclear theorist did come.

    The reason why the model of field adopted in Quantum Field Theory cannot explain the null magnetic moment of the even-even nuclei with equal quantity of protons and neutrons is because in QFT it is adopted the mono-field model. In my paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, submitted for publication in the JoNP, it is shown that the null magnetic moment of those nuclei can also be explained via a double-field model (an outer electric field concentric with an inner central field composed by gravitons), adopted in Quantum Ring Theory.

    The Fig. 1 ahead shows the two concentric fields of a proton, as proposed in the paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism.
    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

    As seen in the Figure 2, there are two “holes” in the electric fields of the particles, and also in the electric fields of the nuclei.
    Under suitable condictions of low pressure and temperature, a nucleon as a proton or a deuteron can enter within a nucleus through that hole by having lower energy than that necessary if the nucleon is forced to enter via any other point of the electric field of the nucleus.

    By considering that nucleons also may exit a nucleus via the hole in the electric field of the nuclei, we eliminate two paradoxes of the Standard Nuclear Physics:

    1) The unacceptable paradox introduced by Gamow, proposed for explaining how a 2He4 can exit the 92U with energy lower than the necessary to cross the Coulomb barrier of the electric field of the 92U

    2) Why the 2He4 exits the 92U by a radial trajectory as detected by experiments (impossible to explain from the Gamow theory based on the Standard Model).

    .

    How a nucleon may enter within a nucleus
    Cold fusion may occur by two ways:

    1) Via resonance within vessels with conditions of low pressure and temperature, as occurs in the Rossi’s E-Cat.

    2) Via kinetic energy in vessels with conditions of very high pressure and temperature, as the Sun. Let us see how it may occur:

    a) In the Sun, more than 99,999% of the fusions occur via high nuclear reactions.

    b) Cold fusion occurs in less than 0,001% of the nuclear fusions

    c) It is very hard to occur cold fusion in the Sun, because the nucleons (for instance a proton) have very high kinetic energy in the star. So, when a proton enters within a nucleus via the “hole” in the electric field of the nucleus, the fusion does not occur (the nucleus cannot capture the proton) because due to the very high kinetic energy the proton simply trespass the nucleus, exiting the nucleus in the other “hole” opposite to the “hole” where the proton had entered.

    d) But a cold fusion reaction may occur as follows:

    d.1) Within the Sun all the nuclei are moving very fast, and every time changing the direction of their motion due to the collision with other nuclei.

    d.2) But suppose that a nucleus (for instance 3Li7) in an exact instant is moving along the x-axis with speed “v”, with the “hole” of its field aligned toward the x-axis. And consider that a deuteron with speed “V” (moving in the same direction along the x-axis) in that exact instant collides against the 3Li7, because the speed V is faster than v. In that condition the relative kinetic energy of the deuteron regarding the 3Li7 is E= 0,5.m.(V² – v²), where “m” is the mass of the deuteron. Therefore the kinetic energy of the deuteron in some very rare conditions is suitable low so that, when the deuteron enters within the 3Li7, the deuteron is captured, and 3Li7 transmutes to 4Be9.

    .

    The difference between cold fusion and hot fusion
    There are three basic differences between hot fusion and cold fusion:

    1) Hot fusion occurs when a nucleon enters within a nucleus (only under extreme conditions of high pressure and temperature) when the nucleon succeeds to perforate the electric field of the nucleus.

    2) Cold fusion occurs when the particle enters within a nucleus via the “hole” existing in the electric fields of the nuclei. It can occur either in low or in high conditions of temperature and pressure.

    3) In order to enter within a nucleus via hot fusion, a particle needs to have a very big kinetic energy. So, when the particle enters within the nucleus, due to the very high kinetic energy of the nucleon the nucleus is excited, and this is the reason why gamma photons are emitted. Unlike, in the case of cold fusion, as the particle enters with low energy the nucleus is not excited, and gamma rays are not emitted. So, also the tax of neutrinos emission in cold fusion is lower than in the case of hot fusion.

    Therefore, such property of cold fusion of emitting lower quantity of neutrinos can be response for the question why from the Standard Nuclear Physics there is no way to conciliate the hot fusion reactions in the Sun with the flux of neutrinos emitted by that star.

    Conclusion
    As we may realize, beyond the challenge of finding a theory capable to explain cold fusion by keeping the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics there are many other challenges in Nuclear Physics impossible to be solved via the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    Up to now the nuclear theorists refused to think about a New Theory based on new fundamental concepts missing in the Standard Nuclear Physics, because of two reasons:
    1) Cold fusion is impossible to occur by considering the Standard Model
    2) Therefore they were sure it would be possible to solve the unsolved questions by keeping the Standard Model.

    But now cold fusion is a reality: Rossi’s Effect was confirmed by three universities of the Europe. And the nuclear theorists worlswide are beginning to accept this new reality, as by one of the top level nuclear phusicist of Russia, Dr Uzikov:
    http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5595

    Therefore a reasonable person must realize that it makes no sense to continue trying to explain cold fusion via the old Standard Model. Because the problem is beyond the challenge of finding a theory for explaining cold fusion, actually now the cold fusion became the way for solving the unsolved questions.

    Some nuclear theorists have the hope to explain cold fusion via the Standard Model. When we reply to them that cold fusion is impossible to occur from the principles of the Standard Model, they say that we don’t know in deep the Standard Model. However, we may reply to those nuclear theorists: actually you don’t know in deep the structures existing in the Nature. They are very different of that considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics, by beginning from the structure of the space, and as consequence the structure of the electric field of the nuclei, responsible for the difference between hot fusion and cold fusion.

    Regards
    wlad

  61. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I can understand your reluctance for further public testing. Too much exposure now can mean too much immediate demand which is bad for a developing business as well as feeding your competition at the expense of your R&D.

  62. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Correct.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  63. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    Since you are understandably in your quiet period with respect to the mechanics of your device, perhaps we can speculate together about the physics involved and how the analysis of the ashes by the professors can lead us. From your previous remarks, I get the feeling that you are not completely satisfied with your present theory and that the ash analysis surprised you to a certain extent.
    One thing that stands out for me is the apparent neutron involvement indicated by the reported isotope content. At the energies involved for instance any free produced neutrons must be slow(thermal)neutrons, which exhibit therefore a much larger cross section for interaction with other isotopes within the structure. You of course have a much better knowledge of starting materials both quantity and quality so you can more readily pass judgment on any proposed theories. If it is possible, you can save us time and effort if you can rule out various proposals. For example, one theory requires 4He to be generated. Have you ever measured an increase of this isotope when your device is operating? Are the reported ash ratios of isotopes consistent with the starting amounts? I understand that some of the questions may involve confidential information, but if you can provide some answers perhaps we can provide possible reaction directions.
    Mutual regards.

  64. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    I cannot give this information now.
    In due time we will give information about the theory we see behind the so called Rossi Effect.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  65. gillana

    Dear A.Rossi
    First of all congratulations for visibility gained in the media following your last ITP, in Italy Panorama (n.47) made a good piece.
    Here I would suggest that this visibility is now of paramount importance for the success of the E-Cat and I would continue to do public short demonstrations for promotional purposes.
    Please could you briefly summarize the progress of the new 1MW plant compared to the equipotent plant originally projected.
    Best regards

  66. Andrea Rossi

    Gillana:
    Visibility in this phase of our development is not very important. What is important is that we stabilize the commercial breakthrough pulled by means of the 1 MW plant making profit in the factory of our Customer. All the rest is secondary. We will not make any other public test, because from now on we will be focused exclusively on the market and the public tests will be made totally useless by the regular operation of our commercial plants. Our R&D will be maintained confidential until the commercialization of new products related to it. We cannot give further advantages to the competition, that is eating voraciously every information we feed it with.
    R&D, obviously, will continue in our factory, but it will not be finalized to public tests, it will be finalized to the manufacturing of products.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  67. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You have probably already considered this. On the gas-fired eCat reactors, I assume the gas flame will be applied to the exterior surface of each eCat reactor. Therefore, the heat fluid (e.g., water) being heated should be running coaxially inside the eCat reactor. Depending on the requirements you may want to run all of these in parallel or use a series plumbing scheme so that some of the eCat reactors run at a lower temperature and some at a higher temperature range (single stage, two stage or multi-stage designs).

    On the maintenance side, I would strongly suggest that the location of each eCat be readily recognizable (e.g., numbered or lettered) and that the individual eCat reactors be monitored so that fuel lifetime, temperature history and maintenance actions are noted and retrievable. A user-friendly graphics display system should show the overall system status and then be able to “drill-down” to a specific eCat reactor module. A database of the overall system and each eCat reactor should be automatically maintained both at the customer location and at your corporate location, although the information stored may be different. Some type of internet interrogation and control should be considered, with proper security implementations. Some type of built-in-test (BIT) is needed.

    Some type of load-averaging control should be implemented so when the system is running at partial output power, the fuel consumption of the eCat reactors is managed to maximize operational time between maintenance actions (i.e., don’t run one specific eCat reactor all the time forcing it to consume all of its fuel when most of the surrounding eCat reactors have plenty of fuel left).

    Some thoughts,

  68. Gio51

    Dear Dott. Rossi
    If I am not wrong, you stated some time ago that in a reasonable timelapse you would have been be able to open a customer installation to visitors, therefore disclosing the customer’s name. Am I wrong? Which is the situation right now?
    My best regards
    Giovanni

  69. Andrea Rossi

    Gio51:
    Be kind, read all my comments on this issue from some time ago through now.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  70. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu: again thank you, very appreciated also from all the Team.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  71. BroKeeper

    Dear Readers and Andrea,

    Thank you Andrea, and thanks to Dan C’s help, for making this video available.
    I felt, from reading company PR material and articles on Tom Darden’s ideology in recovering brownfields into sustainable, environmental compatible and profitable properties, there was much more to the story in selecting Cherokee Investments.

    This remarkable 2011 YouTube of UNC Kenan-Flagler business school presentation made it quite clear the reasons why Andrea has entrusted the E-Cat into Tom Darden’s/IH capable hands. Obviously the integrity and purposeful sincere intent projected in this video by Tom and William McDonough is to construct a better world under ‘right’ business models framed with ethical practices. Practices, WM says, founded on Thomas Jefferson’s three directives in the Declaration of Independence “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. With our liberty, McDonough stresses, we should provide for everyone opportunity to the Pursuit of Happiness including the poor with clean water and accessible housing.

    This, in my opinion, is a must view video to those who wish to understand what is behind Andrea and Tom Darden’s philosophical core values and their vision to incorporate the “New Fire” for all generations.
    Thank you, Andrea.
    BroKeeper

  72. Andrea Rossi

    BroKeeper:
    Thank you very much,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  73. orsobubu

    … dedicated also to the whole wizardry Team, of course!

  74. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    Thank you. Inspiring for persons who perspire: look, how idealism gears up with materialism!
    Warmest Regards,
    A.R.

  75. orsobubu

    >It appears we moved the mountains!

    No, dear Andrea, this time you didn’t move any mountain, THEY were obliged to go to *your* mountain, instead. And I want to dedicate this energetic and inspired song to your personal story, because you are the man on the silver mountain, “show them the way, the light and the fire, they will scream your name, and make you holy again”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czybZ-J_X9g

    RAINBOW – Man On The Silver Mountain

    I’m a wheel, I’m a wheel
    I can roll, I can feel
    And you can’t stop me turning
    Cause I’m the sun, I’m the sun
    I can move, I can run
    But you’ll never stop me burning
    Come down with fire
    Lift my spirit higher
    Someone’s screaming my name
    Come and make me holy again

    I’m the man on the silver mountain
    I’m the man on the silver mountain
    I’m the day, I’m the day
    I can show you the way
    And look I’m right beside you
    I’m the night, I’m the night
    I’m the dark and the light
    With eyes that see inside you
    Come down with fire
    Lift my spirit higher
    Someone’s screaming my name
    Come and make me holy again

  76. Giovanni Guerrini

    Yes,dear Dott Rossi,you with Prof Focardi,have moved mountains.
    Before your appearance on the scene,few people knew that “cold fusion” is real,now the world knows it.
    I’d call it “Rossi Focardi effect” !

    Thank you all,again.

    Regards G G

  77. Andrea Rossi

    Giovanni Guerrini:
    Thank you: yes, it is true: before our fight the LENR were mostly forgotten. The fight ( F-I-G-H-T ) we made in these last 4 years has definitely changed the game.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  78. Italo R.

    About William McDonough and Thomas Darden – UNC Kenan-Flagler:

    The correct link is this:

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

  79. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    Thank you, very useful !!!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  80. Andrea Rossi

    You are right, I already sent to the IT Guy the issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  81. Dan C.

    Dear Mr. Rossi

    The link you provided to Brokeeper is unavailable. Has a typo
    I believe this is the video,
    The link you provide “v=OfO” should be “v=OfQ”

    William McDonough and Thomas Darden – UNC Kenan-Flagler
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQHvmYEOVI

  82. Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    referring to the gas E-CAT i have a question.
    Is the gas needed only for reaching an activation point of the reaction and then you switch off the gas and mantain an eletric driver or the gas is burned continously?
    And if so which is the power (in electric Watts) needed to drive the reaction?
    Why the electric driver was so high in the test of TPR2?
    Thank you

  83. Andrea Rossi

    Neri B.:
    I cannot answer. When and if the gas- fueled E-Cat will be available, due information will be given.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  84. BroKeeper

    Dear Andrea,

    Thank you very much for your added response. However, clicking on the YouTube link gives:
    “This Video is Unavailable. Sorry about that” :)
    BroKeeper

  85. Andrea Rossi

    BroKeeper:
    I inform immediately the IT guy about this.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  86. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    My previous question was in the event of a building fire, not caused by your equipment, would the eCat reactor

    a. pose the same danger level as a tank of compressed hydrogen (because the Rossi Effect might be triggered even if the eCat was powered down) or
    b. would the internal temperature slowly rise (due the building fire and/or the Rossi Effect) until the nickel withing the eCat reactor melted and the Rossi Effect was no longer possible?

  87. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    I already answered you: the intrinsic safety system of the E-Cat stops the reactor whatever the source of heat, which means also in case of whatever external source of heat, even a fire.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  88. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland, Pietro F., George:
    Very interesting!
    It appears we moved the mountains!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  89. tommaso di pietro

    Dear Dr Rossi,
    how long is the operating one megawatt plant?
    it is reasonable to think that the year of which you speak will expire by the first half of next year?

    Thanks in advance

  90. Andrea Rossi

    Tommaso Di Pietro:
    As I said, it is not chronometry.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  91. Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    You recently reported the maximum operating temperature of the e-cat to be 1400C

    Can you say whether this maximum temperature is due to:

    1. the nature so-called Rossi effect, or

    2. the current state of the art of the e-cat technology.

    Thank you.

    Bob

  92. Andrea Rossi

    Bob:
    Both.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  93. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    When you field your 1MW eCat system, what are the dangers of a building fire? While electricity would be off, the internal temperature of the building could rise to high levels in an uncontrolled structure fire. What implications does this have for the eCat reactors? Could they start to produce power and eventually explode? Obviously the eCat system is not expected to work after such a fire scenario, but are there dangers to firefighters, etc.?

  94. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Our industrial plants have obtained the safety certification because they are intrinsecally safe: if the temperature reaches the safety limit the reactors turn off by a law of nature, whatever the source of the heat that causes a rise of the temperature. Besides, we have put all the safety systems imposed by the certification companies. By the way, the case of a building fire is quite unlikely, because the E-Cat plants are put in proper environment, made with not flammable materials. We have to respect all the requirements already existing for thermal energy industrial plants.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  95. George

    Some top nuclear scientists are urging India’s new government to revive research on “cold fusion”, saying it has the potential to provide answers to the country’s energy problem.

    http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/modi-government-urged-to-revive-cold-fusion-114111700763_1.html

  96. Pietro F.

    ….forse sarebbe il caso di sbrigarsi un po!! :)
    ….perhaps it would be appropriate to hurry up a bit!!! :)

    http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/modi-government-urged-to-revive-cold-fusion-114111700763_1.html

    Buon lavoro

  97. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I think you will find this article interesting. Nuclear physicists are urging the new Indian government to revive a new LENR program, apparently inspired by your work.

    http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/modi-government-urged-to-revive-cold-fusion-114111700763_1.html

    Kind regards,

    Frank Acland

  98. BroKeeper

    Dear Andrea,

    From your philosophical and spiritual insights in past comments indicate you have a higher objective other than acquiring riches and/or self aggrandizement but sincerely projected concern for the physical relief to this world’s unanswerable sufferings. My question is what is within your core values to select Cherokee and their leadership as your partner to lead this imperative endeavor? In other words what are Industrial Heat’s core values that complimented your vision of a better path for all societies? Could you share your thoughts with your loyal followers of IH’s attended directions to achieve these noble hopeful goals?

    Thank you for your kind attention, Bro

  99. Andrea Rossi

    BroKeeper:
    To better understand the core values of Industrial Heat, you can go to
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfOHvmYEOVI
    and you also can search
    William Mc Donough and Thomas Darden-UNC- Kenan-Flagler
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  100. Heath

    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    From your response to Dr Joseph Fine, a quick question. Has that one year with the Customer already begun or is there more problem resolution before to be resolved before that period starts? I am excited about what you and Industrial Heat are working toward, thus my curiosity.

  101. Andrea Rossi

    Heath:
    More problems resolution is on course. But I am an optimist.
    Obviously the time scheduling in such cases is not chronometry: one year is an approximative term.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  102. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I think I can understand the decision to proceed toward a natural gas fired eCat.

    The ultimate goal is the production of useful forms of energy (heated water, steam or electricity). I had assumed that the ideal solution would be an electrically heated eCat fed by a portion of its own generated electricity, essentially running for free, using only the cost of the hydrogen, nickel and other fuel components.

    But if we separate the input energy from the output and realize that electricity is currently and probably will always be more expensive than natural gas, we realize that diverting a portion of the generated electricity back to heating the eCat reactors is using precious (more costly) electricity that could be sent on the grid to sell to others.

    So even if the COP goes very high, it makes more economic sense to sell the electricity than to use it to heat eCats. Is this essentially correct?

  103. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    yes
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  104. eernie1

    Andrea C.
    There is no way to predict accurately the composition of the fuel content as stated previously because of the variety of possible starting ingredients. Andrea R. has made that abundantly clear warning that any attempt may be misleading. Because the tube is not sealed and allows 4He to escape is the reason that the 4He could be detected by sniffing the surrounding atmosphere. A sealed tube, unless the probe is inserted inside the tube, would not allow measurement. 7Li may only be the starter catalyst, allowing other ingredients to provide the necessary neutrons. The variety and form of the inserted energies may trigger other sources.
    Regards and please continue your investigations.

  105. Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Why not add movable infrared reflectors around the HotCat reactor (of the Lugano type) and make the control system regulate them. When the reactor overheats, the control system would open the reflectors so that thermal radiation can escape more freely. When the reactor cools down too much, the control system would close them again. It seems to me that it should be possible to reach high COP in this way, without changing the core itself and without the core even being “aware” that he is running at higher COP.

    Of course, one might consider moving parts to be risky, but that is probably a solvable engineering problem. For example the reflectors could be bimetallic fins which change shape in reaction to temperature, so that the control system would be passive; effectively a thermostat.

    The fact that you are pursuing a gas-cat makes me think that there may be some reason why this kind of construct does not work. However, I do not see what such reason could possibly be.
    regards, pekka

  106. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    The reasons why we are trying gas is very simple:
    1- to make 1 kWhe you need 3 kWht
    2- gas price is very cheap and will become cheaper
    Thank you for your idea, we have worked on it , but I cannot give information related to it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  107. Andrea Rossi

    Robet Curto:
    Thanks for the information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  108. silvio caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    another question about ITPR2, another guess with friends:
    When professors write 19.7 A line current what they mean?
    A) 19.7 Ampere RMS
    B) 19.7 Ampere conventional average
    C) 19.7 Ampere Peak

  109. Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    In the Report you can find clear explication regarding the amperage measurements. I can only take notice of what is written in the Report, as you can too.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  110. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    We will publish a report of the 1 MW plant used by the Customer of IH for his industrial purposes after 1 year of regular operation, when we will be able to give evidence ( if so) of the real profitability of the technology, beyond the laboratory tests: this is the obvious next step of our evolution.
    I do not know what the Professors of the ITP will make, because they are totally independent from us.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  111. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Steven N. Karels,
    Thank you for your suggestion! So far I had not considered the stoichiometric aspects in details. But you are right: it is necessary.
    Eernie1 explained exactly my thoughts regarding the neutron transfer. I had proposed two reactions that consume Li7 and Li6 at different rates. But here there must be something more to have that kind of shift.
    If I made the numbers right the 0.011 grams of Li7 donating one neutron can be responsible for only 22.4% of a one neutron shift of the sole Ni58 (Ni with natural isotopic ratios). And it would be only the 4.7% of the total Nickel forward shift (58,60,61 ->62). Eernie1: may be the 0.011 [g] is not that accurate, but we are speaking about different orders of magnitude. So Ni must be invested by a series of reactions that have little to share with Li.

    Dear Eernie1,
    About He4 I guess it would have been impossible to detect any, since the reactor was not Helium tight (like the system of Tadahiko Mizuno), and the isotopic analyses were done only on the powders.

    Dear All,
    About the hydrides in the charge: If I had to provide a source of hydrogen as constant as possible with temperature I would have used a mixture of reversible metal hydrides:
    Mg(AlH4)2, KAlH4, Na2LiAlH6, K3AlH6, K2LiAlH6, K2NaAlH6, LiGaH4, Ca(AlH4)2, …
    I am not an expert in mass spectra, but the lines on pages 50 and 52 (and others) I think do not contradict this.
    For a Hot Cat powder however there is not much difference since the temperature are so high that any hydride would have released its hydrogen much before.
    Still the Carbon and Oxygen present in the charge are obscure to me.

    The fact that the Nickel powder does not sinter at 1,400 [C] for 32 days is for me quite remarkable.

    Only the surface of the active grains can produce the LENR. In the test almost all Nickel reacted, instead of only the active volume on the surface of the particles. I think the reason is the fact that at 1,400 [C] the metal grains of which the active particles are made of undergo not only grain growth, but also recrystallization, activated by the gamma and the “not too fast” daughters of the LENR. So that sooner or later all Ni nuclei are invested by the LENR.

    Best Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  112. Andrea Rossi

    Andrea Calaon:
    Your comment has been retrieved casually from the spam: next time change the address and send again your comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  113. Eric Ashworth

    Dear Andrea, The following immediate information, I am guessing, probably will be of no value to yourself but maybe some of the readers of the journal will find it interesting. I have added some further information that you may find interesting regarding a static barrier that I believe is part of the energy equation and could be a consideration.

    Anyway, when I refer to geometry I am referring to three basic shapes or you could say symbols that make up a stable structure. These being cube, pyramid and sphere or in diagram format square, triangle and circle. Six pyramids form a cube, four on the horizontal and two on the vertical. The two on the vertical are associated with polar activity whereas the four on the horizontal are associated with structural activity that produce the poles, rotation of the structure sets the precedent. The sphere represents the neutral of the structure. Being neutral it does not extend outside of the cube. The space that extends outside of the cube within the base of the pyramid is considered a part of the Absolute volume. The neutral is always between two Absolutes. It’s the apexes of the four pyramids that combine to form a super gravitational focus of force (the apex of a pyramid should have some distinguishing feature when associated in connection with its cube). The volumes at the base of the pyramids form octahedral cavities with values of gravity when six or more neutrals are packed together. On the face of each of the four flats, central position, base of each pyramid is one vortex that responds to the polar activity, central position of the two vertical pyramids. Thereby, four loops of quarks enter and exit the two vertical pyramids at their bases around and on the pole. These loops, as previously described, open and close the vortexes that contain the economy flows in accordance to the exterior environment

    I therefore theorize that when the exterior environment is made-up of many neutrals that structure a lattice, containing many octahedral cavities, the inner neutrals will respond differently from those at the outer edge. To explain why, I will have to refer to the static barrier that all structures possess (the mechanism produces one). The static barrier is directly related to the internal kinetic energy. As previously dealt with. When a structure increases in its kinetic energy the vortexes close because the loops increase in flow and force. This is a self preservation response action. All created structures travel from the base of a pyramid from where it is formed to its apex where the super gravity exists and where higher energy is able to penetrate structure and eventually cause it to fall to pieces so as to be recycled (there are structures that create and those created within). The vortex has an oscillating motion to it responding to two values of gravity maintained by an integral motion of a flow with a force. This oscillating motion creates around the structure a variable static barrier of none flow that is dependent upon its kinetic content. A week static barrier will allow penetration of quarks at the vortex. A slow oscillation is a long stroke. A fast oscillation is a short stroke with regards the vortex and its internal dimension which when closed down produces a short stroke and a strong static barrier.

    An octahedral cavity contains a four static barrier value of a static force. Its the static barrier that provides a resistance to flow. The exterior of a lattice is thereby surrounded by a static barrier of less resistance than that within the interior composed of octahedral cavities (the atom could be considered to have a primitive conscious response mechanism). If what I theorize is correct then LENR should peak and then fall in thermal output. Could I be correct?. I do not want to probe into what could be confidential. Regards, Eric Ashworth

  114. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    This is in regards to the Andrea Calaon possible nuclear reaction theory.

    Analysis #1

    Based on the Lugano Report, an estimate of the fuel composition may be attempted

    Known facts:
    1. Fuel sample had a mass of 1 gram
    2. Page 29: “From the analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and ICP-AES analysis we find there is about 0.011 grams of 7Li in the 1 gram fuel.”
    3. Page 29: “… the information from ICP-AES that there is about 0.55 gram NI in the fuel.”
    4. Page 28: “From all combined analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to the Ni.”
    5. Page 28: “… from the ICP-AES analysis which shows the mass ratio between Li and Al is compatible with a LiAlH4 molecule.”
    6. Page 28: “…natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7% and 7Li 93%”
    7. Page 28: “We remark in particular that hydrogen but no deuterium was seen by SIMS.”

    Analysis

    The average mass of the lithium atoms are 0.07*6 + 0.93*7 = 6.93 amu. Amount of 6Li = 0.011 grams * 6/94 = 0.0007 grams. Total lithium was 0.0117 grams.
    Aluminum atoms have a mass of 27 amu while hydrogen atoms have an average mass of 1.
    So the molecular weight of the LiAlH4 must be 6.93 + 27 + 4 = 37.93 amu.
    Therefore, the amount of LiAlH4 must be 0.011 grams * 37.93 / 6.93 = 0.06 grams and the amount of aluminum must be 0.043 grams. The amount of hydrogen in the LiAlH4 must be 0.006 grams.
    The iron mass must therefore be 1.0 grams (total) – 0.55 grams (Ni) – 0.043 grams (Al) – 0.011 grams (Li) – 0.006 grams (H) = 0.39 grams of iron.
    Element % by Weight
    Nickel 55.0
    Iron 38.9
    Aluminum 4.3
    Lithium (total) 1.2
    Hydrogen (no Deuterium) 0.6
    Total 100.0
    LiAlH4 6.1

    It is also likely that the LiAlH4 was prepared using hydrogen depleted of deuterium.

    Analysis #2

    Andrea Calaon suggested the following reactions on JONP (14 Nov 2014):
    Li7 + p + e +Ni58 -> Li6+Ni60 + neutrino + (max) 12.35MeV
    Li7 + p + e + Ni60 -> Li6+Ni62 + neutrino + (max) 10.39MeV

    From the Laguno Report we know that 5825 MJ of energy was produced.
    5825MJ = 3.635E+22MeV

    Relative abundance of nickel (fuel): Ni58: 68%; Ni60: 26%

    What amount of atomic ingredients are needed to produce the net energy observed and to support transmutation of the Ni58 and Ni60 isotopes into Ni62?

    Let X be the total number of atoms of Ni-58 undergoing transmutation.
    Ni58 reaction:

    X = (.68 / (.68 + .26)) * 3.635E+22 MeV / (12.35 MeV + 10.39 MeV) = 1.15637E+21 atoms of Ni58
    Let Y be the total number of atoms of Ni-60 undergoing transmutation.
    Ni60 reaction:

    Y = (.26 / (.68 + .26)) * 3.635E+22 MeV / (10.39 MeV) = 9.67686E+20 atoms of Ni60
    The amounts of hydrogen (H) and Li7 (L) needed to support these reactions are:

    H = X * 2 + Y = 3.28042E+21 atoms of atomic hydrogen
    L = X * 2 + Y = 3.28042E+21 atoms of Li7

    Converting number of atoms to grams:
    Avogadro constant: 1 amu = 1.661E-24 grams
    Hydrogen: 0.005 grams of 0.006 grams present
    Li7: 0.038 grams of 0.011 grams present
    Ni58: 0.111 grams
    Ni60: 0.096 grams
    Total nickel = (0.111 grams + 0.096 grams) / (0.68 + 0.26) = 0.222 grams of 0.55 grams present

    Conclusion: Insufficient lithium is present to generate the reported energy. Perhaps the aluminum reactions might provide some insights?

  115. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    I cannot comment anything regarding this issue. Everything you or other Readers write about this issue is totally out of the reach of my possibility to answer positively or negatively. Any comment is welcome, but I have precise limitations regarding the IP divulgation.
    The contradictions or errors possibly emerging from such kind of comments or articles cannot be commented by me.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  116. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi,

    From May 13th 2013, when the first ITP report was published, to October 6, 2014, when the second ITP report was published, is an interval of about 17 months. The recent report described the operation of the E-Cat for 32 days.
    Has there been additional ITP work on starting up (or completing) a report on a lengthier operational experiment? Is it possible that such a report might become available in the near future?

    Continuing regards,

    Joseph Fine

  117. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, lower cost electricity with natural gas, with zero emissions.
    Google:
    Net Power
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  118. Steven N. Karels

    Andrea Calaon,

    There is another problem. If you review my post of 9 Nov, I calculated and estimated the fuel composition (i.e., Ni 55%, Fe 39%, Al 4.3%, Li 1.1% and H 0.6%).

    To convert to the number of atoms of each element divide by that elements atomic weight (e.g., Li = 1.1/7).

    There is insufficient hydrogen and/or lithium to convert all of the Ni (excluding 62Ni). Perhaps the aluminum had a similar role to lithium?

  119. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N.Karels:
    All the assumptions that you are making regarding the charge can create a lot of confusion, because they are wrong, but I cannot answer, due to the fact that, as you well know, I cannot give any information on the matter.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  120. BroKeeper

    Congratulations Andrea. Your low morning input prayers resulted in very high output, perhaps COP=Infinity. :)

  121. Andrea Rossi

    BroKeeper:
    IH and I share the same values and our Team is perfectly aware of the importance of our work. This is the reason why we are dedicating our lives to this endeavour, to make it integrable with all the sustainable energy sources.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  122. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    did Bill Gates met with you also?
    Ciao,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  123. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    I cannot give information about whom I meet, either positive or negative.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  124. Eric Ashworth

    Koen Vandewalle, You are correct and I am aware that without drawings it is extremely difficult to understand. I presume you are referring to the information posted November 13th 2014. This later information is theorized from an understanding of the mechansim that demonstrates a method of controlling an induced flow so as to form a unified field. The design of the mechanism came as an understanding of a unit of energy referred to as a cubic neutral but as you are aware it would be impossible to describe in words the intricate nature of the machines make-up. It is a vast subject that I have been involved with over the past 20 years and I am still learning. Answer to your first question. No you would not build a thruster or a propeller from my latest information. To build a proper thruster that is silent because of no turbulence/disturbance you would build the mechanism as shown with propellers in multiples of four depending upon application. You mention about heat strengthening the vortex. The vortex is a self regulating control mechanism that responds to its environment. You can’t strengthen a vortex in nature. The vortex either increases an internal gravity value of the structure or it reduces it in response to its environment. In the mechanism the vortexes are continually being structured in compliance with the r.p.ms. of the overlapping propellers. Atoms and particles are self contained constructed units containing a specific value of gravity even though they are comprised of quarks and particles, aether, I believe, being not a structure contains no gravity. I refer to it as an Absolute of size with regards that of an Absolute of volume. Thereby, these two Absolutes make and contain everything that exists. I believe there are two positions where gravity exists, one position being centripetal and one position being central of centrifugal force due to the fractional make-up of any structure. Maybe, if I am able to explain the three basic symbols in a concise way some light will be cast on this nebulous subject.
    Regards Eric Ashworth

  125. eernie1

    Steven,
    If the ash results are correct, there is a large increase in 6Li,or a large decrease in 7Li or a combination of both. Also a large decrease in 58Ni, or a large increase in 62Ni or a combination of both. In all cases, there is no change in the atomic number of the resultant materials which implies that if protons are involved there must be a revision back to a neutron in the reactions. I would bet without further data and of course speculation, on 7Li to 6Li and 58Ni to 62Ni with a transfer of neutrons. There is also no report of 4He. I think that if more 7Li is required it can easily be added in some form and since it is approx. 1/9th the Atomic weight of 58Ni would add little to the overall sample size weight wise. There are so many variables that can be manipulated, an estimate of sample content is less certain than the content of the various isotopes.
    Wlad submitted an interesting data point when he showed that there is much more distortion in the nucleus of the 7Li than in the nucleus of the 6Li. This would indicate that the 6Li is much more stable than the 7Li.
    Regards.

  126. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You might find this interesting: Bill Gates recently attended a meeting at ENEA in Frascati where he was briefed by Dr. Vittorio Violante about LENR.

    More information here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/14/bill-gates-addressed-at-enea-by-lenr-research-coordinator-what-does-he-know-about-lenr/

    Kind regards,

    Frank Acland

  127. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Clearly our work is giving his consequences.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  128. Koen Vandewalle

    Eric Ashworth,
    what you write remains hard to understand without a drawing.

    Is it possible to build a thruster or a propeller with it ?
    Is it possible to apply some heat e.g. IR radiation, somewhere to strenghten the vortex ?
    A sort of man-made, heat driven tornado that pulls or pushes load.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  129. Wladimir Guglinski

    Steven N. Karels
    November 13th, 2014 at 8:51 PM

    Wladimir,

    Just because the percent of 6Li increased does not necessarily mean that 6Li was created. This would only be true if the total amount of lithium in the fuel and the ash were exactly known. We only know the ratio changed.
    —————————————

    you’re right, Steven

    Then there is need to know the % of total lithium in the fuel and in the ash, so that to know whether the 7Li decays in 4He + 4He, or whether it transmuttes to 6Li.

    If the % of total lithium is the same in the fuel and in the ash, then the 7Li is transmutted to 6Li.

    This information is very important, so that to give us the answer on what reaction of 7Li we need to consider

    regards
    wlad

  130. Dear eernie1, Andrea and JoNP Readers,
    Eernie1 You said it! A neutron must pass from Li to Ni. I agree. But IMO there is no tunnelling.

    The more I look at the data, the more it seems to me that the reactions responsible for both the isotopic shift of Ni58, 60, 61 to Ni62, and the change in Lithium isotopic ratio are either these:

    1: Li7 + e + Ni58 -> Li6 + e + Ni59 + 2.26 [MeV]
    2: Li7 + e + Ni59 -> Li6 + e + Ni60 + 4.65 [MeV] … and following

    or these:

    3: Li7 + p + e + Ni58 ->Li6+Ni60+neutrino+(max) 12.35 [MeV]
    4: Li7 + p + e + Ni60 ->Li6+Ni62+neutrino+(max) 10.39 [MeV].

    In all these “electron mediated nuclear reactions” (as in the theory I proposed) one of the electrons does not take part in the actual nuclear reaction and serves only as a coupling mechanism that allows two nuclei to approach down to 2 or 3 femtometers. In my initial theory I did not consider this type of reaction, which could for example lead directly to 2He4 + e from d + e + d.
    If two nuclei have the nuclear properties that allow them to react without the participation of the electron, this type of reaction should actually be possible.
    In the reactions 1 and 2 there is essentially a neutron that moves from Lithium 7 to a Nickel isotope, thanks to the electron that locks both nuclei inside its Zitterbewegung (ZBW) trajectory.
    But if Hydrogen has a any role in the LENR shown in this test of the Hot Cat, than the correct reactions can only be number 3 and 4.
    In reactions 3 and 4 there is a chain of two electron couplings and Nickel can acquire two neutrons. One electron and one proton add to the Ni nucleus together with another neutron coming from Li7.
    I think that reactions 3 and 4 take place in two stages: First an electron captures a proton and becomes the mysterious state of matter that someone imaginatively called Hydrino. In this case however the photon emission is at discrete frequencies, and not continuous, because this time it happens inside a metal matrix. Then the “Hydrino” adds to the Nickel nucleus together with the one neutron of Li7. I will use the symbol ep for the proton captured inside the electron ZBW (the “Hydrino”). Reaction 3 would become:

    3-1: p + e -> ep
    3-2: Li7 + ep + Ni58 -> Li6 + Ni60

    ep has no net charge, therefore it should efficiently couple to the other nuclei.
    The mass analysis of the ashes shows that during the 32 days of the test (that I think is just the Hot Cat “charge priming”) there is no significant development of deuterium and tritium. This should keep the gamma emissions very low.
    During this phase the quantity of hydrogen inside the metallic Ni is probably not high enough for what I call the “classical” LENR reactions (1-5 of my “theory”).
    I guess that exceeding the agreement of max 35 days of continuous testing would have led to the ignition of the “classical LENR” with the associated soft gamma radiation that Andrea Rossi confirmed in various occasions (the lead shield …). Needless to say that the time constraint imposed was a clever move that allowed to show to the world a reactor without any significant gamma radiation and with dramatic isotopic shifts, instead of some ephemerous He4 and may be some inconvenient Tritium.

    If the “non-nuclear” part of my “theory” is right, it seems that there is a way to make Lithium behave as the interstitial hydrogen.

    I am now trying to update the theory I proposed with the possibility of the electron not taking place in the nuclear reaction (as in all cases above), plus some considerations about the transmutations of Iwamura and the Hydrino mystery. I hope I will have time this weekend.

    Best Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  131. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    While the COP of the electricity power eCat is known from previous postings to be around the 3 or higher, the intrinsic cost of electricity generation is about 3, due to Carnot and other efficiency limitations. This discussion ignores the greater inefficiency of electricity generation and focuses only on heat generation by the eCat reactor.

    My thoughts will be obviously wrong or incomplete as I lack the direct access to the information and ideas that AR’s development team has access to and holds. That said, it may be interesting and informative to express what I contemplate on a gas-fired eCat versus an electricity heated eCat.

    Assume we are interested in only a heat output, e.g., generating warm water or low temperature steam for community heating, etc.
    The current Cat and Mouse design may no longer be needed. AR found better stability in a two stage implementation where a smaller unit, running at a COP of around 3 is used to provide the thermal input to a larger eCat reactor. But one of the cooking benefits of a gas fired stove is better control over heat.

    1. I suggest that the two stage control may not be needed with a gas-fired eCat.

    The major benefit of a gas-fired eCat is the relatively low cost of the fuel compared to electricity. However, keep in mind the electricity is 100% efficient in being turned into heat while the gas-fired approach is around 50% to 70% efficient (some of the heat is lost going up the chimney). There is also the carbon loading issue which I will ignore for now.

    The heat geometry for an electric powered eCat reactor is generally fixed by the heating element geometry. The number of wires entering the eCat reactor is limited. While conceptually a gas-fired eCat could have multiple controlled gas nozzles along the reactor. This may be a unimportant option but it is a feature of the gas-fired design.

    There is no magnetic field being applied in the process of adding heat using the gas-fired approach. This may not be important but a magnetic field could affect the Rossi Effect. A magnetic field or “vibrations” could still be applied as part of the control but conceptually at lower power than for the purposes of heating the eCat to its operating temperature.

    2. No changing magnetic fields with the gas-fired eCat – could be an advantage.

    There is added complexity in the gas-fired eCat. Gas plumbing is added, nozzles, a source of ignition but it is also a well-understood technology. So it may be worth the complexity.

    3. Increased complexity but the energy source is less expensive.

    While the gas-fired approach has chimney losses – heat waste – a well-designed thermal system may be able to recover the majority of the heat loss. This is also a well-understood and mature technology and should be implemented in any production system.

    4. Implement heat waste recovery.

    Some thoughts – Steve

  132. Tom Conover

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Dr Vessela Nikolova regarding her book “The New Fire” have inspired many of us already.

    I was happy to see that IH’s Patent #61821914 reports COP 11.07 when measured using water calorimetry. (see page #11 of 13 of the patent).

    More information can be found @ http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/industrial-heat-patent-cop-11/

    “It seems a very important document. The most relevant part probably regards the COP reached by a Hot-Cat.

    In the ‘experimental results’ of the patent application, describing instead a test on a multiple reactor device, we read that a COP of 11.07 was measured using water calorimetry.

    The cat is out of the bag, indeed!

    Tom

  133. Steven N. Karels

    Wladimir,

    Just because the percent of 6Li increased does not necessarily mean that 6Li was created. This would only be true if the total amount of lithium in the fuel and the ash were exactly known. We only know the ratio changed.

  134. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in November 12th, 2014 at 6:01 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    How much reliability do you place on the report of the ash contents included in the TP3? If they are correct the Rossi effect must involve the removal from one of the reaction atom nuclei, of a neutron, and the capture of that neutron by another of the involved atoms. Most likely IMO, the 7Li passing a neutron in steps to the 62Ni. The Hydrogen through its spin energy absorbed from an imposed RF field can cause the neutron emission by interacting and destabilizing a neutron rich nucleus such as the 7Li.
    ——————————————

    Eernie1,
    there is a strange conclusion in the Report, because:

    1) In the page 29 they say:
    “One can speculate about the nature of such reactions. Considering Li and disregarding for a moment from the problem with the Coulomb barrier the depletion of 7Li might be due to the reaction p + 7Li = 8Be = 4He + 4 He. The momentum mismatch in the first step before 8Be decays can be picked up by any other particle in the vicinity. In this case the large kinetic energy of the 4 He (distributed between 7 and 10 MeV ) is transferred to heat in the reactor via multiple Coulomb scattering in the usual stopping process. “

    2) If that was be the case, then there would be only decrease of the 7Li, since it is totally transmutted to 4He + 4He.

    3)However, by looking at the composition of the ash in the page 42, we see:
    a) 6Li : the original fuel had 8,6% and the ash has 92,1%
    b) 7Li : the original fuel had 91,4% and the ash has 7,9%

    So, we realize that actually there was transmutation of 7Li to 6Li.

    The structures of 6Li and 7Li according to the nuclear model proposed in QRT is shown ahead:

    6Li:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Fig._18.png

    7Li:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Fig._19.png

    .

    Those two structures are agree to the quadrupole moment of the two nuclei:

    a) 6Li has Q = -0,0008
    b) 7Li has Q = -0,04

    From the structure of the 7Li we realize that it is submitted to a big unbalance of mass. So, the excitation of the 7Li may cause the rupture of the binding between the deuteron and the neutron, and the 7Li transmutes to 6Li, with the emission of the neutron.

    However, there is need to have a special condition of resonance between 7Li and 58Ni, otherwise the phenomenon would have to occur also easily between 7Li and many other nuclei as it occurs between 7Li and 58Ni.

    It seems the excitation of 58Ni resonates with the excitation of 7Li.

    regards
    wlad

  135. Steven N. Karels

    Peter,

    We had a death in the family so I was away. I missed reading your postings. What day did you post?

  136. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Sorry to hear that.
    Please accept my condolences.
    Andrea

  137. Peter Forsberg

    Steven

    Sorry to hear that! My post was on the third of November.

    Regards

    Peter

  138. Eric Ashworth

    Dear Andrea, Thanks for your information regarding spam and what to do if any information inadvertently becomes spam. I do understand that sometimes you cannot comment on certain topics because of the nature of your work. My comments are merely to share information that could be of interest to both yourself and your readers. I must say I have learnt a lot about atomic physics from your journal. Many thanks for the opportunities your journal provides. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  139. Dear Doctor Rossi.

    Does your experimental “Gas Cat” also require small electrical input for controllability, etc?

    Congratulations for the many international awakenings on your wonderful e-cat discoveries…

    Neil Taylor,
    Long Time Follower

  140. Andrea Rossi

    Neil Taylor:
    Yes, it does.
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  141. Peter Forsberg

    Dear Steven N. Karels,

    Did you not understand the exchange between me and Andrea Rossi a few days ago regarding COP and modCOP?

    If you understand that, you know why Andrea is pursuing the Gas-Cat.

    Regards

    Peter

  142. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    Thank you for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  143. Eric Ashworth

    Dear Andrea, To explain a theory I shall use water as an example of how I see molecular interaction. What is water with regards density, well we all know it can be either steam as a vapour, water as a liquid or ice as a solid. Here is why I think these states are able to exist. Considering each state is comprised of two hydrogen units and one unit of oxygen. Thereby three fields of activity that interact in each state.

    Therefore, draw three circles and overlap them slightly put x in the two overlaps where the vortex forces occur, label steam. Draw three other circles and overlap them a bit more, put y in the two overlaps, label it water. Do the same again but overlap these by a third and put z in the two overlaps, label it ice.

    The overlaps produce two vortexes of a flow force (I believe vortexes are able to gravitate external aether. I do not think aether exists as a single entity. I think it has to be a triplicity and thereby exist as a charge, even when in a free state. An obvious question is, what dictates the adjustment of the x state to the y state and visa versa?.

    Water as steam contains lots of kinetic energy, a week economy flow system and a strong outer static barrier that provides it with a loose bind unlike water and especially ice (This barrier provides atoms/structure with identity. Identity is what puzzled Einstein. Why don’t atoms flow together?. The reason why structures do not flow together is, I believe, because of their internal oscillations of the internal vortexes. Kinetic energy refers to the velocity of the quarks and the vibrational pitch/resonance of the vortexes).

    Economy flow is produced by the vortex. Thereby, less overlap provides less economy, less economy provides less quality/solidity and less economy provides for more kinetic energy and more kinetic energy privides more identity which allows a structure more independence. Water molecules that become more independent form a vapour.

    This reference to a static barrier is fully demonstrable by the previously mentioned mechanism.

    Water as ice contains a degree of latent energy because more overlap provides more economy, more economy provides more Quality/solidity and more economy provides more latent energy. More latent energy is responsible for less identity and thereby a reduced static barrier value creates more solidy between the molecules because they are able to get into closer proximity.

    If this correct then the peculiar characterists of Browns Gas can be accounted for if aether is brought into the equation regarding the expanded molecular state of water and its contracted state back to water. It could be that when quarks enter a vortex they could in theory because of the motion induced on the quarks become more latent in their charge potential resulting in an eventual releasing of a charge with an added kinetic potential.

    Back to the obvious question: In my attempt to answer this question it could be as follows:-

    Draw three lines (the three circles represent a top view, the three lines represent a side view) that overlap by a third. The vortexes are formed in the overlaps. In the space surrounding the molecule are quarks as free aether. Quarks to me represent electrical charge. Heat could be said to be electrical in content. So a lot of quarks in the environment would fuel the vortexes. Now through the areas that represent a vortex mark y and make loops that enter and exit each vortex. As will be evident two loops will flow away at the base and two loops will flow towards at the top (As is demonstrable in the mechanism). This flow is positive at its face and negative at its base with regards the individual quarks, according to the geometry of a cubic neutral or I should say a piece of a cubic neutral. Details of this can follow). As we know unlike particles attract and like particles repel. I believe it is the repulsion caused by the increased strengthy of a field that causes the vortexex to move out. When the environment contains few quarks the vortexes move in and create a stronger economy flow system. The economy flow system is a self protecting mechansim with regards the gravity value of the environment in competition with that of the molecule/structure.

    Andrea could this activity of what I have described in some way help with the workings of your e-cat. I do not know the technicalities with regards nickel but I think the octahedral cavities with regards a possible distortion could play a part. As you are aware this subjects involves causes and effects. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  144. Andrea Rossi

    Eric Ashworth:
    As you know, I cannot comment on this kind of issues. About the theory behind the so called Rossi effect I will be explicit after conclusive reconciliation of the science we got from the work of the ITP.
    By the way: this comment of yours has been casually retrieved by me from the spam, where the robot had relegated it: I saw it because in the first page of the spam section. This makes me think some comment is lost in the spam, therefore I repeat: if a Reader finds his comment not published, he is kindly invited to inform us writing to
    info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
    resending the comment as an attachment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  145. Andrew

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    I’d like to bring to your attention the following news article published this week on Panorama, major Italian weekly magazine:

    http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/book-e-cat-on-the-main-italian-magazine/

    Kind Regards
    Andrew

  146. Andrea Rossi

    Andrew:
    Thank you; the article, as correctly suggested from your link, has been generated from an interview to Dr Vessela Nikolova regarding her book “The New Fire”.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  147. silvio caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I have made a guess with some friends about figure 5 of ITPR2. According to your e-cat experience, when was this PCE-830 photo made?
    1) During the dummy phase
    2) During the test phase
    3) During an un-documented e-cat experiment
    4) It’s a swedish joke, nothing to do with e-cat

  148. Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    The photo #5 of the Report of the Independent Third Party is very important and has been made on purpose from the Professors. They explained to me that the photo has been taken during the set up of the measurement stuff and they were controlling that the PCE830 was surely able to read perfectly the waves also in extreme conditions: for this reason , as surely have understood the experts and the reviewers to whom the Professors have given the report before the publication, the photo shows the wave also when the system has been put in overload; you can understand it from the acronym “OL” that you can read on the display, while the wave is perfectly described by the instrument.
    Thank you for the intelligent question.

  149. Italo R.

    Dear Dr, Rossi,
    I have found this russian web site where they talk positively about the last test.
    It is written in russian language but easily translating with Google.

    http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5595

    Kind Regards,
    Italo R.

  150. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    Yes, I got it. I translated it to my Team.
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  151. Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    my compliments for your interview published on Panorama. It says nothing new for us but it would had been unbelivable one year ago.
    Gherardo

    PS: the text in italian… http://www.astampa.rassegnestampa.it/GruppoTotoAc/View.aspx?ID=2014111928829069

  152. Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    Thank you, very nice! Panorama arrives also here in the USA in the bookshop close to the factory I am working in.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  153. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    What are the reasons for going to a gas-fired eCat reactor:

    a. Cheaper heat source?
    b. Faster means of applying heat energy?
    c. Variable heating over the reactor?
    d. Better energy coupling (source to input to the eCat)?
    e. Other advantages?

  154. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    a., obviously multiplied by the fact that making thermal energy by means of thermal energy we have not the factor 3 to turn thermal energy into electric energy.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  155. Gianluca

    it would be interesting to know what the COP of ECAT in a hypothetical function as a domestic boiler (70-80 ° C). The use of low temperature increases the COP?
    Thanks

  156. Andrea Rossi

    Gianluca:
    The temperature chosen for the secondary fluid of a heat exchanger depends on its flow rate and does not affect the efficiency of the generator.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  157. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you for your inspiring comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  158. Joseph Fine

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    This morning, on the Vortex-l Website, I saw a well written – and poetic – article titled ‘The Pale Blue Dot’ (in part to honor the memory of Carl Sagan).

    https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg99693.html

    With your permission, I have copied the text below.
    —————————————————

    The pale blue dot:

    Axil Axil Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:32:08 -0800

    One of the sticking point that lodges deeply in the gullets of “real”
    science is that LENR is just too perfect to be believed. They are wrong. In
    point of fact, it is beyond too perfect, it is absolutely perfect. The
    corruption of the mind that is our legacy inherited from the mindless
    primitive from which we evolved rebels against the concept of such
    perfection. Such perfection cannot exist in this life. Such perfection can
    only exist and be truly enjoyed in the next. From the pride and prejudice
    born deep within that primordial dark place, mankind does not deserve to
    drink fully this sweet ambrosia of the immortals.

    LENR goes way beyond a great way to produce energy, it is a doorway to a
    new science whose implications when fully appreciated and developed will
    lift mankind up to trod upon brave new worlds spread like dust before
    eternity. A door for humankind will open to savor the power and the
    prerogatives of the gods. When man is wise enough to step through this
    doorway past the impossible that LENR lays open into timeless and unending
    existence, mankind will spread like a rising tide throughout the universe.

    This perfection of LENR is its own threat to its credibility and its
    science is here 1000 years before its proper time. What aborigines from the
    dawn of our past corruption would rightly understand the wonders of our
    present civilization without quaking with fear at the reality of such
    wonders? The science that LENR will reveal and the future that it portends
    it just too awesome to contemplate.

    Carl Sagan explained the emotion behind our current science and cosmology
    when he wrote Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space. Sagan
    played for high stakes in this attempt to “de-deify” our entire species.
    His beautiful, secular psalm dedicated to our demotion is unsurpassed. In
    Psalm 8, King David described us as only a little lower than the angels
    while in Pale Blue Dot, Sagan takes great pains to obliterate any sense of
    cosmic significance.

    Sagan says of that picture taken from by a spacecraft from a viewpoint far
    out in space: “We succeeded in taking that picture and, if you look at it,
    you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you
    know, everyone you love, everyone you’ve ever heard of, every human being
    who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and
    sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic
    doctrines. Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator
    and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple
    in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and
    explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every
    superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of
    our species, lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam”.

    With the help of LENR, this view claustrophobic view of human existence is
    about to change.

    —————

    Well done, Axil Axil!

    Best regards,

    Joseph Fine

  159. JCRenoir

    Prof. Bert Abbing:
    I congratulate with you for your open letter. Of course I agree with you.
    JCR

  160. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    I spammed your comment for reasons you easily can understand, but I will respond to the part concerning the questions emerged on some blog related to the Report of the ITP: you ask when I will answer to the questions put here and there. As a matter of fact, all the questions have been answered in this blog, directly from me or from other expert Readers. It is true that notwithstanding this fact, somebody continues to put again and again the same questions, but the intention of these guys is not to make clear obscure points, but to try to pull us in a discussion where they get confidential information; obviously there are also the agenda-motivated guys: our policy with them is just to ignore them, after the answer has been already given regarding the issue they raise.
    To all the intelligent and honest questions we have answered .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  161. clauzon pierre

    Dear friend Andrea,

    > You have to take a look on the nice paper given in french by Contrepoints about the ecat (Third report). I think that there is a real change in the minds now.

    >

    > http://www.contrepoints.org/2014/10/13/184364-fusion-froide-le-chat-e-cat-est-enfin-sorti-de-sa-boite

    >

    > and also this note taken from Linkedin below:

    >

    Christian Wiesner Director Global Sales / Co-Founder / Shareholder of PWH Plasmawerk Hamburg GmbH and ROTOKINETIK UG

    What Rossi is doing is absolutely OK, every small to medium sized company has to act this way. Don’t forget that every patent is also giving clear instructions to your competitors on how you are doing things, it’s like a manual.

    It’s therefore common practice for smaller companies to only patent technological aspects AROUND your key technology, preventing other people from making direct copies of your products, rather than patenting the core technology itself.

    If one of the giants, like GE, SIEMENS or ABB (why not AREVA), will finally jump on the case, with hundreds of patent lawyers behind, there will be no patent strong enough so these guys can’t find their way around !

    Well done Mr. Rossi, well done !

    Warmest regards and good luck for the 1MW demo to come

    Pierre

  162. Andrea Rossi

    Clauzon Pierre:
    By the way, I want to add that I am grateful to Centrepoint/ Science for the publication and also to Christian Wiesner of PWH Plasmawerk for his kind words.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  163. Rafael

    but maybe the temperature of the sun come from a nuclear reaction and we could call HENR, high energy nuclear reaction. can you tell me where the sun’s energy come from than a nuclear reaction?

  164. Andrea Rossi

    Rafael:
    Please Google ” Wikipedia nuclear reactions on the sun” for a quick answer. All this has nothing to do with LENR. If you are interested to understand the basics of nuclear physics, you can buy a high school physics manual : from your language I think this can be a good start for you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  165. Jorge Alberto

    Dear Rossi,

    A website of CNN says that LENR is Obama’s secret weapon.

    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1187686?ref=feeds%2Fnewsiest.

    Jorge

  166. Andrea Rossi

    Jorge Alberto:
    Thank you! I did not know that CNN was talking about us!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  167. Paul Calvo

    Hi Dr Rossi

    take a look at this water heater tech, I can see this looking like your home cat – they have a video demonstration.

    http://myheatworks.com/technology.php

    Regards,

    Paul Calvo

  168. Andrea Rossi

    Paul Calvo:
    Thank you for the information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  169. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    How much reliability do you place on the report of the ash contents included in the TP3? If they are correct the Rossi effect must involve the removal from one of the reaction atom nuclei, of a neutron, and the capture of that neutron by another of the involved atoms. Most likely IMO, the 7Li passing a neutron in steps to the 62Ni. The Hydrogen through its spin energy absorbed from an imposed RF field can cause the neutron emission by interacting and destabilizing a neutron rich nucleus such as the 7Li.
    Regards.

  170. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1:
    The analysis made by the scientists of the third independent party that made the test have been made correctly, with the most sophysticated methodologies and the best available technologies. The results are what they are. Our duty now is to reconcile them with the Standard Model, and this is the work we are making. When we will have conclusive information about this issue, if such information will be publicable, we will give due information. Before that, is totally useless to make inconclusive assumptions. We are working upon not easy equations and I am optimist about the output.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  171. Peter Wolstenholme

    Pete Frimmel:
    Water heats up in a water-fall, so is slightly hotter at the bottom
    than at the top, for reasons of conservation of energy. A volcano
    presumably shows the same effect, because the lava will be stirred up
    as it flows downhill. Heating by internal friction. But I have not
    seen the figures.
    Peter W.

  172. Paul Calvo

    Dr Rossi, Take a look at this water heater – they have a video demonstration.

    http://myheatworks.com/technology.php

    Regards,

    Paul Calvo

  173. Andrea Rossi

    Clauzon Pierre:
    I am delighted to receive this important information from you.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  174. Rafael

    Maybe the sun is the product of a LENR, why not you try to mix the same chemical elements that has in the sun to see if you not create an artificial sun or get electricity or make a nuclear fusion propellant with less chemical elements, we already know what the sun is made of, just see on the wikipedia. Do not forget that the sun also has chromium nickel and calcium.

  175. Andrea Rossi

    Rafael:
    The sun, obviously, is not a product of LENR. The temperatures necessary to remake what happens in the sun are in the order of millions °C, which is not properly a “low energy”…
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  176. carloluna

    Pete,Wladimir

    The Earth’s mante is made up largely of piezoelectric perovskites that produce heat (mysterious source responsible for half of the heat which keeps the temperature of the Earth) and electricity because of the enormous pressure. The mante flows on the core for the Coriolis force, so the electricity magnetizes the core. Therefore I believe that the Earth’s magnetic field is created.

  177. Wladimir Guglinski

    Pete Fimmel wrote in November 11th, 2014 at 7:20 PM

    Prior to the course of the lava flow turning towards the town, it flowed from the volcano into the sea.

    Temperatures of the lava immediately before it reached the sea were found to be higher than those of the lava emerging from the volcano!

    An interesting source of unexplained heat.
    —————————————-

    Pete,
    nobody knows what is a mysterious source responsible for half of the heat which keeps the temperature of the Earth.

    Half of the 44 TW heat lost to space is due to radioactive decay.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat

    The other source is unknown.

    Perhaps the Nature already had discovered the Rossi’s Effect before Andrea Rossi.

    regards
    wlad

  178. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, I liked your response to Pete Fimmel.
    I am also not an expert on Volcanos.
    However after 10 minutes on Google, I may be able to explain the ‘unexplained heat’
    There are 4 chemical types of Lava.
    Felsic, sometimes >950 C.
    Intermediate, 750 to 950 C.
    Mafic, >950 C.
    Ultramatic, 1,600 C.
    What was the sequence out of the Volcano ?
    Ultramatic followed by Intermediate ???
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  179. Pete Fimmel

    Prior to the course of the lava flow turning towards the town, it flowed from the volcano into the sea.

    Temperatures of the lava immediately before it reached the sea were found to be higher than those of the lava emerging from the volcano!

    An interesting source of unexplained heat.

  180. Andrea Rossi

    Pete Fimmel:
    I am not an expert of volcanos. Cannot comment at all.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  181. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted “Nevertheless, I must repeat that presently the focus of our R&D is restricted to the 1 MW industrial plant and the gas fueled Hot Cat.” Does that mean that no one is working on electricity generation from an eCat?

  182. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:

    No, I didn’t mean that.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  183. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You mention that you don’t think LENR effects takes place spontaneously on earth. Do you think they occur naturally anywhere in the universe?

    Kind regards,

    Frank

  184. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    In Physics nothing is absolutely impossible: everything is associated to a certain percentage of probability.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  185. Franco Sarbia

    Caro Andrea Rossi.
    L’ecat sottoposto a test, ha caratteristiche di dimensione, potenza, temperatura d’esercizio, che sembrano ormai adattarsi a diverse applicazioni quali mini generatori turbo elettrici, capaci di motorizzare: automobili, motoveicoli, piccole imbarcazioni, e aerei leggeri. Sistemi modulari complessi a turbina ed elettrici ad alto grado di sicurezza potrebbero essere propulsori di grandi navi, sottomarini, aerei, e veicoli spaziali. State già lavorando a simili applicazioni?
    Cordiali saluti.
    Franco Sarbia

    Dear Andrea Rossi.
    The ECAT tested, has characteristics of size, power, operating temperature, which now seem to adapt to different applications such as mini electric turbo generators, capable of powering: cars, motorcycles, small boats, and light aircraft. Complex modular systems, turbine and electrical high degree of security may be engines of large ships, submarines, aircraft, and spacecraft. Are you already working in similar applications?
    Best regards.
    Franco Sarbia

  186. Andrea Rossi

    Franco Sarbia:
    Well, the applications you are looking for belong to the future of the Hot Cat, possibly. Nevertheless, I must repeat that presently the focus of our R&D is restricted to the 1 MW industrial plant and the gas fueled Hot Cat.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  187. Steven N. Karels

    An Estimate of the Hydrogen Pressure within the eCat Reactor

    Assume the ideal gas law

    Amount of available hydrogen (from the LiAlH4) is 0.006 grams
    eCat Reactor operating temperature of 1500 K
    Interior eCat cavity dimensions assumed to be 0.5” diameter by 20cm in length
    Ideal Gas Law: PV = nRT where R = 0.08205 L * atm / ( mole * K)

    V = L * pi * D * D / 4 = 20cm * 3.1415927 * 1.27cm * 1.27cm / 4 = 25.34 cc = 0.02534 liters
    n = 0.006 grams / 2 grams per mole (diatomic hydrogen gas in the reactor interior volume) = 0.003 moles
    P = nRT / V = 0.003 moles * 0.08205 L * atm / (mole * K) * 1500K / 0.02534 = 14.57 atm

    This would be the maximum pressure. Actual pressure would be reduced by hydrogen adsorbed into the nickel

  188. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu: I retrieved this comment of yours from the spam: fortunately it was in the first spam page in good evidence. Beware next time you don’t find your comment published is because it contains something taken as advertising by the robot. In that case, just inform me sending an email to info@leonardocorp1996.com
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  189. Boss

    Dear Rossi ,
    Unibo published the tprII
    here : http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/

    Is there a reason in your opinion for the e-cat recent developments being discussed and confined to online blogs and forums?
    Why do you think the media are not talking about It ?
    Regards

  190. Andrea Rossi

    Boss:
    We did not make press conferences because we deem it premature. It is necessary to see in operation the 1 MW plant for a long enough time to be sure of a commercial breakthrough before it is worth to make a diffused communication. For the same reason so far our publications are limited to scientific and technological context.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  191. georgehants

    Dear Mr. Rossi, understanding that you have delayed your small domestic E-Cat because of the certification problems, are you still working on getting it ready for market as it is the device most suitable to use in villages etc. for water purification etc. and is very urgently needed in these situations.
    Beat wishes

  192. Andrea Rossi

    Georgehants:
    At this moment our focus is on the 1 MW plant and the gas fueled Hot Cats.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  193. Pete Fimmel

    An item of news of interest for the last 3 weeks or more has been the volcanic lava flow in Hawaii. I haven’t noticed any discussion on why it continues to glow red and does not solidify.

    Surely this would be of interest to the LENR community. Perhaps someone could offer an explanation for it remaining at such a high temperature for weeks on end.

    If it were molten aluminium at 700˚C its temperature would drop 400˚C in 12 minutes from contact with ambient temperature surface soil.

    Looks like ‘natural’ LENR to me.

  194. Andrea Rossi

    Pete Fimmel:
    The time necessary to the solidification of the lava is not a number, but a complex system of integrals, related to the heat source power, the heat conduction, convection, irradiation, the heat exchange surface, the mass of the lava to be cooled etc. Without these calculations it is impossible to give an answer, but, honestly, I think that no LENR are happening there. I know how complex is the mechanism to get the so called “Rossi effect” and I do not think it can happen spontaneously.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  195. Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in November 10th, 2014 at 9:20 AM

    More doubts over the Standard Model:

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/19802/20141108/shocking-cern-may-not-have-discovered-elusive-higgs-boson-particle-after-all.htm

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/19806/20141109/researchers-claim-higgs-boson-particle-still-elusive-what-did-cern-discover-then.htm
    ——————————————-

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 10th, 2014 at 10:35 AM

    Orsobubu:
    Your last comment is interesting also in general in the following sense: an experiment made by the creme of the scientists of all the world, with funding of tens of billions of Euros, raises doubts: this makes normal and understandable that also the E-Cat science can raise doubts among the scientific echelons.
    Nobody is immune from doubts. Respect them, I have an advantage, though: with a commercial breakthrough I can make futile any kind of doubt.
    =========================================================

    Dears Orsobubu and Andrea Rossi

    the brain of the scientist is one among the most mysterious and paradoxical things of the universe.
    Because although the scientist is known as the most rational of the beings, however the most scientists become irrational when the theories they believe is threatened by some experiment.

    The Higgs theory was conceived 50 years ago by considering the empty space, because he was led by the need of explaining (from the concept of the empty space), from where the particles get their mass.

    But in 2011 a new experiment had proven that the space is not empty, because an empty space cannot create light (the empty space cannot get energy from nothing):
    A vacuum can yield flashes of light
    http://www.nature.com/news/a-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light-1.12430

    Therefore,
    the Higgs theory lost its merit and lost its sense, because he had proposed it with the aim of solving the paradox: how particles can get mass from the empty space?.

    The mass of the particles comes from their interaction with the aether, which existence was proven by the experiment published in the journal Nature.

    And so the physicists would have to realize that there is need to develop a New Physics, based on the concept of the aether:
    a new model of the atom
    a new model of the nucleus
    a new model of elementary particles

    But instead of to face this unavoidable situation requiring a New Physics, the physicists persist in keeping their old theories developed under the hypothesis of the empty space.

    Probably, after the publication of the paper by Nature in 2011, the own Higgs had said to himself:
    “What a hell… I developed my theory by supposing the space as empty, and now this experiment proves the empty space is a myth. Oh, my God, in this case… probably my theory is wrong… there is no need any boson to give mass to the particles, they can get mass from the interaction with the non-empty space…”

    Suppose that an alien scientist from another planet comes here (probably getting energy for his spacecraft from the Rossi’s Effect), and we tell him that scientists in the Earth continue believing that there is need a kind of Higgs boson so that to supply mass to the particles, in spite of in 2011 a new experiment detected that the space is no empty, as Higgs supposed for proposing his theory.

    Well,
    immediately the alien scientist would reply to us:

    “This is unbelievable. What sort of scientists do you have in this planet?”

    regards
    wlad

  196. orsobubu

    Andreas Moraitis, Peter Forsberg, StudentG, Silvio Caggia:

    I can give you a well done link on Husserl

    http://www.filosofico.net/husserl.htm

    translated:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filosofico.net%2Fhusserl.htm

    This is perhaps the busiest italian site for students of philosophy. I must say that, although Husserl departs from Berkeley’s classical idealism and then try to solve the problem of solipsism (the material non-existence of other men), anyone who is preparing to such studies should necessarily compare him with a general critique of modern idealism, as for example the powerful Lenin’s one in “Materialism and Empiriocriticism”, which faces the same problems on the crisis of science and in general of the life of humanity today, resolved of course – in the works and actions by the author – not through subjectivism and phenomenology (the reflection on the subject itself, You can seek an answer exclusively in yourself, as said by Rossi), but through the material intervention of the man in society and economy, ultimately by class struggle. I’m sure that among the 11 professors examining Rossi’s doctoral thesis (he’s constantly under a commission of Professors), Geymonat, who was critic with Husserlian fenomenology, would have liked to hiddenly shoot him in the back with a flat out 0/110 :)

    In fact, what interests most to me is to remember the figure of Rossi’s Professor of Relativity, Ludovico Geymonat, the knowledge of which could also be useful here to non-italian readers, like Peter Forsberg (hi!), when he considers empirically evident the failure of alternatives to the capitalist mode of production; when it is rather obvious (and it had to be especially to a master of logic as Geymonat) that those systems were based on absolutely capitalistic social relationships (market, money, wage labor, banks, etc.), although a state controlled market instead of a free market.

    Geymonat had a degree in mathematics and philosophy, he was the most important epistemologist (philosopher of science) we’ve had in Italy, and one of the foremost in the world. Together with Feyerabend, he demolished the thesis of Karl Popper, whose critique vs. dialectical materialism/marxism had very little scientific foundation, dictated mostly by geopolitical needs in a mccarthyistic political climate, depending on the creation of an anti-communist ideology in anti-soviet key.

    Among the students of this master of scientific philosophy there are contemporary important scholars in Italian and international cultural life, which often followed different paths from the thought of their teacher, and it gives me great satisfaction to know that Andrea Rossi has also been part of this group. This fact alone is sufficient to me to ridicule any critics by detractors that use “established science arguments” against him.

    I badly translate here a few sentences about Geymonat and science, from the site by philosopher Diego Fusaro:

    http://www.filosofico.net/geymonat.htm

    translated:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filosofico.net%2Fgeymonat.htm
    —–
    In the course of his work, the reflection comes, in particular, to two conclusions: to reject a formalist-conventional interpretation of knowledge (which can and should relate to the real facts and truth), and to value analysis as not static and abstract but dynamic and practical (everything is “dynamic”, everything is “motion”); analysis must take into serious consideration “the complex dialectic, both theoretical and technical-experimental, pushing the scientist to ever more daring generalizations of his results”.

    For Geymonat scientific theories are “an act essentially historical, indissolubly linked to the level of human civilization and therefore at a level of our instruments of knowledge and action”, restoring in this way the thesis expressed by Lenin in Materialism and Empiriocriticism, and dialectical materialism by Engels … He believed in science as a content of truth, albeit temporary. But he did not believe in the neutrality of science. Science is a powerful tool, the most powerful that has given the man. It is not indifferent to the social group which holds it: if science is the prerogative of the ruling classes, it becomes a powerful tool of coercion. If science becomes the preserve of the lower classes as well, then it becomes the most powerful tool of liberation and social progress … This view, class, politics and science had, in lucid and coherent speech by Geymonat, two specific consequences. The socialization of scientific discourse, resulting in attention to the communication of science to the general public. And the social commitment of the scientist … But Geymonat is not only uncomfortable for academics and politicians. Nor for his students and his readers. It ‘also inconvenient, and perhaps especially for scientists, who Geymonat calls for a more stringent commitment: to recognize that their science is not neutral, that knowledge they produce have enormous effects on society. And, therefore, scientists can not think of “focus their activities on pure research without being distracted” by other concerns.

    They must focus on the tormentors of the society “to reveal the social truth, just as Galileo had pointed his telescope to the sky to reveal the physical truth. Scientists must engage “with the utmost seriousness to address the urgent problem to make sense of human philosophical, ethical and political science. “Because if science “will not be able to broaden and deepen its duties, if it fails to take the position of high responsibility that competes in today’s world, if it is unable to spread throughout the critical spirit, will eventually betray their mission. In that case, will soon become a factor not of progress, but of genuine ruin of increasingly dangerous dehumanization of society, “as a tool of emancipation of the whole society to an instrument of power for small oligarchies … The force of arms, the laws, the propaganda that this would be the best of the possible states, are the means of defense of “the Order of Things” and is called Power. Geymonat writes: “If we ask a revolutionary the things which he would change in this Order he shall answer: I want to change everything. But if we turn to a conservative, more or less said, he will say: I want to put some modifications, apply some reform. That is simply not possible and so it is as if to say: I do not want to change anything. A simple examination of what has happened and is happening continuously in the development of society, shows that efforts to reform the order existing have to invest all of that Order or fail. ”
    —-

    Finally, I want to add something that few people know. Throughout his academic and scientific life, Geymonat was always admittedly Marxist, but also hostile to the positions of Lenin. In the late 70s there was his shocking “Leninist turn” – harshly criticized by all colleagues – in which he exerted self-criticism of previous positions. Of course I may be wrong, but I think the early repudiation of Lenin was the result of a kind of residue of “personal interest”, in the sense that italian academics and politician in the 60s and 70s were very close to soviet ideology and far from the critics of Leninist wing. The latter, of course, was deeply adverse to the pro-Soviet official Communist party (remember that, since the 30s, Stalin had worldwide killed all the Leninist opposition to his regime, and yet in the Hungary repression, eg., they did not have better luck). It’s true that Geymonat was a profound critic to the academy, but it was always, in the end, what made him a living, and he could have reasonably expected the retirement to fully express his revolutionary spirit (to the contrary, Rossi will not express, surelys he will not retire either). Coincidently, most of italian Rossi’s “scientific” enemies belong to that same leftist political and academic area fought by Geymonat.

    I don’t want to make an apology, but I must recognize that although Rossi, like other Geymonat’s students, has followed a different philosophy, inspired by confidence in the market economy, however he distinguished his life according to the teachings of the illustrious Professor, working on the concrete, economic reality of the society, which he achieves by combining in himself the characteristics of the scientist, of the inventor, of the entrepreneur and of the epochè (in the end I must to add a stupidity at any cost)

  197. Alessandro Coppi

    Making a paragon between the e-cat development and early radio experiments, we could say that Fleischmann e Pons finding can be compared with Hertz’s resonator, the ITP tests represent the shot of rifle behind the hill, the last e-cat device the first electronic tube, the 1 MW plant represents the Poldhu station.
    From this point in forward we can imagine a fast and global affirmation of the e-cat technology.
    I have not casually spoken of Guglielmo Marconi, there are many common points between you and him, and your work, seriously risks to overcome his radio for importance in the mankind history.

    ···—·—
    Alessandro Coppi

  198. KeithT

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    For a E-Cat within a circulating thermal fluid circuit, the fluid could be heated via gas, electric or even another E-Cat, once the primary E-cat was up to temperature then producing excess heat it would be a case of extracting the excess heat via a heat exchanger. If you have multiple E-Cats within a circuit it only requires the initial heat source to get the circuit up to temperature, after this it becomes a question of thermal heat balance and control of the individual E-Cat thermal cycling to get overlap.

    Apologies for taking too simplistic a view i am trying top understand the potential of the E-Cat.

    Regards,
    Keith Thomson

  199. Andrea Rossi

    Keith T.:
    Thank you for your suggestion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  200. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Can you tell us:

    1. Who made the reactor that was used in the Lugano report?

    2. Who prepared the powder that was used in the reactor?

    3. What your role was (if any) in preparing the above items?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  201. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    1- The reactor that has been used in the Lugano test has been manufactured in the factory of Industrial Heat, in Raleigh, North Carolina.
    2- The charge has been prepared by Industrial Heat, as all the charges are now, obviously upon the instructions I delivered with the know how.
    3- I had no role in the preparation of the reactor and of the charges, because I trust my magnificent Team. After months of rehearsing, under my direction, the Team of IH is able to manufacture everything without my help. For example, the 1 MW for the Customer of IH has been completely manufactured by them. The reactor used in Lugano is just one out of many of them manufactured in the factory of IH by their workers, directed by their engineers. The charges are made by the top level persons that have access to them.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  202. Steven N. Karels

    Andrea and KeithT,

    A gas-fired heat source has some temperature that it operates at. I would assume there is an optimal temperature for control of the eCat. The eCat ideal operating temperature is probably lower than the gas-fired heat source (or else the gas-fired heat source would not be a good heat supplier). Therefore, the molten salt might act as an efficient mechanism to change the gas-fired temperature to an optimal temperature that is needed for the eCat? Maybe the eCat can output energy to heat the molten salt to improve effective COP? Thoughts?

  203. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    No, it does not work like that.
    and there is no point to put a heat exchanger between the heat source and the reactor.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  204. Eric Ashworth

    Ran out of space.

    Could these suggestions help solve some enigmas with regards atomic physics?. I would also like to think that maybe Andrea could use some of the information.

    There is more interesting information with regards the geometry of a cubic neutral of energy but I need to cut this short and I apologize to Andrea for taking up so much space on his blog. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  205. Andrea Rossi

    Eric Ashworth:
    I use all the information I receive.
    Thank you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  206. Eric Ashworth

    Koen Vandewalle & Greg Leonard, I feel it necessary to put forward further information with reference to the previous site of mine referring to the unifying field oscillation mechanism. This information when understood and considered could explain the anomalous mass of the neutron and how gravity features into the enigma. This technical so please bear with me.

    These findings and theories are from my understanding and observations with regards the mechanism previously referred to a a ‘unifying field oscillator’ which came about as an understanding I perceived as the internal dynamics of the atom. I believe the origin of geometry and math is related to an understanding of energy with regards atomic make-up.

    The mechanism design is based upon a binary interaction to produce and control a flow. This being one circle referred to as the field which is divided into four quadrants. Midway between the centre of the field and its periphery on each of the dividers which now become diameters are drawn four circles that extend from centre to periphery. Thereby a one third overlap is achieved by each circle with its neighbour. The mechanism is now designed using four rotors, two blades per rotor and a necessary timing sequence. Rotors are spaced accordingly to allow for a necessary vacant central space. The static baffle of the assembly (being a frame) contains a central divider/mantle between inner and outer field and upon which rotors are fixed at their strategic points. This reference to mantle comes from an observation in nature and referes to the division between the chambers of the frame that occupy the inner and outer positions of the field

    The field now has a central vacant space (super/major gravitational), four vacant spaces at the periphery of the field(minor gavitational fields), four gavitational at each rotor, four inner vortex flows (vortex gravitational), four outer vortex flows (vortex gravitational). The vortex flows are the economy flows within the mechanism that bind the flow structure together (binding force). The mechanism contains two gates of the super gravitational force which includes all the other gravitational forces and three types of flow, curvature, linear and static. The linear flow refers to an exterior macro curvature flow that responds accordingly to the two gates. Reference to my previous material will explain flows. There is a horizontal and a vertical plane to the mechanism as can be seen, four divisions of the horizontal between two gates of the super gravitational. Four divisions become four dimensions, two gates become two dimensions and thereby six dimensions in all. Consequently I refer to the mechanism as being able to generate a cubic neutral of energy. This mechanism is thereby able to prove a theory of unification, it is also able to be studied so as to investigate what I term energy interaction. Mobile energy (flows), static energy (atomic substance in structure) and the interaction between these two states which I term (the static and mobile mechanics of energy interaction). The static and mobile mechanics with regards the mechanism is in reference to the static baffle and its interaction with the generated flows.

    So in consideration with regards the mechanism I shall extend my thoughts to particle structure and attempt to explain stable and unstable structure and therefore the following is guesswork. To be stable a structure has to be a cubic neutral composed of six parts that compliment one another. The proton being of three quarks is unstable and so too is the neutron but together they form a cubic neutral of energy in the same way that two propellers overlap in the mechanism. The overlap of two particles is dependent upon their construction within a field and nothing can be formed outside of a field that conforms to the field. Every field contains its super/major gravitational force and its four minor gravitational forces. Aminor gravitational force is a black hole on the periphery of the field, this being one quarter strength of the super gravitational force. Fusing of structure (the construction of a vortex) occurs from the moment it is formed at the periphery from vortex gravitational force. Vortex forces formed at the periphery of a macro field will produce solid atomic substance due to the super gravitational force acting progressively on the structure as it traverses the field. Vortexes not formed at the absolute periphery will be formed of a gravity value less than that of a quarter and will always be less dense in their structural make-up because of this. Three distinct densities with a fourth being less distinct thereby exist because of a divisional relationship within the field.

    The economy flow system of vortex forces within a structure provide the quality value pertaining to the structure. Good quality provides solidity, poor quality is responsible for week structure. Metals have good structure, Hydrogen has week structure. This is important: good structure has to have a good overlap between its particles to form a good economy flow system whereas, particles that barely overlap or oscillate to form a partial overlap with regards time and space i.e. time in/time out have very week strurcture. It is dependent upon the gravitational forces of the particles (particle gravitation forces depends upon their origin of manufacture) that dictates the overlap that is responsible for the vortex forces of the economy flow systems.

    In the mechanism I see four particles that overlap by one third, providing good structure. Each rotor can represent a particle. Thereby imagine three quarks (each quark composed of three aethers) rather than two blades rotating around a central vortex (I believe geometry dictates energy whether it be atomic or charged particles) within a field. Three evenly spaced quarks in a binary interaction with three other quarks of another particle (three quarks form an unstable neutral particle) form a stable neutral cube of energy. To picture this situation in the mechanism it will be seen that two quarks of the neutron would be travelling out to the periphery on an arc and one travelling into the central field whereas with regards the proton its activity would be visa versa. To travel into a field the vortex closes producing less inner gravity and less kinetic energy, to travel outwards of a field opens the vortex producing more inner gravity and more kinetic energy. Each quark composed of three aethers in vortex make-up. If so a quark could be likend to a mini heat pump with regards its charge potential as it completes a circuit.

    I shall now refer to flows and the mechanism. As I previously mentioned two curvature vortex flows, produced by the overlapping propellers, upon contact spin out to form economy flows from the produced linear flow. This linear flow encapsulates the cubic neutral of generated energy. The linear flow represents for me the electron flow force produced by a proton neutron activity. However, when the proton and the neutron are unable to produce a linear flow because of a week interaction then the neutron because of its quark activity responds according to the field of its manufacture, its two negative quarks become more negative by position and the proton acts visa versa. This results in a cubic neutral of charge energy which is not the same as a cubic neutral of atomic energy made up of particles. Consequently, hydrogen could be said to be comprised of an expanded neutron that circumvents a contracted proton in an oscillating motion. The interaction between two these particles could be oscillatory in activity because of the week bond. If what I say is correct then could this explain the enigma with regards P+E=N. The loss of .789 could be due to the formation of an economy flow system or it could be said that .789 has something to do with a binding force energy. The subject does intrigue me.

  207. KeithT

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    If an E-Cat can be gas powered, could it be powered by a heated thermal fluid / molten salt.

    Regards,
    Keith Thomson

  208. Andrea Rossi

    Keith T:
    To what purpose? Any heat exchange implies a loss of efficiency.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  209. ing. Michelangelo De Meo

    The Independent Third Party Report Has Been Posted by Professor Levi Following the site :
    http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/
    Also, the Report of the Independent Third Party has been published on Google Scholar:
    http://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=E.Foschi%2C+H.Essen&btnG=&hl=it&as_sdt=0

  210. Andrea Rossi

    Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
    Thank you, I am delighted to read that.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  211. KeithT

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Regarding the gas E-Cat, is a pure gas powered E-Cat possible, or would you still require electrical controls. There is still many remote locations on Earth that do not have an electrical supply.

    Regards,
    Keith Thomson

  212. Andrea Rossi

    KeithT:
    Electric controls are necessary, but they consume a small amount of energy, easy to backup.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  213. StudentG

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Even though I was just googleing Husserl and don’t know much about him and his work, it seemed to me that his ideas are kind of in line with core teachings of the Buddha as interpreted by Theravada Buddhism. So I was just wondering if you know about Theravada or have interest in this teaching and see parallelities to Husserl. To clarify, where this question is coming from, I’m a student in Nanoengeneering from Germany and following this blog for a while now with much interest. So my interest is not religious, but as you seem to be really open minded and experienced in the combination of scientific science and philosophy science, im seeking for an answer in this perspective, if even possible.

    Best greetings and Good luck

  214. Andrea Rossi

    StudentG:
    Thank you very much for your interesting comment. In my Philosophy studies I also have studied Buddhism, and your innuendo is intriguing. I leave to you your subjective interpretation. You can seek an answer exclusively in yourself. Whatever I could say is not important. By the way: I am sure you will make a great engineer in nanotechnologies and I am sure I will hear of you in the near future. As you know better than me, in this period of your life the most important thing is what you learn from your Professors. Leave all the rest in a second place.
    If it is necessary to study 8 hours per day, you have to study for 12 hours.
    Good luck!
    Andrea Rossi

  215. Giovanni Guerrini

    Dr. Bert Abbing

    Thank you.

    Regards G G

  216. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    Your last comment is interesting also in general in the following sense: an experiment made by the creme of the scientists of all the world, with funding of tens of billions of Euros, raises doubts: this makes normal and understandable that also the E-Cat science can raise doubts among the scientific echelons.
    Nobody is immune from doubts. Respect them, I have an advantage, though: with a commercial breakthrough I can make futile any kind of doubt.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  217. Curiosone

    I read the comment of Bert Abbing: there is the difference between a true physicist and a bunch of guys with an agenda

  218. DTravchenko

    What impressed me from the open letter of Bert Abbing is the fact that your enemies qualify themselves as big chemists and physicists, but are privy of elementary knowledge of chemistry and physics.
    Warm Regards,
    DTravchenko

  219. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, excellent post by Dr. Bert Abbing.
    I was happy you gave him a nice pat on the back, and added a fact about
    the 1 MW Plant.
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  220. Andrew

    Dear Dr. Rossi,

    i’d like to bring to your attention this interesting interview:
    http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/lenr-seen-from-nuclear-engineer/

    Kind Regards
    Andrew

  221. Andrea Rossi

    Andrew:
    Thank you for the link to this interview. This is another important endorsement to LENR coming from the top level Science.
    The considerations of the nuclear eng. Piero Andreuccetti of CESI ( Italian R&D leading center belonging to ENEL) are very intelligent. I also agree with him about the work on course at the MIT directed by Dr Brian Ahern.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  222. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Bert Abbing, Physicist:
    Thank you for your substantially correct insight; now, the operation of the 1 MW plant in the factory of IH’s Customer will be the commercial breakthrough.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  223. orsobubu

    >I got it: you got stuck seat in the theater…

    ahhaha this was very good

    …and I learned about the film, many thanks to you sir, I was really going to miss it!

  224. BertAbbing

    Bert Abbing PhD, Physicist

    Open Letter

    To whom it may concern,

    Dear sirs I’m writing to you because I’m ashamed by the biased, negative, unscientific behavior of some blogs regarding the Rossi Ecat topic.
    Not even what is written in these blogs is completely without any scientific foundation but also the comments or contributions that contrast with their opinions, are harshly attacked with a behavior that is very far from what is a normal scientific debate.
    Making a more in depth search one can find that the same persons, with same nicknames, write the same, or similar, comments on “different” blogs, revealing a network of organized disinformationist voted only to diffuse doubt, suspicion and a kind of “conspiracy theory” among common people and persons who eventually have to take decisions but are not trained in physics or other scientific fields.
    This network is what I would call a “negationist mafia”, and is not surprising to realize that many of those people have economic interests.
    As an example I will examine here pages against the TPR2 that are a good example of a general behavior. This pages are self published in blog by a company called “StepChange Innovations GmbH”, that is self defining “a technology development and consulting firm based in Germany”, and appears to operate mainly in the chemical industry field. The articles, as others also against Rossi, are all signed by Dr. Christian Schumacher the company CEO who has no background as a physicist presenting himself as having “ 20 years of experience in the chemical industry with global players such as Hoechst AG and DyStar Textilfarben GmbH as head of R&D, senior regional business manager Asia Pacific, head of e-commerce, head of marketing services, new product development manager and R&D chemist”.
    With such a background he made several mistakes in the article writing and appears clear that his main interest is not scientific.

    Let us review just few of the main errors in the article and also in some of the comments.
    First of all we note an annoying repetition of old arguments who were already answered in the past but, like “gutta cavat lapidem”, probably in the author mind there is the strategy that repeating a false argumentations will at least win over the new readers.
    One of the arguments is clearly wrong and demonstrate all the ignorance in the field. The fact that the emissivity of the IR camera was set to 1 ( Black Body ) in the TPR1 have in reality set a LOWER LIMIT to the energy measurements because the temperatures read by any IR camera will be the minimum possible in this case. This point was already discussed in the past.
    Also calling IR imaging for just a “qualitative method” demonstrate the author inexperience
    in measurements and laboratory methods. If one has the humility to search in the literature can find that Thermographic Calorimetry is commonly used in a variety of fields ( e.g. medical, but also military and aerospace ) where a fluid calorimeter is not usable.
    A fluid calorimeter is a complex device to design and at the temperatures of the hotcat is even more complex requiring careful calibration of fluid flow ( forced air ? ) and fluid temperature. Probably in this kind of device a heat exchanger ( eg. air to water ) that would require also an extremely careful calibration.
    All this means high costs and long times and also would be of no interest because the only interest of the Professors that conducted the test, was to have a lower limit of the produced heat and avoid any possible error that could increase the measured value. They achieved that calibrating the apparatus using the dummy, ( actually the same reactor without the charge ) and taking always the most conservative scenario. They specified that many times in both reports.
    This point was completely missed, probably purposely or by inexperience, by the blog author.

    Thermographic recording was the method of choice because was sufficiently simple, direct, and economic to obtain the desired result.
    .
    It is good scientific practice when writing to be precise, true and documented so finding phrasing like:
    “There is still criticism about the way of energy input, vaguely described and not ruling out manipulations by wiring tricks, inaccurate measurement of the output energy, and lack of proper calibration.”
    Immediately let the educated reader to discard all the article as unscientific and just disinformation. The energy input is described in the report with an electric diagram, there was also a calibration, the point of measurement were two giving coherent figures. So the main content of this affirmation is FALSE, the other is also vague and belongs to the realm of hypothesis and paranoid suspects not to reality.

    The rest is just a sad reading. All “Miracles” about wires was already clarified in the report on page 19 where is written “ All the characteristics of these resistors, however, such as their geometric dimensions and the exact makeup of the alloy they are made of, are covered by trade secret. ” So is a fact and not an hypothesis, as written by a certain “Thomas Clarke” in a comment against “KJ”, that that was a special custom alloy made especially for the reactor and NOT standard Inconel. Without these data all mumbling about fusion of wires is just nonsense.

    The author of the blog page, probably pressed by the agenda to attack the report fails even in what it should be his own field: chemistry. He tries to transmit the idea that LiH4 is so unstable that would not be usable. The fact LiH4 does effectively have a violent reaction with water is written even in the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride) from which he has copied the chemical formulas, but the reaction with moisture of air, is much more slower. Even in the reference he cites, copying part of the abstract without understanding it, is written that “The water absorption up to 11.7% due to exposure to air for 1 h does not change in any drastic way the hydrogen desorption rate of ball milled LiAlH4 “ . This means that the reaction is slow with a low release of Hydrogen in air, so low that from the same abstract we learn that this hydride , “ does not self-ignite on contact with air but can only be ignited by scraping ”, and from Wikipedia page : “Aged, air-exposed samples often appear white because they have absorbed enough moisture to generate a mixture of the white compounds lithium hydroxide and aluminium hydroxide.”
    Aged means long term exposure and not that “would decompose rapidly upon storage in air, in presence of moisture”.
    So we have the FACT that the author of this blog article is deliberately manipulating scientific data to follow an agenda.
    The other reference cited by the author is a downloadable Open Access publication that almost nothing has to do with the examined topic.

    As a final note regarding this first article let me comment about the ridiculous thesis of reversed clamp cited in the comments. If we enter in the domain of the hypothetical and paranoid suspect every scientific paper on earth is questionable so this hypothesis have no foundation but is only “ conspiracy theory “, with no value.

    The second part of the article is even worse, on a quality point of view, than the first.
    We find a mix of unrelated facts. Rossi Patent, any declaration from him, or any other theory has nothing to do with the measurements, as the fact that this or that isotope is commercially available. Also what happened in 2011 is not of any interest here because does not regard this paper and also no result was published from that sample.
    If the group had not mentioned Cu for example is because there was NOT. This means that fortunately for them the reaction p+Ni is excluded. But this does NOT mean that ALL reactions are excluded.
    The only fact that remains is that from the samples collected there is an evidence of isotope shift. It is also NOT true that the fuel was exhausted if we read the data with carefully.
    Part of the Li7 was still there and I would not be surprised if the main source of energy would be the Li7.
    As regarding sampling and handling of the powders we should presume that the group have this abilities. One of the members of the group is even specialist in Forensic Chemical Analisys.
    For obvious reasons Rossi participated to reactor loading and powder extraction ( in the presence of at least a member of the committee ).
    It was his reactor. But is not written in the report that he participated in sampling and handling that are others phases. Again even in that part of the article we find a deliberate distortion of facts in order to demonstrate predetermined thesis.
    Nuclear Physics and Quantum Mechanics are not field for lay persons so I would invite the author of that blog to refrain to comment or criticize Theoretical Physics works.

  225. Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I understand your attitude – although I am convinced that the 110/110 would not have been granted without reason. Anyway, the subject of your thesis is one of the most interesting (and challenging) subjects that one could choose for a philosophical study. Maybe one day when you have more time you might want to summarize your thoughts on it.
    Unfortunately, while everybody has at least heard of Einstein’s General Relativity, Husserl’s work is almost unknown to the wider public. Viewing both concepts in context must be an effective “catalyzer” for unbiased thinking – perhaps one of the most urgent needs in a rapidly evolving world.

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  226. Andrea Rossi

    Andreas Moraitis:
    The reason why Husserl’s importance for the approach to any scientific issue ( remember he was originally a physicist and a mathematician) is not well known is due to the extreme difficulty of his texts. To read Husserl is one of the most difficult tasks you can imagine under the intellectual point of view, also because his German language is very difficult to translate, and usually translations lose part of the meaning he wants to carry with his words. I had to take lessons of German language with a specialist, to study in German the “Ideen zur einer reinen phaenomenologie und phaenomenologischen philosophie” ( I improperly wrote ‘phaenomenologie’ because I have not the dieresis to put on the ‘a’) and only reading in German I could understand what he wrote. Also in this case, even if in the exam of Filosofia Teoretica I gave on it Prof. Enzo Paci granted me a 30/30 cum laude, I was and am convinced that I have got only a fraction of it. It is immense but very difficult; you have to stay hours on every page, otherwise its content flows on the surface of your brain like water on granite.
    P.S.
    The translation in Italian of the “Ideen” has been made by Prof Enzo Paci: when during the exam I told him that to understand Enzo Paci I had to read Edmund Husserl he laughed like crazy.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  227. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Determining the Fuel Composition for an eCat Reactor

    Based on the Lugano Report, an estimate of the fuel composition may be attempted

    Known facts:
    1. Fuel sample had a mass of 1 gram
    2. Page 29: “From the analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and ICP-AES analysis we find there is about 0.011 grams of 7Li in the 1 gram fuel.
    4. Page 29: “… the information from ICP-AES that there is about 0.55 gram NI in the fuel.
    5. Page 28: “From all combined H in addition to the Ni.
    6. Page 28: “… from the ICP-AES analysis which shows the mass ratio between Li and Al is compatible with a LiAlH4 molecule.
    7. Page 28: “…natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7% and 7Li 93%
    8. Page 28: “We remark in particular that hydrogen but no deuterium was seen by SIMS.

    Analysis

    The average mass of the lithium atoms are 0.07*6 + 0.93*7 = 6.93 amu.
    Aluminum atoms have a mass of 27 amu while hydrogen atoms have an average mass of 1.
    So the molecular weight of the LiAlH4 must be 6.93 + 27 + 4 = 37.93 amu.
    There for the amount of LiAlH4 must be 0.011 grams * 37.93 / 6.93 = 0.06 grams and the amount of aluminum must be 0.043 grams. The amount of hydrogen in the LiAlH4 must be 0.006 grams.
    The iron mass must therefore be 1.0 grams (total) – 0.55 grams (Ni) – 0.043 grams (Al) – 0.011 grams (Li) – 0.006 grams (H) = 0.39 grams of iron.

    Element % by Weight
    Nickel 55.0
    Iron 39.0
    Aluminum 4.3
    Lithium 1.1
    Hydrogen (no Deuterium) 0.6
    Total 100.0
    LiAlH4 6.0

    It is also possible that the LiAlH4 was prepared using hydrogen depleted of deuterium.

  228. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Obviously I can add nothing to what has been published in the Report of the ITP.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  229. Greg Leonard

    Dear Eric Ashworth
    I do not believe any sort of separate vanes can counteract the torque generated by the motor on the body of the vehicle.
    A pair of contra-rotating rotors may be necessary.
    Incidentally, the Entecho web site appears to have been hacked this morning!!
    Greg Leonard

  230. Andrea Rossi

    Andrea Moraitis:
    I do not think it is worth. I studied Relativity in the ” Università Degli Studi di Milano” with Prof. Ludovico Geymonat , who was my Professor of “Filosofia della Scienza” and in my doctoral thesis, that I made with Prof. Enzo Paci as the doctoral advisor and my teacher of Husserl’s Phenomenology, made of Relativity a paradigmatic example of a work that has been born by means of an epochè of all the consolidated pre-existing knowledge. Honestly, is an immature work that is not worth to be published. At those times I already was working, designing, manufacturing and selling incinerators with energy recovery and had to work at least 10-12 hours per day so I had to study during the night. My thesis got a 110/110 from the 11 Professors that examined me, but I valued it 60/110 then, much less now. It is superficial. I had not the time and the focus necessary to make it as deep as I should have done. Forget it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  231. Wladimir Guglinski

    What would be the very small change in the Laws of Physics supposed by E. Teller ?

    Dear readers of the JoNP,
    I was thinking about what McKubre told Edward Teller had said to him:

    “He didn’t think cold fusion was a reality, but said if it were he could account for it with a very small change in the laws of physics.”
    http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html

    What sort of very small change in the Laws of Physics could be occuring to Edward Teller, from which would be possible to explain cold fusion?

    Well,
    probably Edward Teller knew the Don Borghi experiment, from which neutrons are obtained from fusion proton-electron at low energy. And as this is impossible from the Laws of the Standard Model, maybe occurred to him that one of the mysterious mechanisms that rule the nuclear reactions in cold fusion is concerning the fusion proton-electron at low energy: p+e = n.

    Perhaps he also would be thinking about a new sort of gravity Planck’s constant acting within the nuclei, as I propose in my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Anomalous%20mass%20of%20the%20neutron.pdf

    The academic physicists are finally surrendering themselves to the reality of cold fusion, as we see from what was said by the Russian nuclear physicist Dr Vitaly Uzikov:
    http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5595

    As the fusion proton-electron may have an important contribution for the nuclear reactions occuring in cold fusion, one can hope that the next step is the acceptation of the Don Borghi experiment.
    So, one may even hope that Don Borghi experiment will finally be accepted by the academics, and his experiment will be repeated in the universities.

    After all, as the cold fusion is being finally accepted by the academics, there is no reason anymore for the refusal of the Don Borghi experiment.

    regards
    wlad

  232. orsobubu

    >Silvio Caggia:
    >Dear Andrea Rossi,
    >a philosophic question:
    >which is your preferite philosopher?

    >Edmund Husserl.
    >Warm Regards,
    >A.R.

    Silvio Caggia, I cant’ believe it, I’m sure there was a slip a lapse a typo a virus or some other sort of connection bug or internet malfunction and the name of his preferite starts with M and ends with X, I know it better because Andrea Rossi not only is fond of the cold fusion and the epochè but he likes the permanent revolution very much and things like that also

  233. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    I got it: you got stuck seat in the theater looking permanently at “Interstellar”, until, resisting the roller coaster vibrations of the spaceship when it crossed at the speed of light the barrier of the wormhole, you reached, through the same wormhole, the planet “Alltrue”, so called because in it all you imagine gets true.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  234. Andreas Moraitis

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I have been tempted to ask you this for a long time, but for some reason I did not dare to do it: Would it be possible that you publish online your doctoral thesis on the relationship between the philosophy of Edmund Husserl and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity? I would be very interested in reading it. Of course, I would not hesitate to improve my sparse Italian for this purpose.

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis

  235. Eric Ashworth

    Koen Vandewalle & Greg Leonard, Because of your interest in this specialiosed subject I shall provide further information to help explain and so that you can give it further consideration. As you are aware Wladimir has technical in depth knowledge of the atomic nucleous which is an extremely specialised subject with technical jargon. Language is only useful when you can understand it and this can cause a problem. However, I shall continue to put forward my considerations of energy interactions and hope that Wladimir can glean some useful information from what I think based on my observations of the mechanism involved in my research. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  236. Curiosone

    Did you see the movie Interstellar?
    I saw it yesterday in New York. They say can teach the basics of relativity: is it true?

  237. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    Who wants to read where Fantasy meets Science, can read Asimov.
    Who wants to get fun, sort of ‘Donald Duck goes stellar’ , can go to see this movie, which is a lot more Fanta than Scientific. The return of the protagonist still young to meet his grown old daughter is conceptually wrong and misleading in terms of Relativity, because speed of light cannot be overcome, therefore time cannot playback; the scene where the astronauts go at the speed of light suffering for vibration similar to a roller coaster is tragicomic. Who goes to see this movie must let alone Science and forget Relativity.
    It is a funny cartoon.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  238. Eric Ashworth

    Dear Greg Leonard, Regards your reply November 6th pertaining to the torque generated on the Entecho craft by the centrifugal fan. The torque I believe is compensated by a series of blades securred to the inner rigid body of the craft. My suggestion is to syncronise the angle of attack of the fixed blades to that of the flow generated by the centrifugal fan by computer control of the fixed blades with regards r.p.m.. As you know R&D is ongoing and the Entecho technology is still in this stage. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  239. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Reading The Report, I noticed on page 52 (Appendix 4) there was presence of aluminum in the fuel but it disappeared in the ash. The Report proposes that the aluminum came from Lithium Aluminum Hydride (page 28) which they assume was employed to release hydrogen gas at elevated temperatures. So what happened to the aluminum?

  240. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    We are working on the reconciliations after the results of the Report. We will publish the conclusions when we will have resolved all the equations involved.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  241. JCRenoir

    Congratulations for the peer reviewing of Dr Uzikov published on Proatom.
    Great achievement.
    JCT

  242. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  243. DTravchenko

    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Did you see the article on Proatom written by Dr Vitaly Uzikov?
    http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5595
    This is a peer reviewed nuclear physics magazine and Dr Uzikov is a preminent figure of the Russian Nuclear Physics world. Congratulations to the Professors of the ITP, this is an important endorsement from the mainstream Russian scientific environment. If you come in Russia you will find friends of much higher level than you can even imagine.
    From Russia, with love and with the regular Warm Regards,
    D. Travchenko

  244. Andrea Rossi

    D. Travchenko:
    This paper is becoming viral and I am very honoured of what you say: yes, I agree totally with you in regard of the inportance of this publication.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  245. ing. Michelangelo De Meo

    Dear Dr. Rossi to announce that the prestigious Russian site
    http://www.proatom.ru/index.php is praising his story
    signed by VAUzikov leading progettazionetecnologo , NIIAR .
    He concluded ” … that Rossi is back in his marathon winner scientific .. ” .
    Dr. Rossi continues to run without looking back and win for all of us .
    Thank you for your extraordinary work .

    http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5595

  246. Andrea Rossi

    Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
    Thank you, your link is very important because it also has the English translation. The position of Dr Vitaly Uzikov is a milestone in the evolution of the scientific mainstream science. Now we have to reconcile the results of the Report of the ITP with the Standard Model.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  247. Silvio Caggia

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    a philosophic question:
    which is your preferite philosopher?
    I try a guess: Jeremy Bentham?

  248. Andrea Rossi

    Silvio Caggia:
    Edmund Husserl.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  249. 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.

  250. Andrea Rossi

    Italo R.:
    Thank you for this very important link.
    Dr Uzikov is a top level nuclear phusicist of Russia and his attention is extremely important, also as a recognition coming from the top levels of the mainstream scientific world community.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  251. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears readers of the JoNP

    Sincerely… I dont like to call cold fusion by LENR.

    More than 20 years ago, there was a very strong resistance against cold fusion, because the phenomenon is impossible from the Laws of the Standard Physics. To speak about cold fusion was a tabu in the scientific community.

    With the aim to lubricate the oposition of the academic physicists against cold fusion, and soften the resistance against the acceptation of the phenomenon, Edmund Storms had proposed to call it LENR.

    But today we dont need to call it LENR, because today cold fusion is a reality. It was confirmed by 3 universities in Europe, and Andrea Rossi is putting his cold fusion E-Cat in the market.
    So, we dont need to be afraid of any resistance anymore. Cold fusion is a reality.

    Storms got his 15 minutes of fame. And we dont need to use the word LENR. We have to call it just by the correct name: “cold fusion”, because nuclear fusion occurs in the phenomenon, as stated by the report published by the 3 universities.

    I think to call things by the correct word they mean is the correct way to call them.

    regards
    wlad

  252. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in November 7th, 2014 at 4:40 PM

    Daniel,

    FYI, it also fundamentally makes no sense to listen to Wlad’s characterization of other people’s statements, theories, etc…, as he has little understanding of them to begin with and even less interest in trying to actually understand more.
    ——————————–

    of course
    I will never understand why a chord can never be broken by the fast rotation of a stone tied to its end, and I also cannot understand why the strong nuclear force can never be won by the rotation of a proton moving with very high speed, as you claim.

    Do you understand it, Daniel ??

    Unfortunatelly I cant, dear Mr. JR.
    I suggest you to propose a New Physics based on Crazy Laws, and then I hope we will be able to understand your arguments.

    As I also do not understand why you have no shame to say nonsenses here, where everbody may realize your lack of understanding in fundamental questions in Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  253. JR

    Daniel,

    FYI, it also fundamentally makes no sense to listen to Wlad’s characterization of other people’s statements, theories, etc…, as he has little understanding of them to begin with and even less interest in trying to actually understand more.

  254. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 7:31 AM

    Dear Daniel,

    If he meant centrifugal force, then his argument still makes no sense. The centrifugal force is a fictitious force associated with an orbiting body and is caused by the force that pulls the body towards the center of the orbit – the binding force (strong force) in this case. So it fundamentally makes no sense to say that the binding force has to overcome the centrifugal force to maintain a bound system.
    ———————————————

    Dear readers,
    despite Mr. JR has already lost the discussion here,
    we have to take the opportunity,
    so that to show that,
    AGAIN,
    Mr. JR uses the inversion of the causality in his arguments.

    What Mr. JR said is equivalent to say:

    A stone tied to the end of a chord and moving circularly very fast cannot cause the rupture of the chord, because the centrifugal force is a fictitious force associated with an orbiting body and is caused by the force that pulls the body towards the center of the orbit – the force of the chord in this case.

    Therefore,
    according to Mr. JR,
    a chord tied to a stone moving in circular orbit can NEVER be broken.

    According to Mr. JR, a very fine nylon thread for fishing (0.1mm in diameter) can easily keep a mass 100.000kg moving in circular trajectory, because the line will never break, because the line is subjected to the centrifugal force, which is ficticious.

    Those ones who believe that a fine nylon thread will never be break by a mass of 100.000kg moving in circular trajectory tied to the end of the nylon, they can believe in what Mr. JR says here in the JoNP.

    regards
    wlad

  255. Wladimir Guglinski

    Gell-Mann versus Edward Teller

    Mallove speaking about Gell-Mann:
    From the principles of Quantum Mechanics cold fusion occurrence is impossible to occur, as stated by the Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann at a public forum (lecture at Portland State University in 1998): “It’s a bunch of baloney. Cold fusion is theoretically impossible, and there are no experimental findings that indicate it exists” 3.
    3- E. Mallove, CSICOP: “Science Cops? at War with Cold Fusion, Infinite Energy, V. 4, No. 23, 1999

    E. Teller:
    McKubre was summoned by Edward Teller. “He didn’t think cold fusion was a reality, but said if it were he could account for it with a very small change in the laws of physics.”
    http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion_pr.html

    So,
    two two laureates Nobel Prize with different opinions on cold fusion.
    Why?

    Simple.
    Gell-Mann was sure the cold fusion is impossible because he was sure the Standard Nuclear Physics was developed under unchanging and correct Laws of Physics.

    While Teller knew that something is missing in the Laws of the Standard Model.

    And there is no need to be a genius like Teller to realize that the Standard Model is not the final theory, since there are unsolved puzzle in Nuclear Physics, and some nuclear properties cannot be explained by the Standard Model.

    Teller also knew that by keeping the Laws of the Standard Model would be impossible to explain cold fusion, and that’s why he said that at least a small change in the Laws of Physics is needed.

    However, even a “small” change in the Laws of Physics always represent a big changing in the Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  256. 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

  257. Andrea Rossi

    Mark Saker:
    In the gas- fueled E-Cat, which is under R&D so far, the use of a thermoelectric device to produce electricity for intrinsic use is not opportune, due to its very low efficiency.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  258. Giuliano Bettini

    Dear Andrea,
    about the Gas-Cat.
    The current cat (TPR2) seems to be stable (constant input heat to maintain a constant reaction).
    Why the self-produced heat is not enough?
    It seems that, for the reaction, not only heat it’s needed.
    (But… with a very very small amount of electric energy, I must suppose….).
    Have I missed something?
    PS: I know that you do not comment what is happening in the reactor, as a matter of fact I know you do not comment anything. :)
    Self Sustaining Regards,
    Giuliano Bettini.

  259. Andrea Rossi

    Giuliano Bettini:
    You wrote the answer yourself.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  260. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    You asked yesterday for assistance tracking down references to LENR in the Manhatten Project. There is now a thread about this topic on E-Cat World. Some readers have come up with some references you might find useful. You can heck out the comments here:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/06/rossi-asks-for-help-cold-fusion-in-manhattan-project/

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  261. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Thank you for this useful link.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  262. Curiosone

    General Emilio Spaziante has pleaded guilty for corruption and has been sentenced to serve 4 years in prison: he is the officer of the Guardia di Finanza that closed Petroldragon and all the other factories of yours twenty years ago: any comment?

  263. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    No comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  264. Wladimir Guglinski

    Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 6th, 2014 at 3:41 AM

    Dear Wladimir,

    And as I’m not a nuclear physisist, I did not now that the (or at least some) nucleï rotate so fast. Thank you for the explanation and the interesting links!
    —————————————

    Daniel,
    and the situation becomes worst when some nuclei are excited. Their rotation is so fast that it causes the deformation of the nucleus.

    See the figure at left in the title Recent physical results of the article High-spin physics ISP.
    In the figure we see that a spheric nucleus is deformed when it is excited getting a high-spin, and there is a changing in the spheric shape: the nucleus takes the shape of an elipsoid, under the action of the centrifugal force:

    Recent physical results
    First evidence of magnetic rotation in nuclei around mass A = 80

    “The conventional concept of nuclear rotation is based on the existence of a deformed mass distribution of the nucleus (see left figure).”
    https://www.hzdr.de/FWK/MITARB/rs/highspin.html

    Therefore,
    under very fast nuclear rotation, the magnitude of the centrifugal force on protons and neutrons is very larger than that of the strong nuclear force (as calculated by me here in the JoNP).
    Note that the nucleus is deformed due to the fast rotation, and therefore the excited high-spin nuclei would have to be desintegrated under the action of the centrifugal force, if protons and neutrons were bound via the strong nuclear force.

    Nevertheless, those excited high-spin nuclei survive, and it means that the strong nuclear force is not the responsible for the nucleus aggregation.

    regards
    wlad

  265. JCRenoir

    1-Are you sure you will be able to reconcile the results of the ITP, regarding the isotopes shift, remaining in the Standard Model ?
    2- How is going your new invention of the gas fueled E-Cat?
    JCR

  266. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    1- yes
    2- working on it: very promising
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  267. Tom Conover

    Andrea Rossi,

    I started here —
    https://www.google.dk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=_59bVJi6B-nB7Aaw5oD4Cw#q=Edward+Teller+fusion

    .. then checked here:
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/586350/Edward-Teller
    Although the Los Alamos assignment was to build a fission bomb, Teller digressed more and more from the main line of research to continue his own inquiries into a potentially much more powerful thermonuclear hydrogen fusion bomb.

    .. and then found more here:
    http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p337

    Edward Teller Lectures
    Lasers and Inertial Fusion EnergyWith a Foreword by E M Campbell
    Edited by: Heinrich Hora (University of New South Wales, Australia), George H Miley (University of Illinois, Urbana, USA)

    About This Book E-Book Reviews Supplementary
    How to achieve unlimited, safe, clean and low-cost energy by laser- or beam-driven inertial nuclear fusion has preoccupied all winners of the Edward Teller Medal since its inception in 1991. This book presents their findings, meeting discussions, and personal insights from Edward Teller himself. Expect discussion of important advances anticipated in the future such as multi-billion dollar fusion research projects (NIF), and new schemes such as the petawatt-picosecond laser-plasma interactions evoking new physics and coupling mechanisms.

    .. hoping this enough to start your review of “fishing for fusion”

    Warm Regards
    Tom

  268. Andrea Rossi

    Tom Conover:
    Thank you, interesting .
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  269. “Today I have been informed from an Indian nuclear physicist that, during the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer and Teller expressed the opinion that cold fusion was a possibility.”

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Perhaps the colleague refers to the Oppenheimer Phillips Process:

    http://goo.gl/h01H3z
    http://goo.gl/9n5ZNm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Phillips_process

    An exothermic stripping reaction (like for example the Oppenheimer-Phillips process), would explain the transmutations taking place and solve the problem with the coulomb barrier.

    Same Days ago I have had the same idea in the LENR Forum:
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/442-Is-Calcium-Rossi%E2%80%99s-Secret-Catalyst/?postID=1811#post1811

    Best regards
    Felix Rends

  270. Andrea Rossi

    Felix Rends:
    Thank you very much, this is very interesting. This could give further evidence that LENR have right of citizenship in the Standard Model system.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  271. Andrea Rossi

    To the Readers, request for help:
    Today I have been informed from an Indian nuclear physicist that, during the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer and Teller expressed the opinion that cold fusion was a possibility. If true, this is important under a historical point of view, but I have not been able to find a reference of this. Is any of our Readers able to inform us about similar reference?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  272. Koen Vandewalle

    Greg Leonard, Eric Ashworth,
    The simulated device creates multiple vortex structures because of the shapes of the blades of rotor and stator, in combination with exact flow, viscosity and density of the fluid.
    The clue may be that the torque on the rotor that is mechanically connected with the outer casing, is possible because the blades on the casing “recoil” and “bump” on the vortices that are internally created, and act, as Eric says, as solid objects.
    Awsome !!!

    You should really cooperate with Wladimir and his knowledge on aether structure. With that simulation software, and a “fluid” that has proper electric and magnetic properties, and some “black-hole-stuff” you might see the appearance of nuclearish familiar stuff.

    But…. it looks expensive.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  273. Magico Lipton

    Dear Andrea,
    now we know that, during the reaction, new Isotopes are forming.
    Is the corresponding COP:
    1. constant? or
    2. it changes (linearly, or in some more complex way)?
    Many thanks,

  274. Andrea Rossi

    Magico Lipton:
    1- the COP raises with the temperature, as explained in the Report of the ITP
    2- see above
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  275. Greg Leonard

    Dear Eric Ashworth
    Thanks for the interesting post and the web sites you point to.
    A quick look at the Entecho idea leaves me wondering how they are planning to deal with the torque acting on the fan.
    Surely the craft will spin until the air resistance matches the rotor torque!
    What have I missed?
    Greg Leonard

  276. Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear Wladimir,

    You wrote: Daniel, we are not speaking about atoms. We are speaking about nuclei. The rotation of the nucleus is independent on the rotation of the atom (electrosphere).

    My answer: Yes, I agree, we spoke about the rotation of the nucleus of the atom and not of the atom itself. I realised my mistake after I posted my previous message, but I did not correct it anymore. So my remark about the rotation of the nucleus when the atom is chemically bound (via electrosphere), was a stupid one, because the nucleus still rotates within the atom even when it is chemically bond (via the electrosphere) isn’t it? And as I’m not a nuclear physisist, I did not now that the (or at least some) nucleï rotate so fast. Thank you for the explanation and the interesting links!

    Kind Regards,
    Daniel.

  277. Wladimir Guglinski

    Daniel De Caluwé
    November 5th, 2014 at 6:28 PM

    Dear Wladimir,

    It’s not necessary to explain to me, because I understood you well, from the beginning, when you first calculated the tearing apart of the atom, due to the centrifugal (and not ‘centripetal’ ;-) ) force, caused by the fast motion (around its axis) of the atom, but the only question that remains is this: does the individual atom really rotates so fast??? (Certainly not when it is chemically bond ;-)
    ——————————————–

    Daniel
    we are not speaking about atoms.
    We are speaking about nuclei.

    The rotation of the nucleus is independent on the rotation of the atom (electrosphere).

    On the Rotation of the Atomic Nucleus
    http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.53.778

    Wikipedia:
    Therefore there are several possible answers for the nuclear magnetic moment, one for each possible combined l and s state, and the real state of the nucleus is a superposition of them. Thus the real (measured) nuclear magnetic moment is somewhere in between the possible answers.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_moment

    A simple model for nuclear rotation at high angular momenta
    Abstract
    A simple solvable model of particles coupled to a rotor is introduced. The solutions illustrate some properties of the nucleus rotating with high angular momentum.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269371900578

    Single-Particle and Collective Aspects of Nuclear Rotation
    The spectra of rapidly rotating nuclei reveal two distinct components in the build up of the total angular momentum, corresponding to collective rotation and alignment of orbital angular momentum of individual particles. Various aspects of the interplay of these two mechanisms are discussed. The pattern of collective excitations built upon an yrast state of aligned particle motion is analyzed on the basis of a simple model. For the strongly deformed nuclei, the relative contribution of alignment and collective rotation is characterized by two different moments of inertia referring to the yrast envelope and the collective bands. The behaviour of these moments in the transition region from superfluid to normal phase is considered. Finally, some of the consequences of the build up of angular momentum by alignment and collective rotation are considered for the region of the highest spins, where pair correlations are expected to play a minor role.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/24/1B/001

    Chirality of nuclear rotation
    FIG. 1. The discrete symmetries of the mean field of a rotating triaxial reflection symmetric nucleus (three mirror planes). The axis of rotation (z) is marked by the circular arrow. It coincides with the angular momentum~J.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0001038.pdf

    regards
    wlad

  278. Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear Wladimir,

    It’s not necessary to explain to me, because I understood you well, from the beginning, when you first calculated the tearing apart of the atom, due to the centrifugal (and not ‘centripetal’ ;-) ) force, caused by the fast motion (around its axis) of the atom, but the only question that remains is this: does the individual atom really rotates so fast??? (Certainly not when it is chemically bond ;-)

    Kind Regards,
    Daniel.

  279. Wladimir Guglinski

    On the ficticious centrifugal force

    Dear Daniel De Caluwé

    As the centrifugal force is ficticious, how can it cause the rupture of a string ?

    Let me explain it.

    Suppose you wishes to cause the rupture of a string A with your two hands. So, we have to apply on the string A two contrary forces with your hands, in order to cause its rupture.

    Now let us to do an analogy with the case of a stone moving in circular orbit tied to the end of a string B, while you hold the other end with your hand.

    With analogy to the rupture of the string A with your two hands (where two contrary forces are applied), it seems that two contrary forces must be applied on the ends of the string B. One force is applied by your hand, and the other force is applied by the stone (the centrifugal force, acting in contrary direction of the force applied by your hand).

    Before the rupture of the string B, the force applied by the stone and the force applied by your hand must be equal (since the string was not disrupted).

    But let us analyse it by applying Newton’s law. As the string B is submitted to two contrary and equal forces, the resultant on the string B is zero, and therefore it must be at rest (or to move in rectilinear motion).
    So,
    the centrifugal force does not exist, it is ficticious.

    There is only one force: it is the force applied by your hand. And what is done by this force?
    Well, in each fraction of time such force applied by your hand changes the direction of the stone motion. In other words, you need to apply a force (transmited by the string B to the stone) in order to change every time the direction of the motion of the stone.

    In general, when we have to analyse a phenomenon in which a body has circular motion, the use of the centrifugal force simplifies the analysis and the explanation of the phenomenon. In other words, in spite of we know that the centrifugal force is ficticious, however we use to consider its action, so that to simplify the analysis and the explanation of the phenomenon.

    But sometimes, along a discussion, often we find people like Mr. JR, and they adopt the strategy of refuting our arguments, by claiming that the centrifugal force is ficticious. In this case, there are two situations:

    1- The person uses this sort of argument because he does not understand the discussion

    2- He uses this sort of argument with bad intent, in order to cause confusion to peoples who are reading the debate. By this way, by claiming that the centrifugal force is ficticious and does not exist, he tries to convince the listeners that he is right, and his opposer is wrong.

    So, each reader here has to conclude himself what is the case of our friend Mr. JR.
    I simply wash my hands.

    regards
    wlad

  280. George

    Dr. Rossi gets compliments Elforsk seriously. Read the article on page 13 -14
    Isotopic change indicate ”Cold” nuclear reaktion -Elforsk follows the development
    New test on Andrea Rossis Ecat show clear signs of isotope change in the fuel.
    The results indicate that the cause could be nuclear reaction in cold
    temperatures.

    http://issuu.com/elforsk_/docs/elforsk_perspektiv_2_2014?e=7916266/10018941

  281. Andrea Rossi

    George:
    Thank you for the link to Elforsk, very important.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  282. WaltC

    Dear Andrea,
    When you spoke to Neri B. of “Dangerous situations”, are we talking:
    1) Dangerous- as in “BOOM!”,
    2) Dangerous- as in it breaks, stops working and needs to be replaced (but no “BOOM!”),
    3) or something else?

    Thanks, WaltC

  283. Andrea Rossi

    Waltc:
    …and the right answer is…2!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  284. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Have you considered the possibility that the 62Ni lone isotope in The Report was not nickel at all but a molecule with a mass of 62?

  285. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    I stay on the SIMS analysis made by the Swedish Institute you can see in the Report of the ITP.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  286. Eric Ashworth

    Koen, in reply to your November 4th reply. I too am a graphical person. I can provide you with two web sites that deal with fluid dynamics. One of these, a close associate, displays a centrifugal fan that operates in a unique concept. It is a www. site belonging to entecho.com.au/contact.php As you know when semi solid objects spin they appear solid. The other concept is on a http//: site belonging to triteckindustries.ca This concept is similar to the entecho one but does not feature the centrifugal fan even though it could in its design which involves propellers and a baffle arrangement. Both of these technologies require movement to induce and control a flow which is able to be studied and measured. See what you think. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  287. Wladimir Guglinski

    Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 3:53 AM

    @JR,

    Wladimir wrote ‘centripetal force’, but I’m sure he meant ‘centrifugal force’, working – in this case – in the same direction as the Coulomb repulsion (of the two protons).
    —————————————–

    Daniel,
    let me explain it by an easy words.

    Suppose you take a string and you tie a stone with mass “m” in its end.
    And you put the stone moving with circular trajectory with speed V and radius R around your hand.

    The stone tries to escape, applying a force on the string. So, you have to apply a force on the string, otherwise the stone go away with the string.

    The force of the stone is given by Fc = m.V²/R.
    Let us call it centrifugal force (note that, in spite of it is ficticious, however it is able to cause the rupture of a string, because it is actually due to the inertia of the stone, and the inertia is no ficticious).

    The string is able to support a force Fs.

    If the speed of the stone increases so much, the centrifugal force Fc will be stronger than the force Fs of the string, and the string will have a rupture, and the stone will go away.

    Now let us apply it to the nucleus, as follows:

    1- The stone plays the role of a proton

    2- The string plays the role of the strong nuclear force

    The strong nuclear force must be stronger than the centrifugal force Fc , otherwise the proton will move away, leaving the nucleus.

    I showed by calculation that with a speed 10% of the light speed, the centrifugal force Fc on the proton is 500N, while the Coulomb force is 50N.

    In the distance of 2fm (the radius of the nucleus 2He4), the Coulomb repulsion has the same magnitude of the strong nuclear force ( 50N ).

    Therefore we conclude that the centrifugal force on the proton is 10 times stronger than the strong nuclear force.

    regards
    wlad

  288. Hi Dan C.:

    “When Rossi says all energies will be integrated, he is just being realistic. it will take many decades to transition. ”

    I have to very much agree with this. If you take the energy content of the entire current annual consumption of crude oil, natural gas and coal, and add present nuclear power generation which will be phased out eventually as the plants exceed their useful lives; then calculate how many one megawatt units are required to displace it, you will see it will take a long time.

    Even assuming initial production of 10,000 one megawatt units a year and doubling production each year for a few years it will still take a long time, simply because the current usage of coal, natural gas and oil is so huge. Having said this, though, it didn’t take very long to install optical fiber and related equipment across the entire world when the internet appeared.

    The critical factor permitting the rapid expansion of *any* business is that the product be sold at a price which allows profits to be high enough so that they can be reinvested in the construction of larger and larger manufacturing plants quickly. If a company is making only small profits it will not have the resources to expand quickly, if at all. LENR will be no different.

    Charging a high enough price will be critical in determining how long it takes for LENR technology to achieve maturity. If E-cat units are sold at prices sufficient to finance rapid expansion, then it will certainly not take 100 years.

    Of course the profits must also be high enough to finance both research into new products and the improvement of existing ones, to stay ahead of potential competitors. Also, when competition eventually appears, in order to continue to thrive it will be critical for the company to maintain a very strong balance sheet so it can take on competition likely to come from some very large and very well financed companies in the energy and transportation industries.

    Rodney.

  289. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in november 4th, 2014 at 8:38 PM

    The 4He nucleus is spin zero so there isn’t a large angular momentum as you’re assuming
    ————————————————————–

    The radii quoted by Bethe due to the rotation of the nucleus as a whole, as if it were a solid body? Be it as it may, numerous measurements had been made by 1936.

    The magnetic moments of nuclei
    Bethe explains that the magnetic moments of numerous are known, thanks to a remark made by Pauli, who showed that if the nucleus behaves as a small magnet, it can somewhat perturb the observed atomic spectral lines caused by electrons making transitions from one quantum state to another. This was called the “hiperfine structure” of the spectral lines, and the magnetic moment of the nucleus could be deduced from it. The magnetic moments of about thirty nuclei were known in 1936.

    page 347
    http://books.google.com.br/books?id=IJa4afSc-MsC&pg=PA347&lpg=PA347&dq=nucleus+rotation+hans+bethe&source=bl&ots=_QY1zPUjBj&sig=XYZNgCuUdsHRJw_biDW6M_mvqEM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0IVaVPaBGYGUNtaqgPgI&ved=0CEgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=nucleus%20rotation%20hans%20bethe&f=false

    So,
    the nuclei have rotation, and since it influences even the atomic spectral lines, the rotation must be very fast, because the magnetic moment of the electron is 9284 (x10^-27 J/T) , while the magnetic moment of the proton is only 14 (x10^-27 J/T).
    Without a large angular momentum the protons and neutrons could not influence the spectral lines (the distance between the electrons in the electrosphere and the protons in the nucleus is 10^-11m , while the size of the proton is 10^-15m, and so the size of the proton is despicable regarding its distance to the electrons). And the magnetic moment decreases with the square of the distance.

    Therefore there are two alternatives:

    1- Mr. JR does not know the nuclear properties of nuclei

    2- Mr. JR knows them, however he tries to deceive people by lying

    regards
    wlad

  290. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    Regarding the heat measurements in the Lugano report (leaving alone the isoptopic shifts reported): were these measurements in line with what you would have expected based on your own R&D experience with the E-Cat?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

  291. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    Yes, taking in account the strong conservative mode maintained by the Professors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  292. Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    in TPR 1 we saw 3 tests: in the first the reactor melted, in the others two tests the COP was 5.6 and 2.9.
    Recently you stated that someone has experienced the cat could become a tiger.
    Can you please tell us which is the highest COP you ever achieved in your internal test for a reasonable period of time and at what temperature?
    Thank you

  293. Andrea Rossi

    Neri B.:
    When I said the Cat can become a Tiger it was referred ironically to a totally different issue…anyway we reached very high COPS, but in very Dangerous situations, so it is not proper to talk of them. That was extreme R&D
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  294. Wladimir Guglinski

    Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 3:53 AM

    @JR,

    Wladimir wrote ‘centripetal force’, but I’m sure he meant ‘centrifugal force’, working – in this case – in the same direction as the Coulomb repulsion (of the two protons).
    —————————-

    Dear Daniel
    I avoided to call it centrifugal force because the centrifugal force does not exist, I was sure Mr. JR would use it so that to refuse my argument.

    .

    =============================================
    JR wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 7:31 AM

    Dear Daniel,

    If he meant centrifugal force, then his argument still makes no sense. The centrifugal force is a fictitious force associated with an orbiting body and is caused by the force that pulls the body towards the center of the orbit – the binding force (strong force) in this case. So it fundamentally makes no sense to say that the binding force has to overcome the centrifugal force to maintain a bound system.
    ——————————————

    Therefore, according to Mr. Jr,
    when a Formula 1 driver makes a turn too fast, instead of being vented out of the curve, the car is pulled towards the center of curvature … ha ha ha

    My God …
    … then the designers of Formula 1 tracks are crazy, because they put barricades and tires on the outside of the track, to protect against car crashes.

    According to Mr. JR, the designers had to put these barricades on the inside of the runway, so cars do not be thrown into the center of the trajectory …
    ha ha ha

    Dear Mr. JR
    your lack of knowledge of elementary physics is awesome.

    In spite of the centrifugal force is a fictitious force, however due to the rotation of the nucleus the protons and neutrons are submitted to the tendency to be expelled from the nucleus, due to the INERTIA of their motion.

    The protons and neutrons try to continue in a straight TANGENTIAL trajectory, and the strong nuclear force on the protons and neutrons have to avoid they be expelled from the nucleus by such INERTIA

    This tendency due to the INERTIA is vulgarly known as centrifugal force. Within the nuclei the INERTIA is contrary to the strong nuclear force.

    The value of such INERTIA tendency is Fc = m.V²/R, and (as I have shown here) it is at least 10 times of magnitude stronger than the strong nuclear force.

    Therefore, the strong nuclear force cannot avoid the protons and neutrons to be expelled from the nucleus, because the action of the INERTIA on them is 10 times stronger.

    regards
    wlad

  295. Wladimir Guglinski

    JR wrote in November 4th, 2014 at 8:38 PM

    1) ——————————-
    The 4He nucleus is spin zero so there isn’t a large angular momentum as you’re assuming
    ———————————-

    You are wrong.
    the 4H3 nucleus has spin zero because one proton has spin up and the other proton has spin down, while one neutron has spin up and the other neutron has spin down. The total spin is zero.

    However all the nuclei have rotation, and so each nucleon (proton or neutron) is submitted to the centripetal force.

    2) ———————————-
    a centripetal force CAUSES binding, the centripetal force IS the nuclear force, having the centripetal force get larger than the coulomb doesn’t matter much since the coulomb effect is small compared to the binding from the strong force, etc…
    ————————————-

    No, according to the Standard Model, which causes binding is the strong nuclear force (and it is not centripetal, i.e., it does not point out to the center of the nucleus, since there is also attraction between two neighbors nucleons).

    3) ———————————-
    The closest you come to a true statement is when you *assume* that 11Be can’t be bound by the strong force and then make the bold and daring conclusion that, if there is no binding, then it would not be bound. Bravo.

    I don’t think you could have been more wrong. Actually, you could have been more wrong (and certainly will) simply by saying more. I eagerly await to see what simple ideas you screw up next…
    ————————————-

    Bravo, Mr. JR, you are using the Heisenberg phantasmagoric method, so that to explain how the cluster of the 11Be can keep a halo neutron without any sort of attraction force between them.

    Heisenber awarded the Nobel Prize with his phantasmagoric method.
    There is a good chance you may get the Nobel Prize too.

    regards
    wlad

  296. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dan C. wrote in November 5th, 2014 at 12:31 PM

    Dear Wladimir,

    You say:
    “However Andrea Rossi does not want to speak about, because the best is do not put angry the owners of the other energy sources existing in the planet nowadays.”

    I respectfully disagree.
    And Mr. Rossi can correct me if I’m wrong.

    When Rossi says all energies will be integrated, he is just being realistic. it will take many decades to transition.
    —————————————-

    just what I did mean to say. I said in the future, and the future does not mean tomorow, or next year. The future means after some decades.

    regards
    wlad

  297. Dan C.

    Dear Wladimir,

    You say:
    “However Andrea Rossi does not want to speak about, because the best is do not put angry the owners of the other energy sources existing in the planet nowadays.”

    I respectfully disagree.
    And Mr. Rossi can correct me if I’m wrong.

    When Rossi says all energies will be integrated, he is just being realistic. it will take many decades to transition. We will need all those other forms of energy during this period.

    On many blogs, you see people proclaiming LENR will obliterate fossil fuels within a few short years. It will take more then a few short years just to get started. While many think this will happen fast, I hope it happens fast enough to preserve the fossil resources for all our other needs.

    People greatly underestimate the magnitude of the task of transitioning to LENR energy. If it could be mostly accomplished in 50 years, it would be a great feat for society. In this respect, Rossi is right to say all energies will be integrated. At least for the foreseeable future.

    With respect,
    Dan C.

  298. Boss

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I have a really simple question for you, but I want to be sure you won’t spam it as a tedious comment coming from that class you refer to as ‘snakes’ (which in fact I’m not).
    We are talking about science, not religion, and therefore, big claims have to be supported by huge proofs. Faith has nothing to do with the subject.
    In the TPRI some doubts emerged, (such as DC current not excluded) , and eventhough I was totally sure there wasn’t any DC hidden some where, the faith in your honesty couldn’t be enough for science.
    In fact in the TPRII DC presence was checked and excluded.
    At this point some other doubts have been raised, and just like as for TPRI, I am preatty sure no clamp was inverted. But belief goes along with faith, hence it’s not scientifical.
    One picture of the setup would be enough and you would also give evidence that out there it’s full of ‘snakes’.
    The TPRII was intended to prove that the Cat works without any reasonable doubt. Then prove it.
    Thanks for your attention, always cheering for you.
    Regards

  299. Andrea Rossi

    Boss:
    This situation of the “changed position of the clamps” is very funny, while it is also an evidence of the correctness of the work of the Professors. Lacking real reasons to make a serious critic, these persons make “assumptions”: they “assume” that the clamps of the two PCE830 have been changed of position, and upon this “assumption” are writing all their lectures. I make you a simple example of what is going on: you are driving your car correctly, respecting all the laws related to driving, but suddenly a policeman stops you and says: ” I assume you were going overspeed, so you have to pay a fine”. No evidence at all that you have violated the speed limit, but, based on his assumption, he wants to fine you.
    This situation is exactly the same.
    THE SET UP OF THE EXPERIMENT, INCLUDED THE SET UP OF THE TWO PCE830 HAS BEEN DONE BY THE PROFESSORS, NOT BY ME. THE PROFESSORS CONTROLLED EVERY DAY THE CORRECTNESS OF ALL THE CONNECTIONS. ONE OF THEM (PROF ROLAND PETTERSON) WAS SPECIFICALLY DEDICATED TO THIS TASK. THE CLAMPS HAVE NEVER BEEN DISCONNECTED, EXCHANGED, DISPLACED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
    Obviously the persons that have an agenda finalized to try to say negative things, not having serious things or citics to make, now fish in the lake of “assumptions” and “hypotesis”. From this lake you can fish out all the monsters you want, being just “assumptions”.
    Photos: I was not allowed to make photos and therefore I do not have any photo. The Professors know perfectly how the clamps have been put and know perfectly that no displacement or changement has been done.
    The level of this critic is so low, that it is not worth the time of an answer, so, as you rightly wrote, the temptation to spam it has crossed my brain, but you are always so kind that I decided to answer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  300. Nicola Cortesi

    Dear Andrea,

    today on the webpage of the popular italian journal “Il Fatto Quotidiano”, an article appeared on the recent nomination of Fabiola Gianotti to director of CERN. At the end of the article, the journalist Andrea Von Flue, himself a physician, guesses if the new director’ll start a research project also on LENR. You can read the article in italian on:

    http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2014/11/04/grazie-fabiola-gianotti-politica-perso-unaltra-occasione-per-tacere/1191758/

    Something has changed!

    Hot Regards,

    Nicola

  301. Andrea Rossi

    Nicola Cortesi:
    thank you for the important information. This is an accomplishment due, obviously, to the Report of the ITP.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  302. JR

    Dear Daniel,

    If he meant centrifugal force, then his argument still makes no sense. The centrifugal force is a fictitious force associated with an orbiting body and is caused by the force that pulls the body towards the center of the orbit – the binding force (strong force) in this case. So it fundamentally makes no sense to say that the binding force has to overcome the centrifugal force to maintain a bound system.

  303. Daniel De Caluwé

    @JR,

    Wladimir wrote ‘centripetal force’, but I’m sure he meant ‘centrifugal force’, working – in this case – in the same direction as the Coulomb repulsion (of the two protons).

    Kind Regards,

  304. Peter Forsberg

    Dear orsobubu,

    I can understand that many people can think that communism is a good way to rule man. Truly there are some distinctly bad concepts in the incarnation of lesse faire economy known as capitalism. But the empirical evidence is against communism. It works extremely badly. But this is not a political blog, so I will spare everyone the details.

    Regards

    Peter

  305. Joe

    Koen,

    Tapping into a free energy flow would be the best. The E-Cat would then behave like a wheel at the bottom of a waterfall. Back in 2011, some people were asking Dr Rossi if the E-cat performed differently at various times of the day. They were implying that the Sun was perhaps responsible for providing the excess energy to the E-Cat. This would have been in the form of a neutrino flux. The question remains though, what is the source of the overunity found in the E-Cat?

    All the best,
    Joe

  306. JR

    Wlad said:

    “Dears Mr. Joe , Mr. JR , and dr. Stoyan Sarg

    As is known, the centripetal force on the protons and neutrons is not considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics.”
    ———————–
    Wrong. That was an easy one!

    Of course, even if it were true, almost everything else you said following this was wrong. The 4He nucleus is spin zero so there isn’t a large angular momentum as you’re assuming, a centripetal force CAUSES binding, the centripetal force IS the nuclear force, having the centripetal force get larger than the coulomb doesn’t matter much since the coulomb effect is small compared to the binding from the strong force, etc…

    The closest you come to a true statement is when you *assume* that 11Be can’t be bound by the strong force and then make the bold and daring conclusion that, if there is no binding, then it would not be bound. Bravo.

    I don’t think you could have been more wrong. Actually, you could have been more wrong (and certainly will) simply by saying more. I eagerly await to see what simple ideas you screw up next…

  307. Joe

    Daniel,

    Thank you for your kind words, and for reading the article by Prof Meyl.

    I think tunneling is a strong candidate for the central process occurring in the E-Cat.
    Two reasons are the following:

    1. The hot spots on the E-Cat resemble vortex losses in a capacitor as explained by Prof Meyl. (Compare Fig 12 in the article by Prof Meyl with images of the large vertical E-Cat when not running.) And electric capacitance can be used instead of magnetic induction to create an oscillating charge density and near-field waves, to answer your question.

    2. The lack of radiation from the E-Cat can be explained by re-absorption which is typical behaviour in near-field radiation. Some radiation does emerge though as EM waves.

    All the best,
    Joe

  308. Wladimir Guglinski

    Why is centripetal force neglected in Standard Nuclear Physics?

    Dears Mr. Joe , Mr. JR , and dr. Stoyan Sarg

    As is known, the centripetal force on the protons and neutrons is not considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    However, a simple calculation shows that centripetal force within the nuclei can have a higher magnitude than Coulomb repulsion . Let us see the calculation.

    Units used:
    Charge of the proton: 1,6×10^-19 C
    Mass of the proton and neutron: 1,7×10^-27 kg
    K= 9×10^9 Nxm²/C²

    I will consider the velocity of the protons 3% of the speed of light c=3×10^8m/s, and so their speed is v= (3×10^-2)x(3×10^8) = 9×10^6m/s.

    Actually the speed of protons due to the rotation of the nuclei cannot be lower than 10% of the light speed, but we will be conservative, and so let consider only 3%.

    Let us consider the nucleus 2He4, by considering the two protons with a distance of 2fm between them (2fm = 2×10^-15m).

    1- Coulomb repulsion between the two protons

    Fe = K.q²/R² = 9×10^9 x (1,6×10^-19)²/(2×10^-15)² = 50N

    2- Centripetal force on each proton

    Fc = 1,7×10^-27 x (9×10^6)²/2×10^-15 = 70N

    .

    So, by considering the speed of protons to be 3% of the light speed (which is an underestimated value), the centripetal force on each proton within the 2He4 has the same magnitude of the Coulomb repulsion force between the two protons.

    If we consider the velocity of protons in the order of 10% of the light speed, we get Fc = 510N (one order of magnitude stronger than the strong nuclear force in a distance of 2fm).

    .

    Obviously the influence of the centripetal force is stronger in other nuclei, as for instance 11Be, where there is a halo neutron moving with radius R=7fm about the cluster. As the strong nuclear force does not actuate in a distance of 7fm, the halo neutron in the 11Be would have to be quickly expelled from the nucleus 11Be, due to the centripetal force on it, since the centripetal force increases with the radius: Fc = m.w².R , where “w” is the angular velocity.
    In the 11Be the centripetal force on the halo neutron is 145N, while the strong nuclear force is practically zero.

    And the situation becomes worst, because the neutron decays in a proton, and the 4Be11 transmutes to 5B10 with a halo proton with orbit radius R=7fm.
    So, beyond the 145N due to centripetal force there is the actuation of a Coulomb force a little weaker than 50N, while the strong nuclear force is practically zero.

    The halo proton would have be expelled quickly from the newborn 5B10, and so 5B10 would have to decay. But this not happens, because the proton actually goes back to the cluster, and the 5B10 becomes stable.

    .

    So, the question is:
    Why the nuclear physicists neglect the centripetal force on the protons and neutrons????

    I hope to hear a good explanation from Mr. JR , or any nuclear theorist he wishes to invite come here to explain it to us.

    Regards
    wlad

  309. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    I confirm what I wrote answering to Peter Forsberg. When I want to say a thing I say it.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  310. Wladimir Guglinski

    Peter Forsberg
    November 4th, 2014 at 2:22 AM

    Dear Wladimir,

    You say that the secondary E-cat could produce 1kWh of electricity. I have yet to hear Rossi say that he can produce electricity with good enough efficiency. Do you have other information?
    —————————————–

    Dear Peter
    of course in the future there will be only three forms of energy sources used by mankind: the cold fusion, the magnetic generators, and the hidroelectric plants, because they are 100% clean ecologically speaking (but new hidroelectric plants will not be built).

    However Andrea Rossi does not want to speak about, because the best is do not put angry the owners of the other energy sources existing in the planet nowadays.

    regards
    wlad

  311. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 4th, 2014 at 5:08 PM

    Wladimir,

    1. You say,
    “I dont know, since I dont know the charge of the electriciton.”

    Should not the charges on your aether particles be UNIT by definition? Otherwise, you would need even more fundamental particles to explain your aether particles.
    ———————————–

    Yes,
    but the unit of charge in Physics is the electron charge e =1,6×10^-19C, and I cannot change what was established in Physics.
    The charge of an electriciton will be something like 10^-30.e

    Besides, the gravity flux of particles as the proton and electron agglutinate electricitons in the form of rings, and the gravity flux passes by withing the rings. These rings of electricitons move with the speed of light, inducing the fields of electricitons.

    2. You say,
    “As I dont know how many electricitons form the bodies of the quarks up and down.”

    Do the magnetons, or any other of the QRT aether particles, also form bodies?
    ——————————————–

    No,
    magnetons are agglutinated in the form of magnetic fields induced by the flux of electricitons

    3. You say,
    “Perhaps you also would like to claim that Heisenberg’s abstract mathematical concept of Isospin is able to create a force of repulsion between two neutrons.”

    a) My concept of a neutron-next-to-a-proton-asymetrically-attenuating-the-electric-field-thus-causing-a-nonzero-Q(b), simply known as the NNTAPAATEFTCANQ(b) conjecture, for the deuteron is not an abstract mathematical concept but a concrete physical reality… maybe.
    —————————————–

    Joe,
    we are talking about the puzzles of the Standard MOdel, and not the solutions proposed in your theory.

    4. You say.
    “If this is the case, there would not be necessary 33 theories proposed along 66 years. One unique theory would solve the puzzle.”

    But maybe my NNTAPAATEFTCANQ(b) theory can be that theory. I shall copyright it. If you have free time, you can be my lawyer as I can not afford a real one.
    —————————————

    So, you are my competitor, since I solve the puzzle with the model of neutron n=p+e (and the quarupole moment of the deuteron is calculated in my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron)

    So, I would not be a good lawyer for you… rsss

    regards
    wlad

  312. Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. You say,
    “I dont know, since I dont know the charge of the electriciton.”

    Should not the charges on your aether particles be UNIT by definition? Otherwise, you would need even more fundamental particles to explain your aether particles.

    2. You say,
    “As I dont know how many electricitons form the bodies of the quarks up and down.”

    Do the magnetons, or any other of the QRT aether particles, also form bodies?

    3. You say,
    “Perhaps you also would like to claim that Heisenberg’s abstract mathematical concept of Isospin is able to create a force of repulsion between two neutrons.”

    a) My concept of a neutron-next-to-a-proton-asymetrically-attenuating-the-electric-field-thus-causing-a-nonzero-Q(b), simply known as the NNTAPAATEFTCANQ(b) conjecture, for the deuteron is not an abstract mathematical concept but a concrete physical reality… maybe.

    b) It is force that is the abstract mathematical concept. Force has never been measured, it has always been calculated. It is a holdover from when we humans believed that spirits moved things by applying a force to them. The only concrete things that can be measured are distance (rod) and time (clock).

    4. You say.
    “If this is the case, there would not be necessary 33 theories proposed along 66 years. One unique theory would solve the puzzle.”

    But maybe my NNTAPAATEFTCANQ(b) theory can be that theory. I shall copyright it. If you have free time, you can be my lawyer as I can not afford a real one.

    All the best,
    Joe

  313. Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    1. Do you know what is the maximum temperature an operating e-cat can produce?

    2. Have you achieved that temperature in an e-cat operation?

    3. Are there any other e-cat applications you are presently working on in addition to plant for manufacturing and possible aircraft engine use?

    Thanks

    Bob

    P.S. Thanks to all the nuclear theorists who are posting to this blog. The exchange of knowledge is truly remarkable.

  314. Andrea Rossi

    Bob:

    1- at peak 1,400°C
    2- yes
    3- presently we are focused on the 1 MW plant; apart from this, we are making R&D mainly for gas driven E-Cats; obviously I am also studying on the reconciliations of the results of the measurements made by the ITP.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  315. orsobubu

    Peter Forsberg,

    thank you for the link, this part was very interesting:

    “Probably more inhibiting than anything else is a feeling of responsibility. The great ideas of the ages have come from people who weren’t paid to have great ideas, but were paid to be teachers or patent clerks or petty officials, or were not paid at all. The great ideas came as side issues.

    To feel guilty because one has not earned one’s salary because one has not had a great idea is the surest way, it seems to me, of making it certain that no great idea will come in the next time either.”

    Below, a video you can look at, on the same issue, it is very challenging versus common wisdom that capitalism is the best in spurring innovation because of the lure of reward; it was posted on e-catworld.com by user dinvient:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

    obviously, Marx already addressed the question since 1848 in The Communist Manifesto:

    “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society: all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation.

    It has been objected, that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

    According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labor when there is no longer any capital.”

  316. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, Velocys can convert natural gas into high value clean fuels such as Diesel and Jet Fuel.
    They have invested over 300 million dollars in their Technology and have over 900 patents.
    It can be done on a small scale.
    Some places Flare their natural gas into the air because they have no use for it.
    Natural gas is very inexpensive, and we have plenty of it, plus it is available all over the World.
    Google:
    Velocys
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  317. Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    Thank you for the information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  318. Peter Forsberg

    Regarding the source of creativity I recently read this previously unpublished essay by Isac Asimov:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/531911/isaac-asimov-asks-how-do-people-get-new-ideas/

    I found it insightful. Asimov was a great thinker.

    Regards

    Peter

  319. Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Very insightful.
    Thank you.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  320. Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear Joe,

    I’ve read your interesting contribution about Konstantin Meyl, and your suggestion that, maybe, free energy is involved in the working of the E-cat, but what about the gas driven E-Cat, where probably, a magnetic induction is not used anymore? If a gas driven E-cat works, without magnetic induction, there should be another explanation, isn’t it?

    Kind Regards,

    P.S. I appreciated very much your interaction with Wladimir on this forum, and I want to thank both of you for it.

  321. Koen Vandewalle

    Joe,
    Thank you for your reply.

    I am in trouble with the concept of unlimited elasticity in a three-dimensional system or in any non-pure-mathematical system.

    Andrea Rossi stated more than once that transmutations are only a side-effect of the phenomena that are happening in the E-Cat. I am really, really curious what will be the embarrassing outcome if an E-cat reactor runs very very far beyond “exhaust of the fuel”. Did the TIP2 test really cut-off the power one hour before 99,.. % of fuel was used ? I don’t think so. The graphs even shows to us that the device performs better with enriched Ni62.

    I think there is a flow of aether in each particle that has a mass, and E-Cat, as other nuclear or radio-active devices or materials are capable of tapping energy from that flow.

    I am also thinking that fundamental researchers must have found excess energies in a myriad of experiments.

    Being right is unimportant to me. Curiosity all the more.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen.

  322. Neri B.

    Wladimir,
    i totally agree with you. Simply coupling a Stirling engine (let’s say 25% conversion in electric power) with others, also more than one Hot-CAT, you could get enough electric power to drive as many PRIMARY ECAT as you want.
    Andrea give us one of your Hot Cat so that we can start testing a Stirling…eheheh

  323. Peter Forsberg

    Dear Wladimir,

    You say that the secondary E-cat could produce 1kWh of electricity. I have yet to hear Rossi say that he can produce electricity with good enough efficiency. Do you have other information?

    I agree that the Rossi effect is in its infancy, and will likely be improved a lot over time.

    Regards

    Peter

  324. Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    We are working on this issue; as you say, the E-Cat will be improved a lot over the time. I think that to to gain a strong efficiency for the production od electric power we need to use gas instead of electricity, for the reasons you correctly explained in your comment yesterday. If we take in consideration the results of ITP and integrate them with the ratio 3:1 = thermal energy: electric energy, we can see that there is still a COP >1, but we are pursuing more strong effect.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  325. Daniel De Caluwé

    Dear dr. Rossi,

    Did you try Cr instead of Ni, as suggested by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, the author of the article? And if yes, was the result positive? (Of course, I understand when you don’t want to answer this question because of protection of IP).

    Kind Regards,
    Daniel.

  326. Andrea Rossi

    Daniel De Caluwé:
    As you correctly say, I cannot give information about this issue, positive or negative as they might be.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  327. Koen Vandewalle

    Eric Ashworth,
    Indeed: observation and concentration, and letting our brains “spin by themselves” on the gathered and accumulated acquisitions, may be the holy grail of creation and human inventivity.

    I very much like alle the pictures of Andrea Rossi, staring and observing the E-cats and the measurements on the computers. That is “creation in action”.

    Your observations carry the force of creation. Vortex-like structures, and their dynamic behaviour in changes in their environment, seem to work likewise. Is it possible to link to a drawing or picture of the vortices and flows you refer to. The description with words are not so accessible to me. Others use formula’s (calculus), which abstractions are mostly only accessible to a certain elite, and I am still in a continued -but slow- process to absorb them. I am more a graphical person.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  328. Robert Curto

    orsobubu,
    Very interesting.
    Thank you
    Robert Curto

  329. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 3rd, 2014 at 9:48 PM

    Wladimir,

    1.
    How many electricitons form the charge on the electron?
    —————————————

    I dont know, since I dont know the charge of the electriciton.
    As I dont know how many electricitons form the bodies of the quarks up and down.

    2.
    Does not a neutral object attenuate a radiating field? A neutron stationed next to a proton should cause a disruption in the electric field of the proton, creating a shadow effect. This, in turn, would register as a non-null Q(b).
    —————————————

    If this is the case, there would not be necessary 33 theories proposed along 66 years. One unique theory would solve the puzzle.

    Joe,
    perhaps you also would like to claim that Heisenberg’s abastract mathematical concept of Isospin is able to create a force of repulsion between two neutrons.
    Would you?

    regards
    wlad

  330. Eric Ashworth

    Hey Wladimir, Regards reply from Dr Gabriela Lemos, you knew it like I did they would not perform the experiment. Why?. I say trapped between two opposing lines of thought. You obviously score points yet again. I would take it as another compliment. All the best Eric Ashworth.

  331. Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. How many electricitons form the charge on the electron?

    2. Does not a neutral object attenuate a radiating field? A neutron stationed next to a proton should cause a disruption in the electric field of the proton, creating a shadow effect. This, in turn, would register as a non-null Q(b).

    All the best,
    Joe

  332. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 3rd, 2014 at 3:36 PM

    Wladimir,
    Could not the standard nuclear model explain the non-null quadrupole moment of the deuteron as simply due to the presence of the neutron within the proton’s electric field, causing an asymmetrical blockage of field vectors?
    ————————————-

    Joe,
    according to the Standard Model, both the proton and the neutron are symmetrical particles.

    May you give us a reasonable reason why the neutron could cause an asymmetrical blockage of field vectors? (mainly taking in consideration that the neutron has no charge).

    regards
    wlad

  333. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 3rd, 2014 at 3:36 PM

    Wladimir,

    1.
    In QRT, is the electric monopole composed of electricitons?
    —————————————

    Yes

    2.
    Why do you assume that the neutron in either a deuteron or a nucleus like 4Be9, 8O17, etc has no interaction with its partner nucleons? Could not the standard nuclear model explain the non-null quadrupole moment of the deuteron as simply due to the presence of the neutron within the proton’s electric field, causing an asymmetrical blockage of field vectors?
    ——————————–

    You have to ask it to the authors who proposed 33 different theories so that to explain the non-null quadrupole moment of the deuteron, along 66 years.

    If the question is so easy as you suppose, probably they would no need 66 years of unsuccessful attempts.

    regards
    wlad

  334. Andrea Rossi

    TO THE READERS:
    Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics has been published the paper ” Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to BSM”, by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, York University, Toronto, Canada.
    JoNP

  335. Eric Ashworth

    Koen Vandewalle, Reply to your November 2nd message. The main thing is as you say ‘once that vortex is created then maybe a continuous flow could keep tunnelling through’. What I have observed is that a vortex flow conservs energy and thereby is able to penetrate because of a degree of gravity existing in the vortex created by the generating mechanism. In the mechanism it is demonstrated that when two vortexes are formed from a common plane of origin they spin in the same direction. To help explain: take circle divide it into two parts and put a vortex in each compartment, they both spin in the same direction. Consequently, when they make contact they cancell out their spin from curvature to linear in the direction of the original vortex flow. Two vortexes descend and meet. What I am getting at is the geometry of flows or fluid dynamics. When part of these vortexes peel off due to a design feature of the mechanism, the vortex seems to conserve an amount of the energy that created the vortex flow. As in the most recent paper of the JONP gravity is considered empty space. When atomic structure spins with centrifugal force the atoms move off centre of the structure, creating a point of gravity. Vortexes I believe contain gravity, helical trajectories must also. Gravity is a conservational force of energy. Physicists mention so much about energy but do we realy understand it?. Because there are only two types of energy or I should say recognised these being latent and kinetic, movement must have influence and therefore a consideration of various movements must be part of the energy equation. Latent I believe must be a value of gravity that binds, kinetic must be the exposing of the value in terms of the measurable energy value. If it is then all that is created, is from two states, these being a state of something and a state of nothing that contain the same attribute which is gravity. If physics can be distilled down to simplicity then that which appears complicated will be better understood. My approach as you know is a simple one. Regards Eric Ashworth

  336. orsobubu

    Rober Curto,

    from “Re-Think: How to Think Differently”:

    “There is a widely accepted notion that creativity requires the context of the three “B’s”, the bus, the bed and the bathroom. Einstein awoke from his sleep to discover the theory of relativity. Archimedes recognized the theory of displacement while taking a bath, and ran through the streets yelling “Eureka, I’ve got it”. Similarly, many of our survey respondents said that they got their best ideas:

    -In the bed, drifting to sleep, sleeping, trying to fall back asleep at 3am
    -In the bath, showering, washing, bathing
    -In the bus, car, plane, travelling, walking home in a tree-lined street on a cool night with no traffic”

    Rossi is an innovator also in B-thinking habits, because he gets his best ideas riding a Bike and reading his Blog.

  337. Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. In QRT, is the electric monopole composed of electricitons?

    2. Why do you assume that the neutron in either a deuteron or a nucleus like 4Be9, 8O17, etc has no interaction with its partner nucleons? Could not the standard nuclear model explain the non-null quadrupole moment of the deuteron as simply due to the presence of the neutron within the proton’s electric field, causing an asymmetrical blockage of field vectors?

    All the best,
    Joe

  338. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 3rd, 2014 at 7:58 AM

    Peter Forsberg:

    you are right about the fact that the commercial ( not physical) COP of the E-Cat must be divided by a factor 3 in case of electric power production, because if we use electricity to drive the E-Cat, to make 1 kWh of electricity is necessary to burn 3 kWh from a thermal fuel.

    As you correctly say, to make the E-Cat convenient to produce electric power we need one of the following at least:
    1- get a COP > 3

    ————————————–

    Not necessarily.

    You can put a secondary E-Cat producing electricity to drive the principal E-Cat. To make 1kWh of electricity, instead of using the 3kWh from a thermal fuel, it can be supplied by the secondary E-Cat.

    However, the E-Cat technology is in its beginning, and of course a better solution will be achieved.

    regards
    wlad

  339. Wladimir Guglinski

    Reply by Dr. Gabriela Lemos

    Some days ago I sent an email to Dr. Gabriela, asking whether her staff decided to undertake the experiments suggested by me:

    —————————————–
    From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    To: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
    Subject: RE: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
    Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:02:27 -0200

    oi, Gabriela
    o que vocês decidiram?

    Vocês executarão as novas versões sugeridas para a experiência de vocês ?

    Em particular, acho que seria muito interessante executar a versão com os fótons se movendo ao longo de uma mesma linha, mas em sentido contrario. Não sei que dificuldades técnicas essa execução exigiria, mas acho que seria extremamente interessante verificar se haveria entrelaçamento quântico entre esses dois fótons se movendo em sentido contrario, e penso até que não haverá entrelaçamento nenhum. Se isso ocorrer, o fenômeno entanglement terá que ser pensado sob uma nova visão.

    saudaçoes
    wlad

    ———————————————

    She sent the following reply:

    ———————————————
    From: gabriela.barreto.lemos@univie.ac.at
    Subject: Re: a structure of space for explaining the ENTANGLEMENT
    Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 11:15:15 -0300
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

    Olá Wlad,
    obrigada pelas sugestões.
    Temos vários experimentos na linha de espera para serem realizados. Quando tivermos tempo para testar sua sugestão eu te aviso.
    Abraço

    ———————————————

    Translation:
    ——————————————–
    “Hi, Wlad,
    thanks for the suggestions.
    We have several experiments in line waiting to be realized. When we have time to test your suggestion I warn you.
    hug

    ——————————————-

    So,
    it seems to be that sort of polite reply sent when somebody wishes to say no.

    However, who knows?

  340. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, you need to take more bike rides !
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA

  341. Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    riding a bike you can relax and think from scratch ( epochè).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  342. Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    Thanks for an interesting answer. I understand that you have calculated COP correctly according to science. But I do not agree with the scientific point of view that all energy is equal. This simplification is just one of the problems with the current paradigm of physics.

    After your reply I think I understand your assertion better, that all types of energy will be necessary and integrated in the future. And I also think I understand why you call it energy catalyzer instead of energy generator. You will perhaps always be dependent on other sources of energy to feed the ECat and amplify the input energy. Maybe you should have called it energy amplifier.

    You are right that Sweden is very advanced when it comes to centralized heat distribution. Sweden is very good at centralizing solutions by and large, since our society is semi socialistic. I live in a house that is heated by pressurized steam delivered in pipes to my neighborhood. But I long for the day when I could have an ECat instead, since I would like a decentralized heat source. A society with decentralized energy generation is more resilent against extral stress (war, pandemics, natural disasters, economic depression…) and more democratic. Each year when the goverment monopoly raises the cost of my heat bill I have not much to say about it. I cannot change to a new supplier.

    But even if I had an ECat and if the ECat ran on centrally created electricity (or even gas), then I would still be dependent on a central point of failure and with less possibility to negotiate price per kWH.

    So please make the leap to electricity generation if possible. A self sustaining ECat would be something that is vastly better than an ECat running on external energy. What efficiency have you been able to achieve so far? (My guess is confidential).

    Regards

    Peter

  343. Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Thank you again for your comment. I understand your point. Doubtless, if we succeed to use gas we get closer to the path you suggest. Besides, gas is going to see its price fall down, due to the high offer coming from the fracking technology on the rise.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  344. orsobubu

    Andrea, you will surely enjoy this image taken with the ultra-deep multiwavelength Hubble Space Telescope Frontier Fields camera. It shows “Pandora’s Cluster,” a group of 500 galaxies, formally known as Abell 2744, located 4 billion light-years from Earth. I’m pleased to tell you that this blue light you love so much is not photoshopped dark matter, this time it is real! Basically, the blue light is the faint glow of stars spewed out by six Milky Way-sized galaxies in their death throes, as they were torn apart by gravitational forces around 9 billion years ago:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/31/light-dead-galaxies-hubble-space-telescope_n_6083010.html?utm_hp_ref=science

    “The intracluster light (ICL)is bluer (g – r = 0.68 ± 0.04; i – J = 0.56 ± 0.01) than those found in the stellar populations of its main galaxy members (g – r = 0.83 ± 0.01; i – J = 0.75 ± 0.01). Based on these colors, we derive the following mean metallicity Z = 0.018 ± 0.007 for the ICL. The stellar population properties of the ICL suggest that this diffuse component is mainly the result of the disruption of infalling galaxies”

  345. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu:
    Thank you, stellar!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  346. Hank Mills

    Dear Andrea,

    I would think another way of making the E-Cat technology suitable to produce electricity would be to find a way (perhaps by altering fuel composition, making a melt proof reactor housing, creating additional control methods that do not consume power, etc) to allow the hot cat to self sustain – maintaining a constant temp with zero input – for significant periods of time.

    We know the E-Cat can self sustain. Dr. Levi performed a test on an E-Cat that self sustained for 18 hours, with the only input being the power consumption of the control box. In addition, the reactors of the one megawatt plant self sustained for hours. Hot cats have also self sustained, even if we on the outside only know of the test in which the reactor went up 1000 degrees C in 20 seconds and produced a megawatt of constant thrmal output until it destroyed itself.

    My understanding, please correct me if I’m wrong, is that any model of E-Cat has the potential to self sustain. Some models (lower temp) simply do so in a more stable manner. Others, such as the hotcats, may become unstable due to the high temps.

    I don’t know a single one thousandth as much about the challenges involved in developing and improving the E-Cat as you do. But as an ignorant, clueless outsider, I can help but think perfecting self sustain mode for the hot cat should be a priority due to the massive benefits it would offer.

  347. Andrea Rossi

    Hank Mills:
    Of course, the ssm will play an important role.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  348. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Stoyan Sarg

    I would like you explain some doubts I had concerning the Fig. 1 of your paper, as follows:

    Question 1)
    The distribution of charge in the neutron is shown in the Fig. 10, page 50, of my paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Anomalous%20mass%20of%20the%20neutron.pdf

    I cant see how such distribution (measured by experiments) can be obtained from your model of the neutron, since it seems the neutron of the Fig. 1 has symmetric structure.

    .

    Question 2)
    The proton has magnetic moment +2,79284
    The neutron has magnetic moment -1,91304
    If the deuteron was symmetric as shown in Fig. 1, its magnetic moment would be:
    +2,79284 – 1,91304 = +0,8798
    However deuteron has magnetic moment +0,8574
    How do you explain the difference +0,0224?

    .

    Question 3)
    From Fig. 1 we realize that the proton has non-spherical distribution of charge. But experiments measured null electric quadrupole moment for the proton, and therefore it must have a spherical distribution of charge.
    How do you explain it?

    .

    Question 4)
    In the case you have an explanation for the item 3, however a proton with spherical distribution together with a neutron would have a spherical distribution of charge, and therefore the deuteron would have null quadrupole moment.
    But experiments measured non-null quadrupole moment for the deuteron.
    So, this question 4 must be explained together with question 3.

    regards
    wlad

  349. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Joe,

    Let us analyse the situation of the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    1) Yukawa proposed a model of neutron where a meson jumps between two protons. But the free neutron exists along 15 minutes before to decay , and therefoe Yukawa neutron cannot exist, because his model works only for a neutron existing within the deuteron, because a free neutron cannot exist according to Yukawa model, since a meson cannot jump in one unique proton.
    So, we have to discard the Yukawa model, and we cannot use it so that to explain the null quadrupole moment of the deuteron.

    2) So, we have to consider the quark model of neutron. But:
    a) The deuteron has non-null quadrpole moment, as measured by experiments.
    b) As the proton is a spherical distribution of charges, and the neutron has no charge, then the deuteron has to have a null quadrupole moment, by considering the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    3) Two neutrons must be bound via the strong force, since there is no repulsion force between them, but there is a force of attraction trying to bound them. Heisenberg proposed a mathematical solution so that to solve this puzzle, the abstract concept of Isospin. But two neutrons bound via the strong force can be separated only by applying a force of repulsion capable to win the attraction force. And the abstract mathematical concept of Isospin is not able to create any sort of physical force of repulsion.

    We have therefore the panorama in which the Standard Model was conceived. The model does not work since from the beginning (the model of nucleons interactions), and therefore it will never succeed to supply a nuclear model capable to explain the nuclear properties of the nuclei.

    The Standard Nuclear Model was developed from phantasmagoric assumptions, as that proposed by Heisenberg.
    As consequence, when the nuclear theorists apply such method so that to find a nuclear model, they are obliged to adopt some phantasmagoric assumptions, in order to fit the theoretical nuclear model to the real nuclear properties of the nuclei, inferred by experiments.

    Of course from phantasmagoric mathematical assumptions (similar to the Isospin proposed by Heisenberg) it is no possible to find a satisfactory nuclear model. Because if they assume a phantasmagoric assumption for the stability of a nucleus, when they apply that assumption to other nucleus the theory does not work anymore.

    There is no need to be a genius for understanding it.

    In the neutron model adopted in Quantum Ring Theory, an electron moves about the proton in the structure n=p+e.

    When a proton and a neutron are bound in the deuteron, the electron can have two positions:

    a) when it passes between the two protons, the electric quadrupole of the deuteron is null, because the two protons and the electron form a spherical distribution of charge

    b) when the electron passes in the opposite position, the distribution of charge is no spherical (the neutron and the proton form a spherical distribution of charge, but the assymetry of the position of the electron creates a non-spherical distribution of charge). The calculus in the paper Anomalous Mass of the Neutron shows that the theoretical result is the same of that measured in the experiments.

    The model of neutron n=p+e is the unique viable model so that to eliminate the puzzles of the Standard Nuclear Phycics.

    Besides, the model n=p+e was confirmed experimentally by the Don Borghi experiment and the Conte-Pieralice experiment.

    regards
    wlad

  350. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 2nd, 2014 at 10:30 PM

    1. ————————-
    In QRT, is a magnetic monopole composed of magnetons?
    —————————-

    Yes

    2. ————————-
    Does not standard physics teach that a nucleus creates clusters of 2He4 only at critical energies just before decay, leaving the nucleons in a more ‘relaxed’ state otherwise and therefore allowing for non-null magnetic moments to arise?
    —————————–

    Let us analyse such question:

    a) If a nucleus creates clusters of 2He4 only at critical energies just before decay, then Z=N eve-even nuclei like 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20 etc cannot exist as formed by 2He4 clusters.

    b) 2He4 is very stable, and it has binding energy of 7MeV per nucleon. But 4Be8 also has 7MeV/nucleon. Therefore 4Be8 is a strong competitor to 2He4, and by considering it as a spherical distribution of 8 nucleons bound via strong nuclear force, it must be strongly stable.

    c) There is not any principle in the Standard Nuclear Physics from which the 4 protons and 4 neutrons would have to form 2He4 clusters in the 4Be8. Actually they would have to form a stable spherical structure with the 8 nucleons bound via the strong force.
    The same we can say about the 8O16. Therefore 4Be8 and 8O16 actually had to have binding energy of 7MeV/nucleon, and they both to be stable.

    d) If the 4Be8 creates two clusters of 2He4 only at critical energy just before decay, then why a hell it creates the two clusters? Because having a spherical structure with binding energy 7MeV/nucleon, it must to be stable, and cannot decay. And therefore it cannot create clusters of 2He4 just before decay.

    Dear Joe,
    the Standard Nuclear Physics was developed from wrong fundamental principles.
    So, we have the following situation:

    1- There is no way to find a nuclear model capable to reproduce the nuclear properties of the nuclei, by starting up from those wrong principles.

    2- That’s why the nuclear theorists are trying all the sort of conjectures so that to explain the stability and properties of the nuclei

    3- And the consequence is obvious: they are obliged to propose conjectures which do not fit to the own fundamental principles adopted in the Standard Nuclear Physics.

    regards
    wlad

  351. Peter Forsberg

    Dear Andrea,

    I am probably in deep waters here, so correct me if my thinking is not adequate.

    I do not understand why you use the COP measurement as and indicator of the ECat performance. I have never understood this. For me the COP measurement is like comparing apples with pears. Or, rather apples with rotten pears. You divide heat energy with electrical energy. They are really not very compareable. Heat energy is the most useless type of energy that you can have, whereas electrical energi is a very versitile type of energy. It is easy to go from electrical energy to heat, but not vice versa.

    We can use the exampel of electricity produce by a nuclear power plant. A nuclear powerplant has an efficiency of 33%, so alot more energy (heat waste in the powerplant) has actually been used by your ECat than the electrical energy that you use in your calculations. So, I think that you have to multiply the COP with 0.33 to get a realistic measurement of a modCOP. If modCOP > 1 then the ECat has produced net energy according to my thinking.

    Luckilly, the ECat is guaranteed to produce at least COP 6 according to many reports over the years, so modCOP is then 2.

    Regards

    Peter Forsberg

  352. Andrea Rossi

    Peter Forsberg:
    Thank you for your comment.
    I think we must make a distinction between the COP under a scientific point of view, related to the Thermodynamic first and second principles, and the commercial point of view; besides, we also have to make a distinction between thermal energy market and electric power market.
    The COP ( Coefficient Of Performance) under a scientific point of view is correct as it is calculated in all the existing literature on the matter, because of the equivalence, under the energetic point of view, of a thermal kWh and an electric kWh.
    Thermal energy is a necessary commodity, without thermal energy most of the industrial activities could not be performed and 3/4 of mankind could not work ( or survive) during the cold months. To say that thermal energy is a useless type of energy is groundless.
    The fact that nuclear plants and also most of the existing electric power generators working with the Carnot cycle waste about 2/3 of the energy does not mean that thermal energy is a waste, means that we waste 2/3 of the energy, which is a completely different thing. In the smartest plants heat is recovered, as you surely know, by co-generation and by the most recent tri-generation, and the heat is sold, not wasted. Your Country ( Sweden) is very advanced in centralized heat distribution, as you obviously know.
    Still remains a part of heat ( about 20%, if I am not wrong) that necessarily gets lost , not because heat is a waste, but because exhaust gases must be expelled above a certain temperature ( if I am not wrong about 150°C) to avoid looping and fogs, and this is an unavoidable cost in terms of heat for power generators that use the Carnot cycle.
    On the contrary, you are right about the fact that the commercial ( not physical) COP of the E-Cat must be divided by a factor 3 in case of electric power production, because if we use electricity to drive the E-Cat, to make 1 kWh of electricity is necessary to burn 3 kWh from a thermal fuel. As you correctly say, to make the E-Cat convenient to produce electric power we need one of the following at least:
    1- get a COP > 3
    2- make the E-Cat work with gas instead of electricity, issue upon which we are making strong R&D with problems to resolve ( casually, your comment arrives after the day during which- while riding my bike- I got a very good idea that could resolve the problems: if this new invention works, soon we will have the gas driven E-Cats, but there is work to do).
    Thank you for your intelligent comment,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  353. Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    i cannot find any reference to the measurement of Hydrogen in the SIMS analysis of TPR2.
    Is there a particular reason for this? In your theory is always valid the assumption that a nucleum of hydrogen penetrates the LI and NI nuclei?
    Thank you

  354. Andrea Rossi

    Neri B.:
    We will give more information when we will have completed the work in course to reconcile the results with our expectations, which were different from what has been found. So far I cannot add anything to what has been written in the Report.
    Thank you for your continue attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  355. Joe

    Jim,

    You don’t have to sell me on EU. I just finished watching a YouTube video of Stephen Crothers tearing General Relativity to pieces.

    Concerning the E-Cat, tunneling with the help of Tesla radiation might be the central ingredient in the whole process. If div B is truly nonzero, then so is grad div B which represents longitudinal waves. Near-field waves are notoriously weak but at inter-atomic distances, something that Tesla never tried, that may not be the case. Hence, the Rossi Effect.

    All the best,
    Joe

  356. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    There are always “assumptions” in business. That the eCat will be safe to operate. That it will behave according to its specification and/or contract. That delivery will be made in a timely manner per the contract. So Yes there are assumptions, explicit or implicit. The success should be made upon verifiable performance metrics as specified in the contract and associated documents. Another assumption is that payment will be made when the specified performance has been demonstrated or achieved. That the receiving party technicians can be taught how to successfully operate and maintain an eCat(s).

  357. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    What you list in your comment are not “assumptions”: are numbers to be measured, for each of the issues you cited. There are not assumptions, implicit or explicit, in what you said. Luckily. Just precise maths and precise engagements. Returning to the paradigma of the comment of mine you are referring to: it is groundless to make assumptions about how the reactor should have behaved, without knowing how it is done, in a discussion related to calculate a performance that is based exquisitely upon the ratio between the amount of energy produced and the energy consumed, independently from how the consumed energy has been utilized inside the reactor; we have an E-Cat: we consume x kWh/h and we produce y kWh/h; if y/x>1 the E-Cat works, if y/x<1 the E-Cat does not work. All the rest is useless bla bla ( or a smartesque attempt to steal information pulling us in a discussion that has nothing to do with the measurement of the COP).
    Thank you for your comment: your comment, as well as the comments of our sceptic friends, are useful for our work, to maintain a vigil readiness against errors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  358. Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. In QRT, is a magnetic monopole composed of magnetons?

    2. Does not standard physics teach that a nucleus creates clusters of 2He4 only at critical energies just before decay, leaving the nucleons in a more ‘relaxed’ state otherwise and therefore allowing for non-null magnetic moments to arise?

    All the best,
    Joe

  359. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie:
    This information will be given when we will have finished the set up period.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  360. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 2nd, 2014 at 7:57 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Just a statistic curiosity: your comment is the # 20,000 arrived to this blog.
    ———————————————

    Fine!
    I’m waiting for my prize.
    Andrea, you may send my eCat by mail, and do not forget to autograph it.

    regards
    wlad

  361. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    OK, I send you the model in the video in the comment of E Hergen of yesterday. The original.
    With the autograph too.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  362. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    Can you tell us what was the contract COP agreed upon?
    Regards

  363. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 2nd, 2014 at 4:45 PM

    1. In the Sound of Aether, how do the electricitons and magnetons organize themselves in order to form a longitudinal wave?
    ———————————————-

    Joe,
    I did not propose a theory

    2. In your response to JR, you seem to believe that in standard theory, a neutron added to an even-even Z = N nucleus forms an isotope whose values for intrinsic spin, intrinsic magnetic dipole moment, and electric quadrupole moment are identical to those of the newly introgressed neutron. In effect, you claim that standard theory views these three properties of the neutron as carrying the same values as those for the nuclei of 4Be9, 8O17, etc. But is this what standard theory actually teaches?
    —————————————-

    Joe,
    we infer from their model, described in The Very Rich Structure of the Rather Light Nuclei:

    ======================================
    “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].”
    ======================================

    Because the neutron moving in a molecular orbital does not interact with any one of the alpha-particles, and so 4Be9 and 8O17 etc. have the properties of the 4Be8, 8O16, etc. with the addition of the properties due to the neutron.

    Besides,
    there is not any physical reason why the neutron may have preference to be bound with any of the alpha-particles either in the 4Be9 or the 8O17, because 2He5 is no stable.
    So, any of the 2He4 particles cannot bound with the neutron in the 4Be9, 8O17, etc., so that to change their properties of spin zero, magnetic moment zero, and quadrupole moment zero.

    regards
    wlad

  364. Jim

    @joe, what, you mean like dark energy and dark matter??? the classical physicists are taking too many drugs! Check out the Electric Universe at http://www.Thunderbolts.info. When the insiders finally realize that the fact that electromagnetism is 10-39th greater power than gravity, and they begin to do real experiments instead of math theory, then we may actually get somewhere in understanding our universe and the matter in it. The electrical nature of everything we are and have around us is what is real…. It may actually be that the “Fusion” we are seeing is a byproduct of the electromagnetism from the heating coils along with the electrical covalents of the Ni-Li powder.

  365. Frank Acland

    Dear Andrea,

    I not sure if you have been following any of the the online discussion on various blogs regarding the Lugano test results. Some claim the reported resuslts are invalid based on assumptions about how the E-Cat should have behaved during the test.

    Would you agree with this statement:

    “There is a another possibility. There exists many false assumptions made about the behavior of the Ni-H reactor. This behavior does not conform to expected norms of measurement.”

    Many thanks, and best wishes,

    Frank Acland

  366. Andrea Rossi

    Frank Acland:
    The test of the Independent Third Party did not produce assumptions, it produced measurements.
    Assumptions are groundless when the task is to measure.
    Let me give you a paradigmatic example: the Customer who has got the 1 MW plant signed a contract where IH gives a guarantee of a certain production of energy with a certain consumption of energy: now, do you think that IH will be paid based on the energy produced and energy consumed measurements, or based on the “assumptions” about how it had to behave?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  367. Joe

    Koen,

    The physical proof that space consists of no more than three dimensions is that the law of conservation would not exist otherwise. Mass-energy would enter dimensions that would be beyond our potential to observe.

    All the best,
    Joe

  368. Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. In the Sound of Aether, how do the electricitons and magnetons organize themselves in order to form a longitudinal wave?

    2. In your response to JR, you seem to believe that in standard theory, a neutron added to an even-even Z = N nucleus forms an isotope whose values for intrinsic spin, intrinsic magnetic dipole moment, and electric quadrupole moment are identical to those of the newly introgressed neutron. In effect, you claim that standard theory views these three properties of the neutron as carrying the same values as those for the nuclei of 4Be9, 8O17, etc. But is this what standard theory actually teaches?

    All the best,
    Joe

  369. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in October 31st, 2014 at 3:57 PM
    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.
    —————————————-

    Joe,
    in my book Quantum Ring Theory I call “The Sound of Aether” the longitudinal propagation of electromagnetic waves , because of the following:

    1. The photon is a transverse electromagnetic propagation, and its transverse nature of propagation is due to the helical trajectory of the particle and antiparticle which compose the body of the photon. In this sense, the aether is need only for the formation of the electric and magnetic fields of the photon.
    Due to the interaction of the photon with the aether, the velocity of the light in the vacuum is 300.000km/s.

    2. In the case of the “Sound of Aether”, the aether plays a role similar to the water for propagation of longitudinal waves in the surface of a lake. The electromagnetic disturbance of the particles and antiparticles of the aether moves (the sound of aether) is longitudinal and moves with speed faster than light.
    In this sense, the aether works as that “luminiferous” aether supposed by the physicists of the 19th Century, promoting the propagation of electromagnetic longitudinal waves (but not light).

    .

    So, when the aether works as a medium for propagation of transverse electromagnetic propagations, it is non-luminiferous.

    And when the aether works as amedium for propagation of longitudinal electromagentic disturbances, it is luminiferous in the sense of the concept of the 19th Century (but the waves are not transverse, and are not luminiferous light as supposed the physicists of the 19th Century, when they supposed that the aether is a medium like the water of a lake where waves move in its surface).

    regards
    wlad

  370. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Just a statistic curiosity: your comment is the # 20,000 arrived to this blog.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  371. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 1st, 2014 at 5:48 PM
    Eric,

    If vortices are to your liking, then the following paper (10 pages) by Prof Meyl will be a feast for you:

    http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/About_Vortex_Physics_and_Vortex_Losses.pdf

    He goes right back to Newton and Da Vinci, and ends with the discovery of magnetic monopoles in 2009:
    ——————————————–

    Dear Joe,
    here I propose how the monopole is physically formed, taking in account the structure of the aether:

    Magnetic monopole – new experiment corroborates Quantum Ring Theory
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Magnetic_monopole_-_new_experiment_corroborates_Quantum_Ring_Theory

    regards
    wlad

  372. Koen Vandewalle

    Joe, Eric Asworth,
    Can we see a vortex also as an “emergency exit” allowing energy to flow from an n-dimensional system to an n+1 (or even more) dimension in case of collisions in n-dimensional energies ?
    In that case, the laws of conservation of engergy in collisions may go beyond the dimensions considered in de Schroëdinger equation ?

    In brief: when systems collide, the original dimensions do not conserve all the energy in them if the collision energy, as a wave, passes the limits of elasticity in the original dimensions.
    That energy is likely to change dimension through a vortex or tunnel.

    Once that vortex is created, then maybe a continuous flow coud keep tunneling through.

    All these vortices could cluster toghether.

    Matter from light.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  373. Eric Ashworth

    Continuation from previous message. Computer problem cut me off. So you ask what’s the static flow force. Two curvature vortex flows are produced. These two vortex flows oscilate within chambers out to in, of and within the mechanism and then they exit and cancel into linear. It’s the oscilating activity that produces the static state. This static non flow area I refer to as the valency that surrounds the inner structures of flow. So this static barrier of non flow is between the curvature and the linear flows, it is therefore a neutral flow and its true position is middle to the structure, so if its middle to the structure we have to have a reference point for that which is dead centre and this is commonly referred to as the point, being the point of gravity. Whether you are dealing with liquid, gas or aether the same mechanics of flow exist. By understanding flow in three forces you can obviously create an understanding that can propell knowledge to the outer bounderies of human understanding. I remember, and I think Wladilir will also, that on this blog a well known person stated in reply to Wladimir that there is nothing special about a centrifugal force. Obviously this person lacks specific knowledge relating to this very important subject of centrifugal vortex flow and force. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  374. Eric Ashworth

    Joe, Thanks for the links to professor Meyl. And yes it is extremely interesting and very important with regards understanding some anomalies in modern physics. My understanding in physics is more to do with mechanics and therefore some of professor meyl,s jargon is over my head. This paper of professor Meyl’s explains to me why my prototype flow control mechanism has consistently been denied demonstration at research councils and universities. As I have said before mysteries are only secrets but I have also said do you know the reason why?. Here is a clue to the mystery. Everything exists within a vortex, consequently there are vortexes of size that exist within a vortex of a volume or you could say vortexes are like wheels within a wheel. By understanding interactive vortexes you will understand that there are three types of flow, curvature that binds, linear that interacts with the environment and static that protects the binding force and competes with the exterior interacting. The competition between the static and the linear (linear no such thing this flow is actually a huge arc that extends outside of all structures) is governed by the environment. As the environment increases in its gravity the structure is eventually pulled apart (all structures are on an evolutionary path, the path begins on a periphery and ends at the point (this being the central position but the central position when understood is not central, the centre lies between the point/dead centre and periphery, there are three positions to every vortex not two).

  375. E Hergen

    The first e-cat producing electricity:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEYcGPF00l0

  376. Andrea Rossi

    E Hergen:
    I am really angry: how could you find this top secret video of us? As I always say, we have to trust nobody. Who gave you this very confidential info? Who is the stupid guy that underevaluated the importance of this video? Should I know, I would fire him, whomever he is. We’ll meet in Court.
    Regards,
    A.R.

  377. Joe

    Eric,

    If vortices are to your liking, then the following paper (10 pages) by Prof Meyl will be a feast for you:

    http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/About_Vortex_Physics_and_Vortex_Losses.pdf

    He goes right back to Newton and Da Vinci, and ends with the discovery of magnetic monopoles in 2009:
    “With this discovery in a magnetic solid state the vector potential with all its calculations is no longer viable, in spite of the correctness and verifiability of all present results. One can also say: “we must start all over again and consider a new approach.”
    “I suggest a vortex description completely without vector potential A and with

    div B =/= 0.

    “With my approach even the Aharonov Bohm effect is explainable, generating scalar waves, that are verified after they have tunneled through a screening. According to today’s interpretation this effect with no measurable field is assigned to the vector potential and even spoken of as evidential value.”

    This is great!

    Now all of Maxwell’s equations can fully participate in describing Nature. There is no more arbitrarily setting div B to zero due to the belief in the lack of magnetic monopoles in Nature.

    And a note to Dr Rossi:
    The hot spots in the E-Cat might be vortex losses as explained by Prof Meyl. (See Fig 12 on the last page.)

    This paper is a must read for everyone!

    All the best,
    Joe

  378. JCRenoir

    Did you have contacts with Areva?
    JCR

  379. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    Thank you, I am honoured of what you write and I forwarded to the Professors of the ITP your comment.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  380. JCRenoir

    Dr Rossi:
    I have given to control the ITP report to a scientist that is working with ITER project. He is a Ph.D. in nuclear physics, is a mainstream science person and I was interested to hear from him what he thinks of the report.
    He told me is a well done work and that there was no better way to make the measurements. He said he has forwarded the report to Areva, with is where he works. I told you this, because I think you may be glad to hear.
    Congratulations,
    JC Renoir

  381. Andrea Rossi

    JCRenoir:
    No, we did not have direct contacts with Areva.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  382. DTravchenko

    Do you think your technology could affect the geopolitical situation also in the Russia-Ukraine area?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

  383. Andrea Rossi

    DTravchenko:
    All the energy sources must be integrated at the service of Mankind. More energy sources will surely make less troublesome the quest for this indispensable commodity and, indirectly, favour a more collaborative attitude. We are just a piece of the energetic mosaic.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  384. Curiosone

    Are you collaborating with any of the groups that are trying to replicate your effect?
    W.G.

  385. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    No,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  386. Eric Ashworth

    Joe, Your reply to Pekka 31st. inst. I found fascinating regards the scalar waves paper by Prof. Dr Ing. Konstantin Meyl especially the reference to tunnelling whereby the waves are able to penetrate objects and the observed gain in energy. I am not involved in electronics but I too am able to demonstrate a curious tunnelling effect with regards a vortex wave comprised of atmospheric air. I shall briefly explain. I have a mechanism that draws air constantly downwards in such a way that it runs at a constant low presure above the mechanism. The downward flow is subsequently by mechanical activity formed into two spinning vortexes of flow that upon eventual contact spin out to create a single linear flow of air because the two flows spin in the same direction. However, these two spinning vortexes in the mechanism take up specific positions, one is in an inner position and the other in an outer position. These two vortexes before making contact with one another are compromised by the low pressure above. Consequently, there are two upward backflows being of a vortex structure. The curious phenomena is that these vortex flows from beneath are able to tunnell through the incoming air flow above. The outer vortex due to the design of the mechanism tunnells across the flow into the inner section, so too does the inner vortex only on a shorter distance. The vortex flows are able to do this because they take on a solidity in comparison to the intake flow. These vortex flows I have labelled ‘economy flows’ because they boost the overall flow rate by delivering a flow into the inner section/chamber of the mechanism. My understanding of this phenomena is with regards to gravity. Any spinning object with centrifugal force generates a degree of gravity due to an expansion from the centre, (the gain in energy is kinetic. The economy flow system contains kinetic energy) and gravity produces solidity, in other words anything that becomes more solid because of gravity contains more energy and because everything is comprised of energy a gain in energy is only to be expected. If certain phenomenas are not investigated then what is considered impenetrable remains impenetrable. Also as a footnote I have the same thinking as Wladimir, that a phenomena must hold more weight than a flawed or incomplete theory when dealing with physics which comes from the word physical. Regards Eric Ashwort

  387. Joe

    JR,

    Thanks again for your response.

    I figured that the Schrodinger equation being so ubiquitous was a sign of its potential primordialness in describing all physical phenomena including mass itself. I thought the equation might simply need a slight tweaking at worst to make it fully work at describing all things big and small. But maybe that is short-sighted. Maybe the nature of mass will be dealt with in the future along with that of electric charge.

    All the best,
    Joe

  388. Robert Curto

    Dr. Rossi, many States have passed these laws, they vary from State to State.
    This is what i understand.
    Net Metering:
    Any home owner can install renewal energy on their property, Solar, E-Cat,
    etc.
    Any excess energy they produce, can be sold back to the Grid.
    Virtual Net Metering:
    Any group can install a large Unit to benefit all.
    For example, on the Roof of a Condo, or Shopping Center.
    Any excess energy they produce, can be sold back to the Grid.

    Google:
    Virtual Net Metering
    You will get many websites on both.
    Robert Curto
    Ft. Lauderdale Florida
    USA
    P.S. Many other Countries are doing the same.

  389. Andrea Rossi

    Robert Curto:
    Thanks for the information.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  390. Andrea Rossi

    TO OUR READERS:
    Today ( Saturday November 1st, 8.30 a.m. US eastern time) all the comments arrived in the last 14 hours have been spammed by the system for error. All our Readers who sent a comment in the last 14 hours and found it spammed are kindly requested to post it again.
    Sorry for the inconvenience,
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  391. 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.

  392. 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 commercial breakthrough, obviously, should help.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  393. 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 .

  394. Andrea Rossi

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

  395. 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

  396. Andrea Rossi

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

  397. 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

  398. 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

  399. 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.

  400. 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?

  401. Andrea Rossi

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

  402. 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.

  403. 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 ?

  404. 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

  405. 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

  406. 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

  407. Andrea Rossi

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

  408. 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

  409. 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.

  410. 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

  411. 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

  412. 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

  413. 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

  414. 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

  415. 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

  416. 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

  417. 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

  418. 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.

  419. 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.

  420. 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

  421. 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.

  422. 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.

  423. 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

  424. 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

  425. JR

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    That’s what I thought…

  426. 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

  427. 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

  428. 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.

  429. 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.

  430. 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

  431. 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.

  432. 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

  433. 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.

  434. 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

  435. 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.

  436. 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

  437. 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

  438. 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

  439. 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

  440. 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

  441. Andrea Rossi

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

  442. 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.

  443. 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… :-)

  444. 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

  445. 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.

  446. 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

  447. Andrea Rossi

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

  448. 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.

  449. 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

  450. 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.

  451. 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

  452. 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.

  453. 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

  454. Andrea Rossi

    Gherardo:
    Wow!
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  455. 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

  456. 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

  457. 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.

  458. 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

  459. 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

  460. 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

  461. 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

  462. 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

  463. 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

  464. 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

  465. 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.

  466. 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

  467. 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

  468. 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.

  469. 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

  470. 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.

  471. 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

  472. Andrea Rossi

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

  473. 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

  474. 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?

  475. 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

  476. 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

  477. 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

  478. 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

  479. Andrea Rossi

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

  480. 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

  481. 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

  482. 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

  483. 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

  484. 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.

  485. 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.

  486. 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.

  487. 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.

  488. Joe

    Andrea Calaon,

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

    All the best,
    Joe

  489. 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

  490. 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.

  491. 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

  492. 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?

  493. 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

  494. 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

  495. 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

  496. 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”,

  497. 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

  498. Andrea Rossi

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

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

    Jean Pierre

  500. Andrea Rossi

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

  501. 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

  502. 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

  503. Curiosone

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

  504. 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.

  505. 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

  506. 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.

  507. 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

  508. Andrea Rossi

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

  509. 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

  510. Andrea Rossi

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

  511. 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 …

  512. 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

  513. Andrea Rossi

    Pekka Janhunen:
    Interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.

  514. 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.

  515. 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

  516. 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

  517. 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

  518. 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”

  519. 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

  520. 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

  521. 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.

  522. 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.

  523. Andrea Rossi

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

  524. 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

  525. Andrea Rossi

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

  526. 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.

  527. 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

  528. 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.

  529. 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

  530. 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.

  531. 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

  532. Andrea Rossi

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

  533. 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.

  534. Joseph Fine

    Andrea and Giannino,

    Perhaps Giannino Ferro Casagrande meant the Bilderberg group.

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

    Joseph Fine

  535. 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?

  536. Dima Redko

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

  537. Andrea Rossi

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

  538. 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 !!!!!!!!!

  539. Andrea Rossi

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

  540. 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

  541. 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).

  542. 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

  543. 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

  544. 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

  545. 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.

  546. 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.

  547. 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

  548. 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

  549. 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

  550. 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

  551. 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.

  552. 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.

  553. 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

  554. 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,

  555. 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

  556. Andrea Rossi

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

  557. 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

  558. Andrea Rossi

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

  559. 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

  560. 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.

  561. 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

  562. 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.

  563. 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

  564. 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.

  565. 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

  566. 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.

  567. 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

  568. 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

  569. 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.

  570. 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.

  571. Andrea Rossi

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

  572. 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

  573. Andrea Rossi

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

  574. 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.

  575. 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

  576. Andrea Rossi

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

  577. 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.

  578. 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

  579. 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.

  580. 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

  581. 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.

  582. 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.

  583. 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.

  584. Andrea Rossi

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

  585. 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.

  586. 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

  587. 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.

  588. 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

  589. 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.

  590. JCRenoir

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

  591. 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.

  592. 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

  593. 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

  594. 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

  595. 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.

  596. 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.

  597. Andrea Rossi

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

  598. 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

  599. Andrea Rossi

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

  600. 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

  601. 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.

  602. 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.

  603. 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.

  604. 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

  605. Andrea Rossi

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

  606. 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

  607. 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.

  608. 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

  609. Andrea Rossi

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

  610. 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

  611. 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.

  612. 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

  613. Joseph Fine

    Koen Vandewalle,

    Thanks again for shedding some light on this matter.

    Joseph Fine

  614. 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.

  615. 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.

  616. 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

  617. 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.

  618. Andrea Rossi

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

  619. 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)

  620. 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.

  621. 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?

  622. 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.

  623. orsobubu

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

  624. 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.

  625. 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..

  626. Andrea Rossi

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

  627. 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

  628. Andrea Rossi

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

  629. 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

  630. 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.

  631. 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?

  632. 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.

  633. 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

  634. 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

  635. Andrea Rossi

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

  636. 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”?

  637. 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.

  638. 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

  639. Andrea Rossi

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

  640. 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

  641. 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.

  642. 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

  643. 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.

  644. 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.

  645. 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).

  646. Andrea Rossi

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

  647. 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.

  648. 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.

  649. Andrea Rossi

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

  650. 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

  651. 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.

  652. 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.

  653. 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

  654. 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

  655. 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.

  656. 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.

  657. 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.

  658. 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

  659. 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.

  660. Andrea Rossi

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

  661. 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.

  662. 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.

  663. 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

  664. 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.

  665. 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

  666. 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.

  667. 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! :-)

  668. Andrea Rossi

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

  669. 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.

  670. 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.

  671. 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.

  672. Andrea Rossi

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

  673. 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

  674. Andrea Rossi

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

  675. 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

  676. 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.

  677. 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.

  678. 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

  679. 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

  680. 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.

  681. 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?

  682. Andrea Rossi

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

  683. 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.

  684. 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.

  685. 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

  686. 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.

  687. 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.

  688. Andrea Rossi

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

  689. Andrea Rossi

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

  690. 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.

  691. Curiosone

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

  692. 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.

  693. 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.

  694. 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.

  695. 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?

  696. Andrea Rossi

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

  697. 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

  698. 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.

  699. 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

  700. 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.

  701. 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

  702. 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 !

  703. 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,

  704. 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.

  705. Curiosone

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

  706. 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.

  707. Andrea Rossi

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

  708. 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.

  709. 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”).

  710. 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)

  711. 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

  712. Curiosone

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

  713. 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.

  714. 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.

  715. Giovanni

    The E-lectriCAT

  716. 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

  717. Andrea Rossi

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

  718. 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

  719. 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

  720. 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

  721. Andrea Rossi

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

  722. 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

  723. Andrea Rossi

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

  724. 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?

  725. 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.

  726. 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.

  727. 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

  728. 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.

  729. Andrea Rossi

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

  730. 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

  731. Andrea Rossi

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

  732. Andrea Rossi

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

  733. 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!

  734. Andrea Rossi

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

  735. 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.

  736. 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.

  737. 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

  738. 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.

  739. 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

  740. 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.

  741. Andrea Rossi

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

  742. 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

  743. Andrea Rossi

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

  744. 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.

  745. 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.

  746. 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?

  747. 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.

  748. 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

  749. 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

  750. 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.

  751. 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.

  752. Andrea Rossi

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

  753. 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.

  754. 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.

  755. 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

  756. Andrea Rossi

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

  757. 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)?

  758. Andrea Rossi

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

  759. 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

  760. Andrea Rossi

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

  761. 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.

  762. 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.

  763. 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

  764. Andrea Rossi

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

  765. Curiosone

    Congratulations, great result. Bravo!

  766. Andrea Rossi

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

  767. DTravchenko

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

  768. Andrea Rossi

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

  769. 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

  770. 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.

  771. 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

  772. eernie1

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

  773. eernie1

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

  774. 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

  775. 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

  776. 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

  777. 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

  778. 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

  779. 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

  780. 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?

  781. Andrea Rossi

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

  782. 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

  783. Andrea Rossi

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

  784. 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.

  785. 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.

  786. 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

  787. Andrea Rossi

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

  788. 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

  789. 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.

  790. 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.

  791. 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.

  792. 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.