Rossi Blog Reader

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

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

  1. Andrea Rossi

    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.

  2. 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

  3. 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,

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. Andrea Rossi

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

  7. Andrea Rossi

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. Andrea Rossi

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

  22. Andrea Rossi

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

  23. 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

  24. 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.

  25. 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

  26. Andrea Rossi

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

  27. 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

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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

  31. 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.

  32. 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

  33. 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.

  34. Andrea Rossi

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

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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

  41. JCRenoir

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

  42. 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.

  43. 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

  44. 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

  45. 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

  46. 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.

  47. Andrea Rossi

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

  48. 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.

  49. Andrea Rossi

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

  50. 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

  51. 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.

  52. 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

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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

  56. Andrea Rossi

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

  57. 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.

  58. Andrea Rossi

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

  59. 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.

  60. 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

  61. 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

  62. Joseph Fine

    Koen Vandewalle,

    Thanks again for shedding some light on this matter.

    Joseph Fine

  63. 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

  64. 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

  65. 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.

  66. 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

  67. 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.

  68. Andrea Rossi

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

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. 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?

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

  74. orsobubu

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

  75. 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.

  76. Andrea Rossi

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

  77. 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..

  78. 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

  79. Andrea Rossi

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

  80. 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.

  81. 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.

  82. 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?

  83. 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

  84. 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

  85. 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

  86. Andrea Rossi

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

  87. 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.

  88. 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”?

  89. Andrea Rossi

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

  90. 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.

  91. 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

  92. 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

  93. 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.

  94. 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

  95. 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.

  96. 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).

  97. Andrea Rossi

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

  98. 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.

  99. 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.

  100. Andrea Rossi

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