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. Jeff Smathers

    I am trying to determine an approximate specific thrust using a thermally (1500 C ) pressurized gas.

    I am trying to ballpark a given mass for the Rossi Ecat and electrical power source, say about 1000 Kg
    and a liquid gas propellant that has a good expansion Coeffiecent with a contained mass also of 1000 Kg.

    Once in space and turned on, what would be the approximate velocity at the depletion of the heated expanding gas?

    And what is the resulting Specific Impulse value compared to say an ION engine….

    Thanks to those who can calculate on this end of the spectrum.

    Jeff Smathers

  2. Andrea Rossi

    Tom Conover:
    Very interesting, but not commercial yet.
    It is R&D of the DOE.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  3. Andrea Rossi

    Christopher Calder:
    I cannot give this kind of information.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  4. Dear Mr. Rossi,

    I believe you stated years ago that you tried different metals to create the LENR effect, and only nickel really worked for you. I believe you also tried titanium powder, which has an interestingly high melting point of 1,668°C. That was with your old fuel formula used in the Warm-Cat (joke). Have you retried titanium powder with your new fuel formula in the Hot-Cat? Maybe you could play around with ways to create more nano sized cracks in the titanium lattice? Some scientists claim luck with titanium, and it would be fun to see if it reacted differently with the other elements of the new fuel mixture. Would it work at all? If it did work, would it be more stable?

    Best Regards, Christopher Calder

  5. Tom Conover

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    Have you heard of this “Low-Cost Microchannel Heat Exchanger”?

    Fabricated electronic cooling and high pressure MCHEX units to prove manufacturing approach:

    Tests showed 400% higher heat transfer rates
    80% reduction in volume
    5,000 psi pressure capability
    High effectiveness > 90%
    80% lower estimated external heat loss
    60% estimated lower cost

    http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/06/f16/A2%20Poster-Altex%20AMO%20RD%20Project%20Peer%20Review%202014.pdf

    Low-Cost Microchannel Heat Exchanger
    DOE Grant DE-EE0004541
    2013-2014

    Hope this helps,

    Tom

  6. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi and Readers:

    Ross Koningstein and David Fork, engineers at Google, described their work on the RE<C project in the Nov 2014 edition of "IEEE Spectrum".

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

    The RE<C project goal was to find methods to improve usage of Renewable Energy by reducing the cost of Electricity while reducing the amounts of CO2 gas and other pollutants going into the atmosphere by the burning of Coal to produce that Electricity.

    Google shelved the RE<C project in 2011 when they realized that their goals were unrealistic. While renewable energy costs had been reduced, they were not reduced below the costs of burning Coal. Nor would it have had significant effect on Global production of CO2.

    ( Note: Instead, Energy Policy has raised the costs of burning coal rather than reducing costs of other sources. The result has been to increase the cost of Electricity. )

    Google would probably be interested in helping develop applications that use "New FIre". (If they haven't contacted IH or you already.)

    1) Can you run/drive an E-Cat with Hydrogen rather than Natural Gas? If so, 2) Is it cheaper to produce natural gas or Hydrogen?

    Renewed regards,

    Joseph FIne

  7. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Prices of fuels are very unstable. So far gas is cheaper than any other fuel, included hydrogen. Besides, the use of hydrogen as a fuel makes more complicated the certification issue. Neverheless, your information is interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  8. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Calaon,

    You responded:
    “I see that silicon is present in the ash. Could the following reaction be possible?
    27Al + 7Li + e -> 28Si + 6Li

    Let me say. Hehehe. You noticed those lines at 28 on Figure 9 (lone) and 11 (with Al as well) of the ITPR.
    Let me first say that the reaction you wrote is impossible…”

    The reaction I was considering was in two steps:

    27Al + 7Li + e -> 28Al + 6Li
    while 27Al is stable, 28Li has a half-life of 2.24 minutes and decays to 28Si.

    So, I think, this might explain the removal of the 27Al from the fuel to the ash.

  9. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Orsobubu,
    How “Intelligent” is something that allows its misuse or abuse ?
    I share your opinion.
    Kind Regards,
    Koen

  10. Andrea Rossi

    Orsobubu, Koen Vandewalle:
    Without that ” damned spam robot” this blog could not work. We receive about one thousand of spam-messages per day: can you imagine how could we check a thousand messages per day to select the spam?
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  11. orsobubu

    Koen Vandewalle, you said:

    >PS: Andrea, soon or later, that damned spam-robot wille erase the entire J.O.N.P. and all knowledge about E-cat. I have no idea why you keep that monster.

    hehe because the artificial intelligence of the little monster is under the strict surveillance of the IT guy inside Rossi’s Team, and the IT guy is firmly in charge and he rules he commands he knows everything and he makes tons of backups… I’m sure that, even in case of an ultimate catastrophical event, like the one depicted at the end of the film “Planet of the Apes”, the knowledge of the E-cat could not be erased forever, since the IT guy has organized everything to bring it up held tight in the hand of the Liberty Statue, so that a new Charlton Heston could discover it in this way hehe:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OIF9h3JRpTM/Ti1kM3kFqQI/AAAAAAAAE8M/GIkgM4zivAY/s1600/planet-of-the-apes-statue-of-liberty-blu-ray-disc-screencap-hd-1080p-05.jpeg

    Anyway, from a human science point of view, to me Artificial Intelligence, robotics, Quantum Computing, Singularity etc are even more fascinating than new energy technologies and also physics in general, but I don’t care what skeptics say, Rossi’s personal saga is unmatched!

  12. Steven N. Karels

    Based on the Lugano Report the fuel consists of three components.

    This analysis speculates on those components.

    Known facts:
    1. Page 43: “Figure 1. Three different types of particles from the fuel material”
    2. Page 43: “Figure 2. SEI of two different types of particles from the ash material”
    3. Page 41: “Note that Li cannot be detected using EDS”

    Analysis

    On page 44 of the report, the EDS analysis of the different fuel particles is shown.

    Particle 1: Mostly nickel with some carbon and oxygen and a small amount of aluminum are seen.

    Particle 2: This particle consists of mostly aluminum with some carbon and oxygen and small amounts of nickel and chlorine.

    Particle 3: This particle contains mostly iron (Fe) with some oxygen and smaller amounts of carbon, silicon, chromium and manganese.

    Particle Sizes:
    From Figure 3, the particles sizes may be estimated. Particle 1 is around 50 to 100 microns; particle 2 is around 75 to 150 microns and particle 3 is 100 to 200 microns.

    Hypothesis

    Particle 1 is the nickel components with some cross contamination from the aluminum from particle 2. The oxygen is assumed to be from the air (oxides). Perhaps a trace of carbon either from the air (natural carbon dioxide) or as a small additive to remove the oxides at higher temperatures.

    Particle 2 is assumed to be LiAlH6 (recall the lithium and hydrogen are not detectable using EDS). The nickel is assumed to be cross contamination from particle 1. Unknown where the chlorine came from but it is small relative to the aluminum – it could be an impurity from the LiAlH4 source.

    Particle 3 is mostly iron with the same observation on the oxygen and the carbon. The silicon could be from the adhesive using to hold the sample while the chromium and manganese might be part of the iron sample (an alloy?).

  13. Andrea Rossi

    Domenico Canino:
    We go where we are called with acceptable proposals. Politics are not my turf. The sole acceptable proposal we got so far has been from the USA, where I am working with a wonderful Team thanks to which we are making a masterpiece in the factory of the Customer of our Licensee. Said this, I conserve a loving sentiment toward Bondeno, where the first E-Cat has been born and where I worked in EON’s factory together with Prof. Sergio Focardi. I wish to the people of Bondeno all the possible good . There is a laborious people that merits any good.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  14. domenico canino

    dear andrea rossi,
    in Bondeno where you have a factory, the Lega Nord political movement, has won the regional elections. 75% percent. Please come back!!!

  15. Andrea Rossi

    Paul:
    He,he,he..
    A.R.

  16. Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, Regards artificial intelligence, they did not use artificial intelligence because of it being artificial. If youn want intelligence you have to use the real thing. It’s called human. Not difficult to understand. By using the Oxford English dictionary it will be revealed that A.I. is not a real intelligence which it is not or you could say what created, what is termed artificial intelligence. When you answer the question all will be revealed. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  17. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 27th, 2014 at 6:03 PM

    Wladimir,

    Every nucleus that you mentioned has a magnetic moment that is smaller than that of 3Li7. If the 1p1 electron of 3Li7 is able to pull a nucleon away from the nucleus of 3Li7, it should be even easier to pull nucleons out of the target nuclei that you mentioned. The result would be a collision of nucleons from both nuclei – intended source and intended target – right at the centre of rotation of the 1p1 electron.
    ———————————————-

    Joe, two things:

    1- 7Li has a neutron weakly bound

    2- 7Li has 3 protons, its electrosphere is small, compared with the electrosphere of Ni, which has 28 protons.
    Therefore the orbit of the electron p1 in the Fig. 6 is very nearest to the nucleus 7Li and far away from the nucleus Ni, As the magnetic force decreases with the square of the distance, you may realize that the magnetic force on the neutron of 7Li is very stronger than on the neutrons of the Ni.
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE6.png

    The neutron (or proton) will always exit from the lighter nucleus to the heavier one.

    regards
    wlad

  18. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    Let me rephrase it: we do not give information about ANY experiment we do or do not do inside our reactors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  19. Joe

    Wladimir,

    Every nucleus that you mentioned has a magnetic moment that is smaller than that of 3Li7. If the 1p1 electron of 3Li7 is able to pull a nucleon away from the nucleus of 3Li7, it should be even easier to pull nucleons out of the target nuclei that you mentioned. The result would be a collision of nucleons from both nuclei – intended source and intended target – right at the centre of rotation of the 1p1 electron.

    All the best,
    Joe

  20. Koen Vandewalle

    Dear Wladimir,

    why didnt they use the A.I. nuclear model so that to discover the Rossi’s secret ?

    Andrea stated that some of his findings are serendipities. No idea if Artificial Intelligence can deal with serendipities.
    A tree that grows on a twig tends to collapse. Maybe the A.I. consumes more energy than E-Cat can produce.

    BTW: I very much like your FIGURES on the Calaon-Guglinski theory.

    Kind Regards,
    Koen

    PS: Andrea, soon or later, that damned spam-robot wille erase the entire J.O.N.P. and all knowledge about E-cat. I have no idea why you keep that monster.

  21. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 27th, 2014 at 1:19 PM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    We do not give information about our R&D regarding issues inside the reactor.
    ————————————–

    Dear Andrea,
    you did not understand.

    I am not asking any information about R&D regarding issues inside the reactor.

    It was suggested the following experiment:

    1- The reactor will be completely empty. Inside the reactor will be put a fuel composed by 20Ca41 , 7Li and H. The ash will be analysed after some days.

    2- Again the reactor will be completely empty, and will be put a fuel composed by 20Ca43 , 7Li and H. The ash will be analysed after some days.

    3- Again the reactor will be completely empty, and will be put a fuel composed by 20Ca40 , 7Li and H. The ash will be analysed after some days.

    .

    So, the test of the ash is regarding a fuel NOT used in your E-Cat, and therefore it has nothing to do with your E-Cat.

    In another words, your reactor will be used only as a vessel so that to promote cold fusion by using a fuel 20Ca, 7Li, and N (this fuel has nothing to do with your technology).

    This experiment is of the interest of the cold fusion researchers, so that to undertand cold fusion.

    But I understand that you do not waht to perform it.

    I think other cold fusion researchers will be interested to do it later.

    regards
    wlad

  22. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    We do not give information about our R&D regarding issues inside the reactor.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  23. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    my theory of the non-spherical shape of the electric field (Coulomb barrier) of the nuclei can be tested in the E-Cat.
    Ahead I explain how it can be done.

    The nuclei have non-spherical Coulomb barrier, as shown in Fig. 1 for the 2He4.
    FIG 1:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    But due to the chaotic spin of the nuclei, the z-axis shown in Fig. 1 gyrates chaotically, and therefore in average the shape of the Coulomb barrier is spherical, as shown in Fig. 2 for the 2He4 (showing also the electrons of the electrosphere)
    FIG 2:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png

    In order to have cold fusion between two nuclei their z-axes must be aligned by an external magnetic field.
    When the z-axis of a nucleus is aligned toward a direction, the chaotic rotation of the z-axis stops, and two nuclei may align their z-axes as shown in Fig. 5 for the nucleus 7Li.
    FIG. 5:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE5.png

    Therefore, only nuclei with nuclear magnetic moments can have transmutation via cold fusion.

    There is no way to get cold fusion with the following nuclei, because they have null nuclear magnetic moment:

    2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8′O16, 10Ne20, 12Mg24, 14Si28, 16S32, 18Ar36, 20Ca40, 22Ti44

    So, suppose that a fuel composed by 20Ca41 , 7Li and H is put in the E-Cat, and after some days the analysis of the ash shows that there was transmutation of the 20Ca41.

    The same is repeated with a fueld composed by 20Ca43, 7Li and H, and suppose after some days the analysis of the ash shows that there was transmutation of the 20Ca43.

    Then the next test will be made with a fuel composed by 20Ca40, 7Li, and H. The analysis of the ash must show that 20Ca40 did not had transmutation.

    The same can be repeated with other nuclei with magnetic moment zero, as for instance 14Si28, by comparing with the results made with its isotope 14Si29.

    If the experiments with nuclei having magnetic moment zero show that they do not transmute within the E-Cat, but their isotopes with non-null magnetic moment have transmutation, this will constitute a strong evidence corroborating my model of non-spherical shape of the Coulomb barrier of nuclei.

    In the case the non-spherical shape of the nuclei proposed in my theory is confirmed by experiments made within the E-Cat, it will be an important discovery for the undestanding of the mechanisms responsible for cold fusion occurrence.

    regards
    wlad

  24. orsobubu

    Koen Vandewalle,

    you hope that the economic model is rendered obsolete by the advent of innovative technologies and scientific theories. This makes sense because, in order to have a revolutionary change, the economic structure must evolve in the first place; in fact these technologies may represent a structural change of economic relations, the same way that the steam engine allowed the passage to an industrial economic structure and the definitive affirmation of capitalist production.

    The problem, though, is that the revolutionary process is not mechanical, not deterministic, the contrary, it is dialectical. So there is a relationship between the economic structure and its superstructures, such the political one. If the change of the structure was enough, we would have already had the revolution, because the current means of production and the economic development that have been established since the beginning of the last century would have been enough to get rid of the old capitalistic system, clearly unfit to take full advantage of the actual potential of the social productive forces, as the world wars demonstrate.

    Unfortunately the political superstructure is still inadequate, and it is still in the hands of a class that manages the system in an anarchist way, with enormous waste, overproductions, useless duplications and destructive competition, crisis, violence, environmental damage, underdevelopment, unemployment. On the other side, the class of the producers, who realizes materially all the values, the use value (goods) and exchange values (money), and gently give them to the ruling class, is not yet conscious of its power and is poorly organized.

    Artificial Intelligence can only be developed by huge means of production, by biggest capitalists, from largest financial concentrations, and by the same capitalist states. So, Artificial Intelligence, in the hands of the class that holds these means of production, has no chance of being able to emancipate workers, for the simple fact that it will not be used to revolutionize the economic model, but rather to strengthen it. Therefore will not be used to overcome the social relationship of wage labor, the only system that produces not fictitious capital, but instead will be used to enlarge exploitation, because this is the only way to increase profits and capital.

    But since the reality is dialectical, in the course of this process the working class is inevitably strengthened, and also more and more crisis are inevitably produced. It is inside this inherent contradiction in social/economic relationships – and thus in political organization – that lies the possibility of change, certainly not in the evolution of the technology itself.

  25. KD

    Mr.Rossi
    I have question.:)
    Did you prepare your Thanksgiving turkey using E-cat technology as part of R&D.:)

  26. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe,

    I did not find the magnetic moments of Ni58 and Ni60

    But as 61Ni has negative magnetic moment -0,75, and as 7Li has positive +3,24, it means that when they align their z-axis, the 61Ni must be up side down (7Li and 61Ni with contrary nuclear spins).

    20Ca41 has mag. mom. -1,59
    20Ca43 has mag. mom -1,31
    and therefore when they align their z-axes with 7Li, the two nuclei Ca also must have contrary spins of the spin taken by 7Li.

    stable 26Fe57 has mag. mom +0,09 (positive like mag. mom. of 7Li).
    This means that, when 57Fe aligns its z-axis with 7Li, they have to have the same spin (rotation in the same direction).

    I dont know yet what to think about the influence of the spin of the two nuclei, when they are gyrating in the same direction, and when they gyrating in contrary direction.

    regards
    wlad

  27. Wladimir Guglinski

    Koen Vandewalle wrote in November 27th, 2014 at 7:35 AM

    Wladimir,

    concerning your post “Dears Joe, Calaon, Orsobubu, Karrels, Eric…” posted on nov 25.

    I expect that the upcoming Artificial Intelligence will make obsolete most of the standard model and new models, finding the real unified field of the universe(s).

    Do you know of the existence of experiments on A.I. in nuclear science ?
    ————————————-

    Dear Koen,
    why didnt they use the A.I. nuclear model so that to discover the Rossi’s secret ?

    regards
    wlad

  28. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 27th, 2014 at 1:20 AM

    Since your model must necessarily involve a target nucleus that has a greater magnetic dipole moment than the source nucleus in order that a nucleon be successfully drawn, compare the relative strengths of the magnetic dipole moments of Fe and Co; and of Ca and Sc.
    ———————————————

    Not necessarily, Joe

    7Li magnetic moment is greater than Ni.
    For instance, 7Li has magnetic moment +3,25, while 28Ni61 has magnetic moment -0,75

    What pulles the neutron of the 7Li toward the Ni is the orbit of the electron p1 (shared by 7Li and Ni), which magnetic moment is very greater than that of the 7Li:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE6.png

    regards
    wlad

  29. Koen Vandewalle

    Wladimir,

    concerning your post “Dears Joe, Calaon, Orsobubu, Karrels, Eric…” posted on nov 25.

    I expect that the upcoming Artificial Intelligence will make obsolete most of the standard model and new models, finding the real unified field of the universe(s).

    Do you know of the existence of experiments on A.I. in nuclear science ?

    I also think that IP and patents, and some economic models will be obsoleted by A.I.

    Kind Regards,

    Koen

  30. Andrea Calaon

    Dear All,
    in these days I do not have much time for participating to the discussion of the JoNP. Please understand me. I will comment/answer you as soon as possible.
    Regards
    Andrea Calaon

  31. Joe

    Wladimir,

    You write,
    “As the authors of the Lugano Report were seeking only for Ni and Li isotopes, perhaps in the ash it can be found (if they look for):

    26Fe + Li7 -> 27Co + 2He4 + n

    20Ca + Li7 -> 21Sc + 2He4 + n

    As the authors were not looking for Co and Sc, perhaps they are in the ash.”

    Since your model must necessarily involve a target nucleus that has a greater magnetic dipole moment than the source nucleus in order that a nucleon be successfully drawn, compare the relative strengths of the magnetic dipole moments of Fe and Co; and of Ca and Sc.

    All the best,
    Joe

  32. Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, With regards your reply 26th Nov 2014. To me conservation of momentum is displacement of field energy that has a knock on effect regarding a centre of gravity. Your formulae P=Mass/velocity if I am correct inertia comes about by the formuae Push=Mass and velocity/Movement that equals inertia or that no push or attraction upon mass equals no velocity/movement and thereby no inertia. If this is so then we are in full agreement. Evolution comes about by inertia. Really, conservation of energy is the disturbance of a field after the manufacture of a body. When field energy is disturbed it will react, over a period of time, in a specific way to re-establish its field or you could say its comfort zone. This is a natural reaction and only to be expected but could be termed a frustration upon an environmental influence.

    In the case of the neutron moving towards the Ni58 nucleus I believe it to be as stated in case 1) of your explanation.

    With regards the neutron moving towards the Ni58 from Li7 I will put forward my theory when I have time and will look forward to your comments. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  33. Wladimir Guglinski

    Steven N. Karels wrote in November 26th, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    A DC current would generate a magnetic field while a high frequency signal might be used to move or excite the fuel?
    ———————————–

    Probably yes

    regards
    wlad

  34. Wladimir Guglinski

    Steven N. Karels wrote in November 26th, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    Wladimir,

    I also suggest that the ash samples were small because not very much ash was actually produced. Recall the operation was only for 32 days and the majority of the nickel within the reactor was not consumed. So the isotopic analysis was on a very small sample and therefore the lesser occurring elements were not many. At some point, the measurements must become noisy due to a lack of material. So we maybe trying to analyze noise.
    —————————————

    Steven,
    I dont think so.
    32 days is enough for all the reactions to occur.
    Besides, as C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn exist in the fuel, why they do not appear in the ash??

    Let me tell you what I am thinking.

    I think several reactions can occur in the E-Cat.

    For instance, he have:

    9F has 1 complete hexagonal floor + 1 deuteron

    26Fe has 4 complete hexagonal floors

    So, 9F can lose one deuteron. Therefore, instead of 6Li7, actually the best element to react with 26Fe is the 9F:

    9F + 26Fe -> 27Co (the 26Fe captures one deuteron from the 9F)

    On the other hand:

    7N has one complete hexagonal floor minus a deuteron

    Therefore 7N can capture a proton:

    7N + H -> 8.0

    However,
    actually there is a lot of reactions to be considered, and there is no way to discover what are the real reactions occuring in the E-Cat.

    Even Andrea Rossi cannot tell us what is going within his E-Cat, in spite of he is promissing to prove that it is possible to explain its working from the Standard Model.

    There is only one way:

    1) After Andrea Rossi gets the patent of the E-Cat (and therefore his invention will be protected against plagiarists, and he will show everything within his reactor), several experiments will be made, as follows:

    2) Within the E-Cat will be put only 26Fe and 7F

    3) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed

    3) Within the E-Cat will be put only 26Fe and 17 Cl

    4) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed

    5) Within the E-Cat will be put only 26Fe and 6Li7

    6) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed

    7) Within the E-Cat will be put only 20Ca and 7F

    8) After runing along 30 days, the ash will be analysed

    9) and so on, with all the combinations between two elements

    Any combination of two elements is able to react by cold fusion.
    The only difference is: some combinations of two elements have an easier reaction than other two elements.

    The paper Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM by Dr. Stoyan Sarg was published one year ago.
    Now the paper was published again, because the results of the E-Cat were confirmed by the Lugano Report.

    However, the paper was published again not because it gives a good prediction.
    In the Abstract Dr. Sarg says:
    “The analysis also predicts the possibility of another cold fusion reaction based on similarities between the nuclear structures of Ni and Cr.”

    But this is not true.
    Actually cold fusion occurs with any combination of two elements. The difference is because some combinations of two elements, together with some suitable improvements, give a higher COP.

    It seems to me Andrea Rossi used the paper of Dr. Sarg as a strategy to deviate the competitors from the secrets of his E-Cat, puting then in the wrong way.
    As he also told that the fuel of he E-Cat is Ni.
    Andrea Rossi wants to protect his invention, and sometimes he gives wrong informations, so that to deceive his competitors.
    He is playing a cat-mouse game with the competitors.

    So, it’s a waste of time to try to discover what are the reactions within the E-Cat.
    We have to wait Andrea Rossi to get the Patent.

    regards
    wlad

  35. Steven N. Karels

    Wladimir,

    I also suggest that the ash samples were small because not very much ash was actually produced. Recall the operation was only for 32 days and the majority of the nickel within the reactor was not consumed. So the isotopic analysis was on a very small sample and therefore the lesser occurring elements were not many. At some point, the measurements must become noisy due to a lack of material. So we maybe trying to analyze noise.

    The question for Andrea Rossi would be — does the isotopic composition of the eCat reactor change for a much longer run (e.g., a 6 month run)? I would still content that some helium was produced but not captured in their measurements. IMHO.

    I do think their is significance in the three helical wires, nominally for heating the reactor. A DC current would generate a magnetic field while a high frequency signal might be used to move or excite the fuel?

  36. Steven N. Karels

    Wladimir,

    I understand C, carbon, is sometimes added to remove oxides and oxygen (from the initial air in the enclosure) from a heated sample. So perhaps C is added to capture oxygen in the form of CO2. Naturally, I would assume, a more than sufficient amount of carbon would be present to make certain that oxygen and oxides were captured in the operation. So this might explain the presence of carbon. Opinions?

  37. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Joe and Calaon,

    I found very interesting the information about the high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn (not found in the ash), and also the elements C, H, O, N, He, Ar and F which cannot be measured quantitatively by the technique used.

    As you know, my new nuclear model is composed by hexagonal floors formed by deuterons, with a central 2He4.
    So, we have:

    8O has 1 complete hexagonal floor

    12Mg has 2 complete hexagonal floors minus 2 deuterons

    18Ar has 3 complete hexagonal floors minus 2 deuterons

    20Ca has 3 complete hexagonal floors

    26Fe has 4 complete hexagonal floors

    28Ni has 4 complete hexagonal floors plus 2 deuterons

    A nucleus with a complete hexagonal floor as 20Ca and 26Fe may have an Accordion-Effect without distortions (while the Accordion-Effect of Ni is distorted).

    So, we have to suppose that 26Fe and 20Ca can get a better alignment of their z-axes with 7Li than 28Ni.

    As the authors of the Lugano Report were seeking only for Ni and Li isotopes, perhaps in the ash it can be found (if they look for):

    26Fe + Li7 -> 27Co + 2He4 + n

    20Ca + Li7 -> 21Sc + 2He4 + n

    As the authors were not looking for Co and Sc, perhaps they are in the ash.

    Dear Calaon,
    what do you think about?

    regards
    wlad

  38. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Calaon and Steven Karels,

    probably the nuclear reaction between 7Li and 58Ni occurs easily when the two nuclei are aligned by a magnetic field in the E-Cat, without any additional improvement.

    But probably in the beginning the E-Cat had a very low COP.
    There was need to shake the nuclei within the reactor, in order to get the most high quantity of reactions 7Li+58Ni (and also 7Li+ 60Ni and 7Li+61Ni) by second.

    That’s why along the years Andrea Rossi had improved his reactor, so that to increase the velocity of the quantity of the reactions by second, in order to increase the COP.

    For instance, perhaps the first E-Cat had only one coil in the alumina cylinder.
    By putting 3 coils, if the electric current is AC, inside the reactor occurs an oscilatory magnetic field by the overlap of 3 oscillatory magnetic fields. By this way the nuclei are shaken, and is increases the speed of their interaction.
    With an additional magnetic field induced by a DC current (or a permanent magnet) the nuclei 7Li and 58Ni have their z-axis aligned.

    In order to increase the COP, perhaps Rossi had used a catalyst.

    But in the last page 53 of the Lugano Report there is an intriguing information:

    ————————————————–
    The measured analytes were Ni, Li, and Al. The elements Ni and Al are measured with two independent emission lines to minimize risk for systematic errors. The elements C, H, O, N, He, Ar and F cannot be measured quantitatively by this technique.

    Sample 1 was ash coming from the reactor in Lugano. Only a few granules of grey sample were possible to obtain from the ash and they didn’t look exactly the same. One large and two very small granules were observed.

    Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.
    ————————————————–

    Let us analyse it:

    1- The catalyst could be C, O, N, Ar and F, because perhaps they appear in the ash, but they cannot be measured quantitatively by the technique used.

    2- Aluminium also can be the catalyst

    3- C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn cannot be the catalyst, since they do not appear in the ash, and therefore they are consumed within the reactor

    4- However, as C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn do not appear in the ash, then where did they go ???

    5- As they do not appear in the ash, it means that they had transmuted.

    6- Then why the authors of the Report did not speculate about a possible reactions between them ? (for instance, with hydrogen)

    8- And why did not they try to discover what would be the elements resulted from their transmutation?

    9- Besides, as Rossi claims that his E-Cat consumes Ni, why a hell there is a high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg and Mn in the fuel ?? (and they are not found in the ash) ???

    regards
    wlad

  39. Wladimir Guglinski

    Bernie Koppenhofer wrote in November 26th, 2014 at 11:53 AM

    Dr. Rossi: Have all the reactors used in the third party testing been returned to you? Thanks again for this site and sharing, and Happy
    ————————————

    Bernie,
    I suppose that, based on the protocol, before the test Andrea Rossi had already agreed that the reactor would be returned, and the test was done with the Professors’ promise to return the reactor. By the way, probably was made a contract-return of the reactor, signed by IH, Leonardo and the Professors of the ITP.

    regards
    wlad

  40. Andrea Rossi

    Bernie Koppenhofer:
    The Hot-Cat that I gave to the Professors of the ITP has been given back to me the day after the day in which the reactor has been turned off. The Professors had only one reactor, because the other 2 that I brought to Lugano as spare parts, just in case of breakages, have not been delivered to the Professors, since no breakages happened to the one we gave them to be tested.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  41. Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi: Have all the reactors used in the third party testing been returned to you? Thanks again for this site and sharing, and Happy Thanksgiving!

  42. Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi & Readers of the JONP:

    When he was at Hughes Aircraft on a Masters’ Degree Work-Study program, John T. Neer took written Notes of Lectures given by (Physicist) Richard Feynman.

    The 5-Volume set of Lecture Notes are partially similar to the contents of the 3 Volume FLP (Feynman Lectures in Physics) series, but cover different topics as well.

    Volume 5 contains a set of Mathematical Techniques which should be useful to anyone interested in Physics or to those who want to brush up on their skills.

    http://www.thehugheslectures.info/about/

    http://www.thehugheslectures.info/the-lectures/

    As far as I know, there were no references to phenomena similar to the “Rossi Effect”, which should not be surprising if everything falls into ‘Standard Physics’.

    Unfortunately, Richard can not be here to ponder the current mysteries for a few months, or even a few days, and then snap his fingers and say ” Ah-ha! So that’s what’s happening! ”

    Best wishes to everyone for a Happy Thanksgiving. Perhaps someone will use these Lecture Notes and have an “Ah-ha” moment.

    Thankful Regards,

    – Joseph Fine

    ////////////////////////////////

    The Hughes Lectures

    Feynman Lecture Notes by John T. Neer

    The Lectures

    These lectures notes run from the fall of 1966 to 1971. Feynman lectured prior to this period and continued on after 1971. With a few exceptions, the actual 2 hours lectures were not dated. However, the volumes in chronological order.

    I want to stress, again, that these are my personal notes and are only a representation of the lectures I attended. They are to the best of my ability my recreation from memory and my original real time notes. No AV recording system was used in the transcription of my raw notes.

    25 MB Download

    Volume 1
    Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology
    (224 pages)

    Feynman solicited topic input from the scientists and engineers at the Labs for the coming year. New discoveries were being made in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology at the time. This 1966-1967 lecture series focused on these subjects. This volume is unique since, as far as I can tell, Feynman did not lecture on this subject matter at CalTech. While much of the material is now dated, what remains is a look into the mind of Feynman as he worked to explain such topics as stellar evolution, nuclear synthesis, cosmology, “black stars” (aka black holes), and general relativity.

    I inserted more current content from the web which relates to the 1966-67 lectures with recent experimental observations and discoveries. While this lecture series has been “eclipsed” by the tremendous theoretical and experimental advancements over the past 45 years, I am sure the reader(s) will find in these lectures the power of Feynman’s insight and ability to have fun with a new subject not touched on by him at CalTech in his “normal” class and research work. I trust others, more specialized in the topics of volume 1, can and will contribute to the additional information to further enrich the notes in the future. This editing will best be done when the notes are moved and dropped in a dynamic and editable platform, yet to be identified.

    The Volume I subject matter was not part of his prior lecture activity, Feynman would talk with some of his CalTech colleagues who worked in the field of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology about their work and theories. He would then come to the lecture literally with a (maybe 2 or 3) 3×5 cards and proceed to pour out 2 hours of theory and complex mathematical representations of the topic of the day. This was his genius and almost mystical in his ability to focus his thinking and presentation ability on the most important aspects of a given topic.

    36 MB Download

    Volumes 2
    Relativity, Electrostatics, Electrodynamics, Matter-Wave Interaction
    (209 pages)

    Feynman reflected on how he could teach his original FLP’s volume 2 & 3 differently and better than in his first pass through the subjects five years earlier. The attendees wanted him to lecture a couple years on the subject matter in the original FLP and essentially let him give his revised, enhanced, and expanded lectures. This then led more naturally into QED with a good foundation layer established. Feynman also tailored his lectures more to the level of his audience understanding they were not freshman and sophomore undergraduates but post graduate, doctorate level scientists, employed doing advanced research.

    49 MB Download

    Volume 3
    More on Matter-Wave Interaction, Intro to Quantum Mechanics, Scattering Theory, Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum, Intro to Lie Group, SU 2 & 3 “stuff”, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), Pair Production
    (314 pages)

    Feynman went on in greater detail to complete his lectures on wave-matter interaction. From there he started into quantum mechanics and his path history formulation. He extended his lectures to include Lie Group theory and the SU 2&3 “Stuff”.

    Feynman diagrams are discussed in Volume 3 at some length as he went deep into QED theory including such topics as quantum scattering. As better understood today, his diagrams represent a visual language of the complex physical processes at the particle interaction level. I have noted recently that with the power of new computers and new concepts the Feynman diagrams have, arguably, run their course. While this is possibly the case, I would assert that bypassing a fundamental understanding of the Feynman diagram concept makes it hard to understand what replaces them. This is like hand held calculators replacing the need to know the fundamental multiplication tables and being able to check what the calculator is telling you. I personally observed in a number of lectures where Feynman would self-check himself as he was working out the math because he could sense that if he kept going he would not get the right physics. This was his true genius at work. That was truly amazing to both watch and try to absorb in real time.

    13 MB Download

    Volume 4
    Molecular Biology
    (65 pages)

    The Molecular Biology lectures started out and then eventually died out as the year progressed. Feynman found the material challenging to get his head around before the lecture and, therefore, very time consuming. He apparently found a CalTech colleague, Seymour Benzer, who changed from physics to biophysics as a person who stimulated Feynman’s interest in this topic.

    By consensus the lecture series ended early. Feynman was deep into his own parton theory which was his version of quark theory. He and Gell-Mann were collegial competitors in those days.

    In preparing these notes for release I decided to include what notes I had of those lectures only to give evidence of Feynman’s interest to explore all the dimensions of science and nature. For those involved in the field these notes will not provide much informational value particularly with all the advancements on research and understanding of molecular biology. The value, I believe, for the reader is how Feynman thought through the subject matter and mentally organized it so he could lecture on it. That might aid teachers in this field to sharpen up their own presentation material. At the end of the volume are my un-transcribed real-time notes that I never got to but I decided to include for those who are into this field.

    6 MB Download

    Volume 5
    Mathematical Methods/Techniques in Physics and Engineering
    (163 pages)

    By some who have seen samples of my notes Volume 5 has been referred to as the “missing lectures” to the FLP “Red Books”. Feynman himself felt that he should have taught the mathematical methods first and then the physics since math is the “language” of physics. Feynman was apparently talked out of starting with a course in math-physics. The attendees at the lab talked him into a year-long lecture on his approach to mathematics as the language of physics.

    I note here also that the math lectures have been referred on the Reddit by someone as “sophomoric” since all physic students must take similar course work and presumably “master” math while learning the physics. In my own case I wanted to learn the physics and minimize the math, or better said, not confused by the physics because the math was too difficult to grasp.

    This is how Feynman approached physics and how he taught himself, at an early age, by developing many shortcuts through the math; “Feynman diagrams” were one clear by product of his self learning process. He did not want to get bogged down and distracted from understanding the physics. This is why and how he got involved in the Manhattan Project; he was their math wizard.

    One story he told of those days: Someone came running into him needing a quick answer to a nuclear decay process that was described by some expansion series like the Sum from 1 to infinity of 1/(1+n^2)[probably not the real one]. Feynman asked how accurately he wanted the answer and the person said 10% would do for now. Feynman said he took a few seconds and said the answer was 1.3 (or something like that); the person was amazed how fast he could give him that and asked how he did it. He said since you told me you only wanted the answer to 10%, it was only necessary to go to the second term in the series expansion and that was good enough for better than 10% accuracy. This story is emblematic of Feynman’s mathematical thinking which is not sophomoric. This is why he made such a contribution to the Manhattan project and ultimately QED. He did indeed “think different”.

    In my own experience I found in my graduate studies that the some of the professors tended to focus more on the math rigor than in teaching the real physics. In Feynman’s world he “felt” the physics and used the math to express that “feeling” and understanding. Language does not necessarily express the essence of the content contained in the idea being described. One must understand both the power and limitations of the language used when discussing a subject. Words don’t always express what one wants to say; so it is for math and physics.

    Lecture Sidebars: Another “feature”, or aspect, of the notes is my attempt to capture “side bar” topics. These special topics or thoughts (including some philosophical ones) added color and currency to the lectures as only Feynman could deliver. He was unconstrained in the lecture environment to take off on a sidebar and the attendees both enjoyed and encouraged him to do so.

    © Copyright 1966 – 2014 John T. Neer.
    ///////////////////////////////////////

  43. Andrea Rossi

    Dr Joseph Fine:
    Thank you for this contribution.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  44. Wladimir Guglinski

    Eric Ashworth wrote in November 25th, 2014 at 10:44 PM

    Wladimir, Your reply to Joe Nov 24th 2014. “As I said in my comment of Nov 21st. 2014. “Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole’ in the electrosphere of the Ni58″.

    This reply of yours I believe to be correct but you use the word inertia which I do not think is fully understood as a cause of an effect. For me inertia is a cause of movement but what causes the object to continue to move when the propelling force is removed?.
    ————————————————–

    in absence of force there is conservation of momentum P= m.V . The inertia does not depend on actuation of a propelling force.

    However, in the case of the neutron, when the neutrons is moving toward the Ni nucleus, it can happen the following:

    1) Before to arrive to the cross-section of the electron’s orbit, the magnetic field induced by the electron’s motion applies a force of ATTRACTION on the neutron (the two magnetic vectors point to the the same direction).
    The neutron is PULLED by the electron’s orbit toward the Ni nucleus.

    2) After crossing the cross-section, the magnetic field of the electron starts to apply a force of REPULSION on the neutron (because the two magnetic vectors continue with the same direction).
    And so the neutron is PUSHED toward the Ni nucleus.

    However, I did not mention it because I am not sure if the neutron changes its magnetic field regarding the electron’s orbit after crossing the cross-section of the electron’s orbit (in this case, if the neutron changes the magnetic field vector in the contrary direction, then the electron begins to apply a force of ATTRACTION on the neutron, after it crosses the cross-section, and therefore decreasing the speed of the neutron going by inertia toward the Ni nucleus).

    regards
    wlad

  45. georgehants

    Dear Mr. Rossi, after all your years of hard work, at this time what is the thing that you are most looking to achieve and will give you the most satisfaction in your work?
    Could it be the successful completion of the 1MW plant for your customer?

  46. Andrea Rossi

    Georgehants:
    Absolutely yes: when the contract signed by IH with their Customer for the 1 MW plant will have been totally satisfied, fullfilled and totally paid for, that will be the first plant in history making real energy in an industrial process. That will be the real game changer in the history of the production of energy, like the “New Fire”. This is why I have no time at all for any other issue, in this period. I need maximum focus, because failure is not an option and all the problems that pop up on daily basis have to be resolved properly to consolidate the technology. I want this masterpiece made by our Team to be perfect.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  47. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Herb Gillis

    After the announcement by Fleischmann and Pons of their results in cold fusion experiment, along a decade the replicability of the results was a serious problem.

    As nobody knew how cold fusion occurs (because it is impossible by considering the Standard Model, and there was not any new nuclear model compatible with cold fusion) the cold fusion researchers faced the challenge of to replicate the results they claimed to have obtained earlier.

    I had analysed the problem of replicability by considering my new nuclear model, and I had discovered why in some days the researchers did succeed to replicate the results, and in other days they had failed.

    In those experiments the nuclei were aligned by the magnetic field of the Earth. But in some days there are magnetic storms in the Sun, and so the alignment of the nuclei by the Earth’s magnetic field is disturbed by the influence of the Sun’s magnetic field, and that’s why in some days the researchers did not succeed to replicate the results.
    Also, any apparatus inducing magnetic field in some laboratory could have influence in the results. Therefore, a researcher could succeed to replicate the experiment in his laboratory, but when other researcher tried to replicate the experiment in his laboratory he did not succeed to replicate it.

    Then I had submitted to Infinite Energy my paper What is missing in Les Case’s catalytic fusion, and in 2002 the magazine had published it. In the paper I had suggested to use an external source of magnetic field, in order to eliminate the disturbance of the magnetic field of the Sun (and also to replace the magnetic field of the Earth).

    In 2003 Dennys Lets and Dennys Cravens had exhibited in the cold fusion ICCF-10 their experiment where they had used an external source of magnetic field, and by this way they had solved the problem of the missing of replicability in cold fusion experiments.

    Probably Andrea Rossi took knowledge on the experiment made by Lets and Cravens, and then Rossi started to use an external magnetic field in his experiments.

    So,
    it is possible cold fusion can occur in the intestines of some animals, because the alignment of the nuclei of the food is produced by the magnetic field of the Earth.
    Of course the cold fusion occurence requires the animal to be at rest, in order to promote the alignment of the magnetic fields along a long period of time. This is the case, for instance, of the bears when they hibernate.
    As the white bears live in the north pole of the Earth, the alignment is easier to occur, because in the poles there is convergence of a big quantity of magnetic lines of the Earth’s magnetic field.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

    Regarding the birds, they do not change the position of their body when they sleep, cold fusion can occur in their intestines during the night (preferably in countries near to the poles of the Earth).

    regards
    wlad

  48. Wladimir Guglinski

    Herb Gillis wrote in November 25th, 2014 at 6:24 PM

    Wladimir Guglinsky:
    The situation you are describing reminds me of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), where nuclear spins may be aligned in a strong magnetic field. NMR is an analysis technique widely used in chemistry and medicine. Do you think that an existing NMR machine might be able to tell us something about LENR? For example; by inserting a mixture of Li7, Ni, and H.
    NMR is usually performed in liquid state, but not always. If your theory is correct then do you think LENR devices could be constructed from liquid mixtures in a sufficiently strong external magnetic field? In this way we could do away with the constraints of a solid matrix?
    ———————————————

    Dear Herb
    probably yes.
    But we have to remember that the E-Cat has some special conditions. For instance, Andrea Rossi uses three parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor, and so three magnetic fields are produced.
    In the case the current is AC, then of course he uses another source of a magnetic field, so that to produce a resultant vector magnetic field for those three fields induced by the three coils.

    We have also to remember that cold fusion probably occurs in some animals, because 200 years ago it was observed that in the feces of certain birds appear some elements that do not exist in the food they ate.
    Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that when bears hibernate they can also produce cold fusion in their intestine.

    regards
    wlad

  49. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 24th, 2014 at 11:26 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    There is a line of articles and we publish them, after peer reviewing, in the order we receive them. Every Author has his reasons to consider urgent his own paper’s publication and we do not grant privileges to anybody.o the JoNP’s blog.
    ——————————————-

    Dear Andrea

    In 3rd Dec 2013 the JoNP had published the paper Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM-Supergravitation unified theory, by Dr. Stoyan Sarg.

    Now in 2nd Nov 2014 the JoNP is publishing again the same paper by Dr. Sarg, Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM.

    This paper has been published again in the JoNP because in October 2014 the Lugano Report had confirmed the results of the E-Cat.

    This seems to be a privilege.

    regards
    wlad

  50. Eric Ashworth

    Wladimir, Your reply to Joe Nov 24th 2014. “As I said in my comment of Nov 21st. 2014. “Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole’ in the electrosphere of the Ni58″.

    This reply of yours I believe to be correct but you use the word inertia which I do not think is fully understood as a cause of an effect. For me inertia is a cause of movement but what causes the object to continue to move when the propelling force is removed?. There can also be an attractive force. What I believe is that there is a displacement of the magnetic fields contained within the object and which then displaces the objects centre of gravity. When these centres of gravity are distorted by their magnetic fields there is an imballance directly related to the energy input required to move the object at a specific velocity. At N.T.P. an object set in motion will regain its original field but it requires a duration of time which can be measured as a distance. At a higher temperature under normal pressure but with an induced force an object can regain its N.T. within normal pressure to reveal an imballance in its centre of gravity and a distorted magnetic field that will respond to its exterior environment because it contains properties of inertia. The neutron, I believe, has a centre of gravity and a field composed of quarks. When distortion sets in because of inertia there is a period of readjustment that can be interpreted as a distance. If the readjustment occurs over a vector then its a mobile inertia. If it occurs over an oscillation then it is a static inertia. This is how I understand inertia. There seems to be an enigma with regards what is referred to as the coulomb barrier and an inability of being able to cross it. Perhaps and this is what I believe, the referrence coulomb barrier should be coulomb barriers. Structure I believe is made up of densities with regards a geometric structure. This I shall put together and try to explain as best I can. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  51. Andrea Rossi

    TO ALL OUR AMERICAN READERS:
    THE TEAM OF THE JoNP WISHES YOU ALL A PEACEFUL THANKSGIVING DAY. MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL!

  52. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    he,he,he…
    Not yet.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  53. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Dr. Stoyan Sarg,

    In the page 2 of your paper Theoretical feasibility of cold fusion according to the BSM it is written:

    From Fig. 3 we see that the nuclear overall shape for elements with 18<Z<86 have not spherical but elongated shape.

    In the Fig. 3 we also se that 10Ne20, with Z=10, has spherical shape.

    However,
    in 2012 by the journal Nature published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, where it is shown the shape of the 10Ne20 detected by experiments.

    The Fig. 1 of that paper shows that 10Ne20 has non-spherical shape, and so the structure proposed in your paper is in disagreement with the experimental results, since according to your nuclear model the 10Ne20 must have spherical shape.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11246.html

    I think the readers of the JoNP would like you come to explain why your nuclear model predicted wrongly the shape of the 10Ne20.

    I also would like to remember you that in November 3rd, 2014 at 10:33 AM I had posted as comment herein in the JoNP four questions about your models of proton and neutron (to be responded by you) but you did not respond any of them yet.

    regards
    wlad

  54. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Any Black Friday specials on eCat reactors?

  55. Herb Gillis

    Wladimir Guglinsky:
    The situation you are describing reminds me of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), where nuclear spins may be aligned in a strong magnetic field. NMR is an analysis technique widely used in chemistry and medicine. Do you think that an existing NMR machine might be able to tell us something about LENR? For example; by inserting a mixture of Li7, Ni, and H.
    NMR is usually performed in liquid state, but not always. If your theory is correct then do you think LENR devices could be constructed from liquid mixtures in a sufficiently strong external magnetic field? In this way we could do away with the constraints of a solid matrix?
    Regards; HRG.

  56. Andrea Rossi

    JC Renoir:
    Yes: the reactors combined make a volume of half cubic meter to yield 1 MWh/h of Thermal energy. All the rest of the plant is constituted by heat exchangers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  57. Curiosone

    Dr Rossi:
    Your critics have found a resistance that has no linear resistivity with the temperature, exactly as you said many times. So this drops the accusations made from someone. Comments?
    Godspeed,
    WG

  58. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    I cannot comment this issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  59. JCRenoir

    I have been impressed by the last data you gave of the 1 MW plant: you confirm half cubic meter of reactor to give 1 MW?
    JCR

  60. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dears Joe, Calaon, Orsobubu, Karrels, Eric…
    … and anybody interested in the subject.

    Dr. Stoyan Sarg is going to pronounce a speech where he says that Coulomb barrier was wrongly interpreted in scattering experiments:
    “At the beginning it discuses the major methodological error in scattering experiments that leads to a tremendously wrong vision about the Coulomb barrier.”
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/21/dr-stoyan-sarg-to-address-nanotek-expo-2014-on-lenr/

    But Dr. Sarg is wrong.
    There is nothing wrong with the scattering experiments, and the vision about the Coulomb barrier is correct.

    In normal condictions (different of those occurring in cold fusion experiments) the electric field of nuclei (Coulomb barrier) is spherical, as correctly interpreted by the nuclear theorists, because of the following:

    1- The nuclei have non-spherical Coulomb barrier.
    For instance, the figure shows the Coulomb barrier for the 2Her, shown as yellow in the figure.
    FIG. 1:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    2- But the nuclei have chaotic rotation (due to repulsions between protons) and the z-axis of the Figure 1 is changing its direction every time.

    3- As consequence of the chaotic rotation, the electric field takes in average the spherical shape, as shown in the Figure 2 ahead for the 2He4.
    FIG 2:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE2.png

    4- The spherical Coulomb barrier of the Figure 2 was detected in the scattering experiments, and so the vision of the Coulomb barrier by the physicists was correct

    5- However, in cold fusion phenomena occurs the alignment of the two z-axes of two nuclei (as for instance 7Li and 58Ni in the Rossi’s Effect).
    We see it in the Figure 5 ahead.
    FIG 5:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE5.png

    6- The two Coulomb barriers of 7Li and 58Ni take their original non-spherical shape in the Figure 5 because the z-axes of the two nuclei stop to gyrate chaotically. This happens only in the cold fusion experiments (for instance, in the Rossi’s E-Cat the z-axes of 7Li and 58Ni are aligned along the axis of the alumina cylinder, because of the magnetic field created by the electric current in the coils).

    7- As we realize from Figure 1, there is a “hole” in the Coubomb barrier of the nuclei, along the z-axis:
    FIG 1:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    8- When the two z-axes of two nuclei are aligned (as 7Li and 58Ni in the Figure 5), the two “holes” of the two nuclei are aligned, and so it is easier for a particle as a proton or a neutron to exit one of them and to enter within the other.

    regards
    wlad

  61. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    That is a possible application, but not in a short time. Certifications in that area can take ten to twenty years, as I learnt in a meeting with the CEO of an important truck- maker several years ago.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  62. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    I have already explained and there is nothing to add. The JoNP works that way, and will not change. Again, if you think it is very important that your paper is read in short time, you can send it linked to a comment to the JoNP’s blog. This will not compromise its eventual publication in the Journal.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  63. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Rossi wrote in November 24th, 2014 at 11:26 AM

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    There is a line of articles and we publish them, after peer reviewing, in the order we receive them. Every Author has his reasons to consider urgent his own paper’s publication and we do not grant privileges to anybody.
    —————————————-

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    it is not a question of privileges.

    It seems the shape of the positive electric field (Coulomb barrier) of the nuclei may be the principal cause which makes possible the cold fusion occurrence.

    There are other authors thinking about, as Dr. Stoyan Sarg, who is going to pronounce a speech where he defends the same hypothesis:
    “At the beginning it discuses the major methodological error in scattering experiments that leads to a tremendously wrong vision about the Coulomb barrier.”.
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/21/dr-stoyan-sarg-to-address-nanotek-expo-2014-on-lenr/

    But…
    the question is to discover what is the correct model for the shape of the Coulomb barrier, and how it allows the cold fusion occurrence, and such subjetct merits a discussion.
    Why do not do it here?

    Here we have some persons interested in the subject, as Joe, Calaon, Eernie, Steven Karels, Eric, Orsobubu, etc.

    My paper Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism just proposes how is composed the structure of the electric field of the elementary particles and the nuclei, and therefore it is of interest to discuss it here, since it can give us a better understanding on how the Coulomb barrier is formed around the nuclei.

    So, the publication is of the interest of many readers here, instead of to be a question of previlege.

    After all, you have to think about the privilege of the readers herein, i.e., their privilege of reading papers concerning what is of their interest: to understand the mechanisms which make cold fusion possible to occur.

    regards
    wlad

  64. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Have you considered the application of eCat technology to long distance transportation? Assuming you can solve the issue of the eCat startup time, perhaps an eCat system to generate electricity to charge a large battery bank that drives trains?

    According to Wikipedia, each drive wheel requires up to 3000 hp with around 8 drive wheel per locomotive. In total this would be around 20 MW of electrical power or about 50MW of thermal power as a rough estimate.

    The cost economy for long distance hauling would be significant and there is no exhaust when operating in tunnels or inside buildings.

    A similar larger system might apply for marine cargo transportation.

  65. Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    1. Do you know whether the so-called rossi effect occur:

    a. in a cylinder that is not straight, as those shown in the Lugano report, but in a curved or spiraled shape?

    b. in a cylinder with an angular bend?

    c. in a vessel where the walls are not round like a cylinder, but in any other non-round shape?

    2. Can you tell your readers the size of the largest and smallest e-cats you have constructed which have operated successfully.

    Thanks

    Bob

  66. Andrea Rossi

    Bob:
    1- I cannot give this information
    2- I can say this: the total volume of the reactors of the 1 MW plant is half cubic meter ( 500 liters of volume). All the rest is heat exchangers.
    Is much bigger the control system, entirely designed by our engineers ( 111 computers integrated). I think our team ( electronic engineers, physicists, blue collars, white collars has made a masterpiece.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  67. Steven N. Karels

    eernie1 and Andrea Rossi,

    I think you both are arguing the same point. Energy sources will be integrated. If LENR energy is cheaper than other energy sources, it will slowly displace them. But there is significant financial inertia to change, so the change will be slow to occur.

  68. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie1, Steven N. Karels:
    I expressed myself wrongly: just wanted to say that I totally disagree with the mantras of the fuels doomed by the E-Cat. I agree with you. Sorry for the concision, that produced misunderstanding.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  69. Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    Can the so-called rossi effect occur

    in a cylinder that is not straight, as those shown in the Lugano report, but curved?

    2. Can the so-called rossi effect occur in a cylinder that is bent?

    3. Can the so-called rossi effect occur in a vessel where the walls are not curved like a cylinder, but straight?

  70. eernie1

    Dear Andrea,
    I do not understand your disagreement. The necessary time required to integrate LENR with other sources will only increase the time that fossil fuels will be required. Can you elaborate?
    Fond regards.

  71. Andrea Rossi

    Eernie 1:
    I totally disagree.
    All the existing energy sources have to be integrated.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  72. eernie1

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I have read many blogs that predict that a successful and non-refutable showing of your device would immediately make the fossil fuel industry disappear or at least non-profitable. However there are many markets where the fuels will be required for many years after introduction of LENR devices.
    One market which is obvious is the gasoline driven devices now in use. There are hundreds of millions of autos, diesel engines, aircraft, power stations and other devices that depend on fossil fuels. These devices have cost their owners Trillions of dollars and have usage lifetimes of decades. Especially in the case of autos, the majority of owners would not be able to discard their present models and purchase LENR driven devices. So at least in this case there would be a market for fuels for many years, especially in less advanced societies. The same case can be made for the other markets(think of the cost of new passenger aircraft).
    LENR will eventually replace the older devices but perhaps not before the cheap sources of fossil fuels will be depleted. The first positive effect of your device will be the decrease in cost of these fuels to people who can least afford them.
    Fond regards.

  73. Andrea Rossi

    Wladimir Guglinski:
    There is a line of articles and we publish them, after peer reviewing, in the order we receive them. Every Author has his reasons to consider urgent his own paper’s publication and we do not grant privileges to anybody. If you want to speed up, you can just link your paper to a comment to the JoNP. In this case you get it immedialetly published here, where rules are totally different.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  74. Wladimir Guglinski

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    I had submitted my article Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism 6 months ago to the JoNP.

    I think would be of interest to publish it, so that I could talk about the formation of the electric fields with Joe, Eernie, and Andrea Calaon, and others.

    In the case the electric field indeed has non-spherical shape as proposed in my theory, this property of the electric field can be connected with the cold fusion occurrence.
    Therefore I think it is of interest to discuss it.

    May you ask the reviewers to speed up the revision of the article?

    regards
    wlad

  75. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 24th, 2014 at 3:32 AM

    Wladimir,

    If the induced magnetic dipole of the rotating 1p1 electron of 3Li7 can attract the valence neutron of 3Li7, why would that neutron not stop and settle at the centre point of the rotation rather than proceed further and into the 28NiXX nucleus?
    ———————————————–

    As I said in my comment of November 21st, 2014 at 7:07 PM:

    “Due to the inertia, the neutron continues moving, and it enters within the Ni58 through the “hole” in the electrosphere of the Ni58.”

    regards
    wlad

  76. tommaso

    Dear Andrea,
    Do you know the studies of Ruggero Santilli?
    If so,what do you think about it?

  77. Andrea Rossi

    Tommaso:
    I prefer not to comment on the work of our competitors; I know that Ruggero Santilli has to be respected, though. His work is interesting.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  78. Joe

    Wladimir,

    If the induced magnetic dipole of the rotating 1p1 electron of 3Li7 can attract the valence neutron of 3Li7, why would that neutron not stop and settle at the centre point of the rotation rather than proceed further and into the 28NiXX nucleus?

    All the best,
    Joe

  79. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in November 23rd, 2014 at 5:49 PM

    ————————————–
    You say: “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.” I don’t understand what you are saying. Sorry.
    ======================================

    With figures is easier to understand.
    The flux-n(o) of the 2He4 is shown in the figure:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Fig._3.JPG

    In the inner side of DOUGLAS the neutron has magnetic moment -1,913 , because it is crossed by a flux-n(o)-up.
    The neutron in the outer side of DOUGLAS has magnetic moment +1,913, because it is crossed by a fluz-n(o)-down.

    All the other nuclei are formed by the capture of deuterons and neutrons by the flux-n(o) of the 2He4.
    In the figure ahead the 3Li7 is formed by the central 2He4 and the deuteron-neutron captured by the flux-n(o)
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE3.png

    The positive field of the proton is similar to the positive field of the 2He4:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Calaon-guglinski-FIGURE1.png

    The field is non-spherical
    But as the proton is made by quarks, and there is repulsion between the quarks up, then the body of the proton has chaotic spin, then in average the field of the proton becomes spherical.

    regards
    wlad

  80. Eric Ashworth

    Andrea Calon, With regards your reply to Wladimir 23rd November 2014. As you are no doubt aware I do not know the academic teachings of nuclear physics. However, I think nuclear physics has some basic simple law to it that escapes many people who are at a complex level before grasping an introductory ABC level (proton, neutron, electron). You stated in your reply to Wladimir, ‘I cannot agree because the electric field symetry is a basic feature of electromagnetism. As a consequence the so called coulomb barrier is identical in all directions. Andrea, think about structure. Are you within a structure or are you outside of a structure?. From what I am aware nobody is outside of a structure and structure has a point (central position) and a periphery being the outer limit. Therefore your reply regards spherical symetry cannot be unless it’s at the centre of a system. This is why the Earth rotates and also nutates. If it was at at a centrifugal position it would not but it is at a centripetal position and it does what it does because it is not symetrical within its field. I believe that nothing can be absolutely spherical in our position within the solar system. Have I missed something?. Regards Eric Ashworth

  81. Wladimir Guglinski

    Andrea Calaon wrote in November 23rd, 2014 at 5:49 PM

    1) ———————————————-
    You seem to say that the shape of the “electrostatic” field (intensity in different directions) is influenced by the kinetics of the particles. Let me say that, if I understood correctly, I can not agree, because the electric field symmetry is a basic feature of electromagnetism. As a consequence the so called Coulomb barrier is identical in all directions.
    ==================================================

    No, you did not understand.

    The field of particles and the field of the nuclei is composed by two spherical fields. Look for instance the two fields of the 2He4:

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

    But due to the chaotic rotation the fields takes in average the spherical shape:

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

    This explains why the Coulomb barrier is identical in all directions

    .

    2) ————————————–
    You say: “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.” I don’t understand what you are saying. Sorry.
    =========================================

    My theory is developed from the concept of non-empty space (aether), composed by elementary particles of the aether as electricitons, magnetons, gravitons, permeabilitons.

    The concept of field in my theory emeges from the formation of physical fields composed by electricitons, magnetons, gravitons, and permeabilitons.

    All the nuclei are composed by a central 2He4, which produces a gravity flux named flux-n(o). Each particle as proton and neutron is captured by such flux.
    Due to the laws of interactions between the gravitons of the flux-n(o) and the spin of particles (protons and neutrons), the magnetic moment of those particles can change their sign depending on the direction of the flux-n(o).
    If a flux-n(o)-up crosses the neutron, its magnetic moment is positive.
    If a flux-n(o)-down crosses the neutron, its magnetic moment becomes negative.

    3) ——————————
    Wladimir, let me insist that what I proposed is not going against any consolidated law of physics, not to mention the so called Standard Model.
    =================================

    According to the Standar Model nuclear reactions cannot occur via electromagnetism, and the resaon is easy to be understood: nuclear reactions need to be promoted by particles bound via strong nuclear force.
    Your theory requires a model in which protons and neutrons are bound via electromagnetism.
    Therefore your theory is going against the Standard Model.

    As I already said , the Coulomb barrier in the distances of 2fm within the nuclei is 100 times stronger than the electromagnetism interaction.
    There is need a new nuclear model so that to explain how protons and neutrons can be bound via electromagnetism.

    The Lugano Report is showing that the results obtained from Rossi’s E-Cat are incompatible with nuclear reactions occuring via strong force, as you did point out.

    Therefore Rossi’s Effect is incompatible with the Standard Model, based on the hypothesis of protons and neutrons bound via strong force within the nuclei.

    regards
    wlad

  82. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Wladimir Guglinsky,
    thank you for the appreciation: “Calaon is an expert in nuclear and chemical reactions, a field in which he is working along years”. Wladimir, I have to admit that I am not an expert of nuclear reactions, nor a chemist. I only studied the subjects during University and keep doing it whenever I have time. I have but friends working in the fields of nuclear chemistry, chemistry and physics. However my proven involvement in Physics is only VERY marginal. I participated in the numerical simulation of details of ITER and Wendelstein 7-X, inclusive cracks, but never in the Plasma part. I am only a humble thermo-mechanical numerical simulations specialist, just very fond of Physics.
    What I think helps me is that in my work as a Researcher I am used to strive for discerning between opinion and proven and “reproducible” fact. In the years I managed to debunk a series of misconceptions that had encrusted for long times.

    Back to the LENR.
    As you probably noticed, I have already “withdrawn” the idea of an actual coupling between Li nucleus and an electron, because it seems to me impossible that the coupling can cross the two 1s electrons protecting the Li+ ion.
    I have to premise that I haven’t analysed your theory in detail. But there are some features I don’t understand or probably just do not agree with.
    You seem to say that the shape of the “electrostatic” field (intensity in different directions) is influenced by the kinetics of the particles. Let me say that, if I understood correctly, I can not agree, because the electric field symmetry is a basic feature of electromagnetism. As a consequence the so called Coulomb barrier is identical in all directions.
    My “theory”, which is Dallacasa’s in this respect, explains the “non-sphericity” of the nuclear attractive force among nucleons with the strong dependence of the attractive potential with the reciprocal orientation of the magnetic moments (i.e. spins) (and their phasing). Nothing exotic, just basic electromagnetism.
    You say: “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.” I don’t understand what you are saying. Sorry.
    I am trying to follow the suggestion of our Italian “bon-ton Guru” orsobubu putting a bit more “pepper” in the discussion.
    But you know that actually I would never criticize someone’s work without a reason, and would never offend (consciously) anyone for having a different opinion.

    Wladimir, let me insist that what I proposed is not going against any consolidated law of physics, not to mention the so called Standard Model. I am sure that there is no need to contradict any main evidence of physics to explain LENR. So far I just took the possible validity of the nuclear potential of Dallacasa to its extreme consequences.

    Dear eerinie1,
    it is possible that part of the phenomenology of the electron capture is actually due to the potential of Dallacasa, through what I proposed.

    I would like to say something I think should guide anyone trying to understand the LENR and the device of Andrea Rossi.
    The plethora of all LENR experiments, starting from the inception of F&P, depends on some unusual “mechanism” that is necessarily the same at work in the Hot-Cat. The probability of two different mechanisms at work is nil.
    There must be a single explanation for all manifestations of excess energy. The variations must reside only in “common physics” details. It seems Andrea Rossi has found a way to make that mechanism much more efficient than any other known experiment.
    As a consequence it makes no sense to think about any special mechanism that has the chance to work only with the conditions that the report of the 8th of October seem to have revealed.
    The mechanism should depend critically on the presence of deuterium or hydrogen in a metal matrix.

    It would be extremely interesting to work with all data of the How-Cat: frequencies, polarizations, correct stoichiometry, effects of missing elements or composition shortenings, … but it is impossible. So I am now trying to get suggestions from the works of Iwamura and Tadahiko Mizuno, who publish most of the data.

    Regards to all
    Andrea Calaon

  83. Wladimir Guglinski

    eernie1 wrote in November 23rd, 2014 at 12:47 PM

    1) ————————————
    However using the p electron of the Li, although very volatile, to create a neutron bridge between the 3Li7 and the 28Ni58 etc. seems to be more difficult and the energy balance more complex than just pulling out the loosely bound neutron in the nucleus of the 3Li7 which may be easily done with an external field. Since the neutron is a low energy(thermal)neutron it has a large cross section for reacting with the 28Ni58 and a reasonable life time to accomplish this.
    =======================================

    Dear Eernie,
    cold fusion is not an easy process, because if it was we were seeing cold fusion occurring every time in the nature.
    So, discarding a harder process in favour of another easier one does not seems to be a strong reason.

    Besides, even in the case of the Calaon theory, perhaps it is yet missing the resonance contribution, which I did not mention in my interpretation of his theory via my nuclear model, in order to give the most simplest explanation of the fundamental mechanism due to the electron’s contribution.

    Also, note that Calaon needs to change a litle his initial version.

    2) ————————————-
    I was inspired to think of this approach by your theory of the distortions occurring in even perfect spherical nuclei by the geometry of internal energy fields and spin considerations.
    ========================================

    Dear Eernie,
    actually I dont know what is the correct process.

    But as I said, I think cold fusion does not occur via the most easy way, in spite of I can be wrong and perhaps the Nature uses the mechanism proposed by you instead of the mechanism proposed by Calaon.

    regards
    wlad

  84. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Steven N. Karels,
    You asked:
    “I see that silicon is present in the ash. Could the following reaction be possible?
    27Al + 7Li + e -> 28Si + 6Li
    …”
    Let me say. Hehehe. You noticed those lines at 28 on Figure 9 (lone) and 11 (with Al as well) of the ITPR.
    Let me first say that the reaction you wrote is impossible, because 28Si is equal to 27Al plus a proton, not a neutron.
    In the light of what I said in my last post, I think that direct exchanges of neutrons between nuclei with more than one proton are impossible (He4 is excluded, so from Li upwards).
    The possible sequence that would lead to Si28 is:
    1 : p + e -> pe
    2 : Al27 + pe -> Si28 + e
    The impression, also looking at other LENR experiments is that, once Hydronion (pe) is formed, it can reach any nucleus present, especially those with high magnetic moments:
    Li7: +3.26 [muN]
    Al28 : +3.64 [muN]
    So I would not be surprised to see that Si28 is formed in the Hot-Cat.
    One curiosity is the strong line at 43, because without ions, 43 is only Ca43, a relatively rare isotope.

    Regards
    Andrea Calaon

  85. Andrea Rossi

    Franco Sarbia:
    In the future all is possible, just associated to a probability percentage that I am not able to evaluate now on the specific issue you are asking for.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  86. Franco Sarbia

    Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi, the fuel of the gas fueled Hot Cat could be hydrogen in the future?
    Warm regards.
    Franco Sarbia.

  87. eernie1

    Dear Wlad,
    I have been an advocate of chemo-nuclear reactions causing the Rossi effect ever since he first revealed his device, since the electrons are more easily manipulated and can cause disruptions in the nucleus of atoms as shown by Fermi etal. I understand the process you and Andrea C. are proposing. However using the p electron of the Li, although very volatile, to create a neutron bridge between the 3Li7 and the 28Ni58 etc. seems to be more difficult and the energy balance more complex than just pulling out the loosely bound neutron in the nucleus of the 3Li7 which may be easily done with an external field. Since the neutron is a low energy(thermal)neutron it has a large cross section for reacting with the 28Ni58 and a reasonable life time to accomplish this. I was inspired to think of this approach by your theory of the distortions occurring in even perfect spherical nuclei by the geometry of internal energy fields and spin considerations.
    Fond regards.

  88. Wladimir Guglinski

    orsobubu wrote in November 23rd, 2014 at 9:04 AM

    >Then Calaon needs to decide what he prefers to do

    Yes, he can decide, but think twice about it, sounds like a low-profile compromise to me, I really don’t like where this is going

    What have we become, a Boy Scouts blog? all those battles, the threats, the abuses, the taunts, and now all friends ending up singing kumbaya? and then, what will we do here alone? Please please Sarg, JR, Joe, what the hack are you waiting, it’s just two people after all, this thing can not be heading this way, add a bit of fuel to the fire, come on! For example, what’s this story about Calaon-Guglinsky, who tells me that Guglinsky-Calaon wouldn’t be much better?
    ——————————————

    Dear Orsobubu
    Calaon is an expert in nuclear and chemical reactions, a field in which he is working along years.

    His theory trying to explain Rossi’s Effect is compatible with my nuclear model, since Calaon starts from the hyphotesis that the interactions occuring in the phenomenon are not promoted by strong force.

    I have a nuclear model which can help him to understand the mechanisms involved in the phenomenon.

    Therefore, I think it is of interest to help one each other, since he is collecting data about nuclear and chemical reactions, and he showing evidences that Rossi’s Effect must be due to electromagnetic reactions (compatible with my nuclear model).

    This is not a dispute.
    It is actually an attempt so that to try to understand and to explain the mechanisms involved in cold fusion and Rossi’s Effect.

    I cannot propose to work together neither with an author with a theory incompatible with my nuclear model neither with the author of a new nuclear model (competitor to my nuclear model, as Dr. Sarg).

    If a good work results from a Calaon-Guglinski theory, the benefit is for the science’s advancement.

    regards
    wlad

  89. orsobubu

    >Then Calaon needs to decide what he prefers to do

    Yes, he can decide, but think twice about it, sounds like a low-profile compromise to me, I really don’t like where this is going

    What have we become, a Boy Scouts blog? all those battles, the threats, the abuses, the taunts, and now all friends ending up singing kumbaya? and then, what will we do here alone? Please please Sarg, JR, Joe, what the hack are you waiting, it’s just two people after all, this thing can not be heading this way, add a bit of fuel to the fire, come on! For example, what’s this story about Calaon-Guglinsky, who tells me that Guglinsky-Calaon wouldn’t be much better?

  90. Curiosone

    The report of the ITP is very hard to read. Can you explain in simple words, as you are always able to do, how has been measured toe electric power consumed?

  91. Andrea Rossi

    Curiosone:
    The electric power consumed has been measured with two wattmeters PCE 830, installed one between the control system and the reactor, one between the control system and the plug of the electric power of the laboratory. This set up has been made to check if the control system was able to modify someway the measurement of the wattmeter. The values of the two Wattmeters coincided perfectly, and this gave evidence of the fact that the control system was not able to influence someway the measurement made by the Wattmeter.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  92. Andrea Rossi

    Steven N. Karels:
    Sorry, I can’t answer regarding our internal R&D.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  93. Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    In the eCat reactor used in the Lugano Report, the interior chamber of the reactor has three helixes of heating wire. The result of applying a current through these wires was both generation of thermal energy to heat the reactor and generation of a magnetic field due to the current.

    Have you preformed measurements with an applied magnetic field independent of the heating wires (e.g., a permanent magnet or a second electromagnet with either a continuous current or a variable current as part of your control system)?

    You will probably decline to directly answer the question but it is an experiment your team needs to perform if it has not already done so.

  94. Wladimir Guglinski

    Joe wrote in November 22nd, 2014 at 11:37 PM

    1. ) ———————————–
    Why do you have only the outer electron of 3Li7 involved in the process of neutron transfer? Why are the outer (3d, 4s) electrons of the 28NiXX not involved at all in the Calaon-Guglinski neutron transfer process?
    =========================================

    Joe,
    perhaps they are also involved, since the Ni also changed the shape of its positive field due to the nucleus, and so the electrons in the electrosphere change their orbits, and the outer electrons of the Ni have interaction with the positive field of the 7Li.

    However, in order to simplify the explanation, I had explained only what happens with the outer electron of the 7Li.

    .

    2. ) ——————————–
    Why would the valence neutron at 7fm prefer exiting along the z-axis in which direction it has no momentum than along the xy-plane in which it has angular momentum?
    =====================================

    First of all, the neutron is not at 7fm, actually it is at a distance of 2,391fm.

    The neutron exits along the z-axis because the orbit of the electron p1 in the Figure 6 induces a magnetic dipole moment vector along the z-axis:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment

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

    As the magnetic moment vector of the neutron is also along the z-axis, then the neutron is pulled by the magnetic moment of the electron p1 toward the z-axis.

    .

    3. ) ———————————–
    (Remember that Andrea Calaon has the two nuclei with their z-axes parallel rather than collinear as per your view.)
    =========================================

    Calaon has not a new nuclear model so that to allow him to understand the physical mechanism involved in the Rossi’s Effect.

    Note that he even did not respond to my question, when I asked to him how to solve that puzzle regarding the nuclear models which do not consider the strong force as the cause of the agglutination of the nuclei: as the electromagentism is 100 times weaker than the Coulomb repulsions in the distances of 2fm within the nuclei, how can the electromagnetis to be responsible for the nuclei aggregation?

    So, he is trying to understand what happens (as everybody) by considering what he knows from the known models (in which the electrosphere of the nuclei is spherical and unalterable).

    Then Calaon needs to decide what he prefers to do.
    He can either keep his initial version or to adopt the new way I am suggesting to him.

    regards
    wlad

  95. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Joe,
    You asked: “Are you saying that an electron can orbit beneath the ground state of an atom?”.
    In a sense yes. It does sound VERY unplausible …, but …
    Probably the p/d/t-e bound state can be interpreted as something beneath the 1s ground state of an hydrogen atom. A bare hydrogen nucleus (any isotope) has no electron orbitals that could interfere with an incoming electron and I proposed that under special conditions the electron couples with the naked nucleus. The bound electron should not have a wave function with the the classical electron orbital, but it would be a bound.
    This bound state is most probably not stable, in the sense that as soon as a photon with the right energy interacts with it, the coupling is destroyed and the electron can either remain bound to the nucleus in a standard orbital or become completely unbound.
    As I already mentioned I suspect that the spectra measured by Randell Mills at al. (if real) are the emissions at the formation of this probably unstable bound state in a plasma.
    For a Lithium ion (+1), which is surrounded by the fully occupied spherical 1s(2) orbital, for me it is still difficult to imagine a mechanism that arrives to the Li-e coupling.

    Think now to the experiments of Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mithsubishi Heavy Industries, where deuterium seems to be able to “enter” into very different nuclei: Ca, W, Ba, Sr, Cs, … plus all intermediate nuclei involved in the large isotopic shifts measured. The only way a positive charge (the deuteron) can reach another nucleus, which is protected by both a negative “sticky” barrier (the inner electron orbitals) and a positive “repelling” barrier (the positive charge of the nucleus), is becoming “picometrically neutral”, at least for a while. If the p/d/t-e pseudo particle is stable enough it can travel through the two barriers and “grab itself” to other nuclei, through Dallacasa’s potential. What follows has been described by me a number of times.

    Another problem with the reaction
    Li7 + e + Nixx -> Li6 + e + Nixx+1
    is that, even if it can form, the Li7-e would need to reach the nucleus of Ni. And this nucleus is protected by its electron shells: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d8. It seems to me extremely implausible that something of the size of a 1s orbital (the Li+ ion electronic inner shell) can penetrate all those Ni shells. Resuming: a direct neutron exchange between Li7 and Nixx is impossible.
    Something more plausible is that a pe (let us call it “Hydronion”) forms first, then Li7 abandons a neutron, …:
    1 : p + e -> pe
    2 : Li7 + pe -> Li6 + pen
    3 : pen -> de (“Deuteronion”)
    4s: Nixx + de -> Nixx+2 + neutrino
    4c: Nixx +de -> Nixx+1 + pe

    The pen pseudo-particle reacts immediately becoming Deuteronion (de). Deuteronion would be what actually penetrates the Ni electron shells.
    There are two possibilities for reaction 4: 4s (stopping) and 4c (catalytic). If the main reaction chain that realizes the neutron exchange is (1,2,3,4c), the Hydronion (pe) would act as a catalyst, re-entering the chain at reaction 2.
    Deuterium could have not been detected because at 1,400 [C] it would immediately find a way to escape in the gas during the LENR.

    Reagards

    Andrea Calaon

  96. Andrea Calaon

    Dear Joe,
    You asked: “Are you saying that an electron can orbit beneath the ground state of an atom?”.
    In a sense yes. It does sound VERY unplausible …, but …
    Probably the p/d/t-e bound state can be interpreted as something beneath the 1s ground state of an hydrogen atom. A bare hydrogen nucleus (any isotope) has no electron orbitals that could interfere with an incoming electron and I proposed that under special conditions the electron couples with the naked nucleus. The bound electron should not have a wave function with the the classical electron orbital, but it would be a bound.
    This bound state is most probably not stable, in the sense that as soon as a photon with the right energy interacts with it, the coupling is destroyed and the electron can either remain bound to the nucleus in a standard orbital or become completely unbound.
    As I already mentioned I suspect that the spectra measured by Randell Mills at al. (if real) are the emissions at the formation of this probably unstable bound state in a plasma.
    For a Lithium ion (+1), which is surrounded by the fully occupied spherical 1s(2) orbital, for me it is still difficult to imagine a mechanism that arrives to the Li-e coupling.

    Think now to the experiments of Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mithsubishi Heavy Industries, where deuterium seems to be able to “enter” into very different nuclei: Ca, W, Ba, Sr, Cs, … plus all intermediate nuclei involved in the large isotopic shifts measured. The only way a positive charge (the deuteron) can reach another nucleus, which is protected by both a negative “sticky” barrier (the inner electron orbitals) and a positive “repelling” barrier (the positive charge of the nucleus), is becoming “picometrically neutral”, at least for a while. If the p/d/t-e pseudo particle is stable enough it can travel through the two barriers and “grab itself” to other nuclei, through Dallacasa’s potential. What follows has been described by me a number of times.

    Another problem with the reaction
    Li7 + e + Nixx -> Li6 + e + Nixx+1
    is that, even if it can form, the Li7-e would need to reach the nucleus of Ni. And this nucleus is protected by its electron shells: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d8. It seems to me extremely implausible that something of the size of a 1s orbital (the Li+ ion electronic inner shell) can penetrate all those Ni shells. Resuming: a direct neutron exchange between Li7 and Nixx is impossible.
    Something more plausible is that a pe (let us call it “Hydronion”) forms first, then Li7 abandons a neutron, …:
    1 : p + e -> pe
    2 : Li7 + pe -> Li6 + pen
    3 : pen -> de (“Deuteronion”)
    4s: Nixx + de -> Nixx+2 + neutrino
    4c: Nixx +de -> Nixx+1 + pe

    The pen pseudo-particle reacts immediately becoming Deuteronion (de). Deuteronion would be what actually penetrates the Ni electron shells.
    There are two possibilities for reaction 4: 4s (stopping) and 4c (catalytic). If the main reaction chain that realizes the neutron exchange is (1,2,3,4c), the Hydronion (pe) would act as a catalyst, re-entering the chain at reaction 2.
    Deuterium could have not been detected because at 1,400 [C] it would immediately find a way to escape in the gas during the LENR.

    Regards

    Andrea Calaon

  97. Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. Why do you have only the outer electron of 3Li7 involved in the process of neutron transfer? Why are the outer (3d, 4s) electrons of the 28NiXX not involved at all in the Calaon-Guglinski neutron transfer process?

    2. Why would the valence neutron at 7fm prefer exiting along the z-axis in which direction it has no momentum than along the xy-plane in which it has angular momentum? (Remember that Andrea Calaon has the two nuclei with their z-axes parallel rather than collinear as per your view.)

    All the best,
    Joe

  98. Eric Ashworth

    Regards Calaon – Guglinski material. Yes you are correct. For me what you are showing is a chain system. The sun sits within an interregnum where the north of one system connects with the south of another system. The atomic interaction which you show is a simple state of a more complex solar interaction. Whether energy interacts on a micro or macro scale the outcome is an energy interaction. The reason for an interregnum is because I believe there is a law connected to gravity that pulls energy back with regards a state of loss at the centre of a system.
    Well done, Eric Ashworth

  99. Wladimir Guglinski

    Daniel De Caluwé wrote in November 22nd, 2014 at 7:23 PM

    @Wladimir Guglinski,
    @Andrea Calaon,

    Wow, I’m impressed! Calaon-Guglinski very convincing to me!
    ——————————-

    Daniel,
    it seems I have now two Andreas in my life

    regards
    wlad