On 2011-04-13 23:00, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This was formerly titled What We Know from Rossi. It is a list of major
assertions made by Rossi and others, mainly Rossi in his blog
You made me remember that a few weeks ago I started writing down (or
more like, copy/pasting) a list of questions answered by Rossi on his
blog, but eventually dropped the task as I realized it would have been a
huge deal of work. Anyway this is what I ended up with. I hope somebody
else more determined or with more free time than me will pick this up
and continue what I started (which includes arranging questions/answers
in a more coherent manner, fixing typos and wording, etc):
**************************************
how much nickel is used? If the nickel is spread on the tungsten: how
much is the estimation about the power released by the system for unit
of surface or unit of volume?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=1#comment-19090
Dear Enrico: we estimate the consumption of Ni and H has been in the
order of picograms.
We do not use W.
* * *
What is the ratio of hydrogen isotope to metal atoms you reach at your
preferred operating level?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=1#comment-19091
This information is confidential. I am very sorry, but our patent is
still pending, therefore there will be some data that we cannot release,
to avoid heavy legal issues with our licensees.
* * *
It is unclear from the translation as to the amount of H2 consumed. Next
big future has a picture of your apparatus and I can see the pressure
gauge on the H2 tank but no flowmeter on the H2 line.
So my question is what was the gas cylinder pressure before the demo and
after the demo?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=1#comment-19093
Your question is important. The pressure of Hydrogen gas in the tank
before the test was 80 bars and at the end of the test was 80 bars. The
consumption of Hydrogen is in the range of picograms, not enough to
determine a delta P in the tank.
* * *
1) What is the evidence for copper production?
2) Is there any evidence for isotopic anomalies?
3) How is the power switched on and off?
4) Is there evidence of consumption of a fuel?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=1#comment-19099
What you are requesting is contained in our patent application. Other
Scientists already have reached the effect using the informations
contained in the patent application, which is published also on the
Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
But you must be careful about this: this work must be done only in
professional laboratories and with respect of all the safety
requirements. Hydrogen is highly explosive and nickel powder is very
toxic. To make such experiments without the necessary experience and
professional instrumentation can be lethal.
* * *
How much Ni is in the cell?
How much total energy, heat and radiation, is produced per hour for a
gram of Ni?
Are some other elements used to facilitate the reactions?
How small can a working cell be made ? for instance, for home power
units buried in the yard?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=1#comment-19105
In the cell there are several milligrams of Ni
To make 10 kWh/h the consume of Ni and H is in the order of several
picograms, but considering that not all the Ni in the reactor reacts,
the actual consumption, to make 10 kWh/h is of about 0,1 g of Ni and
0,01 g of H
Yes, other elements are used, upon which we have to maintain
confidentiality until the patent pending becomes a patent
The dimensions of a unit like the one you are thinking of, of course not
considering the authorization issues, could be about one cm 50 x 100 x
50 with the present technology.
* * *
One picogram is 1/1000 of a billionth of a gram. Why do you refer to
picograms as they are many orders of magnitude smaller than grams?
According to your figures (.1 g per 10 kwh), 1 Kg of Nickel would
deliver 10 kW for 10 000 hours, roughly 14 months. Is this correct?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=1#comment-19116
You are correct, but I distinguished between the mass of Ni which reacts
and the mass of Ni that you need in the reactor to obtain that the
necessary mass reacts. The efficiency is very low, due to the
probabilistic issue.
* * *
We hear a pulsating sound in the video of the operating catalyzer. What
is causing the sound?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=1#comment-19117
The sound ( kind of tac, tac, tac…) is made by the water pump, which is
a precision dosator .
* * *
Can you simply state what the Watts IN are versus Watts OUT?
Can you turn off the input current? Does the reaction become
self-sustaining?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=1#comment-19118
Watts in: 400 wh/h
Watts out: 15,000 wh/h
Yes, we can turn off the input current, but we prefer to maintain a
drive and the reasons are very difficult to explain without violating my
confidentiality restraints.
The reaction becomes self sustaining.
* * *
Do you understand the mechanism of the reaction on a quantitative level?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=1#comment-19122
To answer your question a precise theory about what happens in the
reactor is necessary. As for me, I am still working on it, using the
empirical data we get from the perations
The only thing we know for sure is the amount of mass we lose starting
from the amount of delta energy.
* * *
The picogram estimation is for every hour?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=2#comment-19125
Conservatively, I would say 0,01 g/kWh of Ni is the actual demand of Ni
is necessary, even if the mass that really reacts is in the order of
picograms.
The ratio Output Energy/Input Energy , conservatively, is always over 6 .
* * *
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=2#comment-19128
We are not able to know which instable atoms are produced DURING the
operation of the reactor, but we can analyze the composition of the
powders left AFTER the operations: in such powders we do not find
instable elements.
We use “catalyzers” to improve the reactions. Upon the nature of such
catalyzers we will be unconfudential as soon as our patent will have
finished its course.
* * *
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=2#comment-19129
In the cell there are several grams of Ni
With 1 gram of Ni the average real production of energy is around 100 kWh
* * *
How much is the period for the maintenance? Is there a scheduled time
when you need to stop the system to change some parts?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=2#comment-19135
The maintainance can be done every 6 months.
With this pit stop also the spare parts issue is verified.
* * *
What is the longest period of time that the apparatus was in operation?
On the Internet I found that you have been working on the device that
would produce MW of thermal energy. What is the progress with such a device?
Did you find or are aware of any limitations of power density that could
be achieved?
In the demo there was a mention of the gamma radiation spike after the
input power was switched off. How do you explain this?
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=2#comment-19141
The longest period of time we already experienced for our reactors up to
now is around 2 years.
The device, made combining modules equal to the one tested yesterday,
will be in operation in few months.
Please, what do you mean, in this case when you say “power density”? If
you mean which volume is necessary per kW of power, I can say about 5
liters per kW, just for the thermal power.
The gamma ray issue is a very interesting one. We have to work a lot to
understand it. Sincerely, I have not a clue, so far.
* * *
During the experiment of yesterday, what kind of radiation escape from
the system?
No radiation escape has been detected, apart a slight deviation of gamma
rays respect the ground values,
* * *
when your fusion engine is in mass production, what will be the cost of
electricity of 1 kw/h in Euo-Cents? What is your estimation? How do you
intend to convert heat in electricity?
.
I estimate that the cost of energy made with this system will be below 1
cent/kWh, in case of electric power made by means of a Carnot cycle, and
below 1 cent/4,000 M J in case of thermal power production for heating
purposes.
* * *
I suppose that is obviously a typo: “… and below 1 cent/4,000 J in case
of thermal power production for heating purposes”
1 kWh = 3,6 MJ
.
Of course you are right, it was a typo. Sorry, now I go to correct
* * *
I don’t feel the atomic microscope provides good evidence for copper
production (answer 1). This is because most of the expected copper
isotopes are radioactive and would not survive the journey. 59Cu for
example has a half life of 81 seconds.
So the question arises, where does the copper come from?
As most chemists know, commercial hydrogen is produced in enormous
quantities from fossil fuels by variations on the water-gas process.
Consequently it is usually contaminated by small quantities of carbon
monoxide.
At temperatures of a few 100 degrees C, CO reacts reversibly with Nickel
metal (and iron) to produce a volatile carbonyl Ni(CO)4. This is used in
the Mond process for purifying Nickel on an industrial scale. In a
system where there exists a temperature differential, as is the case of
the demonstration device, metal will appear to evaporate from cooler
surfaces and be deposited on hotter surfaces. The carbon monoxide is
regenerated so even a tiny quantity can transport quite large quantities
over a period of time. Quartz halogen lamps work on the same principle.
Obviously the CO cannot transport non nickel impurities which therefore
are concentrated on the Nickel surface exactly where the atomic
microscope finds them. The microscope will only detect quite large
quantities of copper (mg) which would have produced considerable heat
had they been produced by a nuclear reaction. I need hardly add that
lethal gamma radiation would also be produced.
Are the SIMS data published? Unfortunately mass data alone is somewhat
ambiguous. Have you considered neutron activation analysis which would
identify specific isotopes? A comparison between the 2 methods might
distinguish between a proton capture (Focardi)and picno-chemistry
(Dufour) conjectures.
.
About the copper issue: I agree, in fact we never found, as I said,
instable copper in the residual powders.
About the copper contaminations: could be, but there is no coherence
with the mass balance: the amounts of copper we found in the residual
powders are too big.
I will follow your suggestion about a comparision of the 2 methods, is a
good idea: so far we didn’t make neutron activation analysis.
* * *
I would still like to understand why you think Ni62 could possibly have
any exothermic reactions.
Collis Williams has attempted to reply, but it is naive to think that
there can be an exothermic reaction from a resultant 6.15MeV excited
63Cu, as its total binding energy is 8.7MeV higher than 62Ni. Where does
the extra 2.6MeV come from? Surely you have to balance the total binding
energy, as well as the total mass, to analyse the energy flow?
The per-nucleon binding energy of 63Cu and 62Ni are around 8.7MeV. So it
would be thermodynamically unfavourable for an additional nucleon to be
added to 62Ni with only 6.15MeV available from mass-energy alone.
This would have to be endothermic if you have only 6.15MeV, yet the
total binding energy goes up by more than 8MeV.
I have given a more detailed account on;
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=54883#54883 {which also
covers each possible nuclear reaction (each of which cannot result in
heat)}.
The question is; how can the 6.15MeV mass-energy increase of
62Ni+p->63Cu account for a total binding energy increase of 8.7MeV, and
yet also be exothermic?
.
I base my work on facts, than I work on theories.
The fact that we get 10 folds more energy at the output respect the
input implies that something in contraddiction with what you are saying
is going out.
As I said, we are working strongly upon the theoretical issues. I know
that in this field there are still contradictions with the rules as they
are known today.
* * *
can you say something about your commercialization timeframe. Which
markets do you address? When do you expect mass production?
.
the commercialization timeframe is at most 1 year.
We have contracts in the USA and in Europe.
Mass production should escalate in 2-3 years.
* * *
In your previous experiments, as reported in the Rossi-Focardi paper
(http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf) the
energy out/inp COP was averaging 200. This is an order of magnitude more
than today experiment where COP reached around 20 according your info.
Could you clarify the reasons of this huge difference in COP?
.
January 15th, 2011 at 4:29 PM
You are right. The reason why now the K factor is lower is that we
passed from experimental and extreme lab tests to an industrial product
that has to be dealt with by normal operators, with total reliability.
To make the reactors totally reliable and safe beyond any concern, we
had to increase the margins of safety of an order of magnitude.
* * *
January 16th, 2011 at 6:54 AM
We will start the serial production of our modules very soon. Combibing
the modules in series and parallel arrays it is possible to reach every
limit of power. The modules are designed to be connected in series and
parallels.
* * *
Permitame por favor otra pregunta:?Es aplicable su tecnologia de fusion
fria a la propulsion de naves espaciales?
.
January 16th, 2011 at 7:16 AM
Yes, we are working already on this.
* * *
Le volevo porre una domanda, il brevetto pubblicato nel suo foglio di
ricerca, non e quello definitivo?
.
January 16th, 2011 at 10:18 AM
The patent issue is very complicated. When you make a patent
application, you present e text and a list of claims. After your
application, begins a long ( we are working on it since more than 2
years) and very expensive list of modifications, integrations etc etc
due to the dialectic evolution of the patent which is worked on by the
inventor and the specialists of the patent office. The text , therefore,
is continuously modified and enriched of elements that the patent
Officer deems to be necessary to permit the regular patent.
The final text of the patent is what results after 2-3 years of
confrontations. It is not a simple matter, but we have to understand
that the Patent Office has to be sure to grant to the Public that, in
change of the 20 years protection, the inventor, in this case me, has to
disclose to the Public all the clues of the technology.
Of course, such clues remain confidential until the Patent is granted.
* * *
If this device uses input heat, and produces 10 times more output heat,
then why can’t you turn off the input after it has started? Shouldn’t
the heat generated by the nuclear reaction be more than enough to keep
itself going?
A device which can produce 10 kernels of wheat from one kernel, only
needs one kernel to feed the world.
.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:05 PM
You are right. In fact we can turn off the resistance: we do it
regularly in our R&D center. The reason why in a module for the public
we have to maintain a drive is connected with safety reasons. To explain
why this I should have to explain confidential issues.
* * *
Un’ altra domanda, sviluppi futuri della macchina (notizie, teorie
commercializzazione etc) saranno pubblicati qui? Oppure le potremmo
trovare in altri siti da Lei controllati?
And another suggestion, i’t possible to turn on the reaction by a high
current discharge trough the Nickel mass? ( nickel that have trapped
hydrogen?)
.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:29 PM
All the data regarding the future market developments and technological
improvents of our reactors will be published here, but we authorize
every blog to get our posts, comments etc and use them for free for what
they want. Therefore you will find everything also in the many blogs
that usually deal with this matter.
About your idea of trying to turn on the reactin by means of an arc: I
never say “this is right” or “this is wrong”. Everything has to be
tried. Maybe your is a good idea.
* * *
I wonder if your catalyst is producing some hydrino, and then the
hydrino will manage to fuse with the Ni.
.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:34 PM
First of all, thank you for your kind interest. I am sorry, but I cannot
give informations about the catalyzers.
* * *
1) Who is the inventor(s) of this device? Is it yourself or yourself and
others?
2) I would like to suggest that you release specific plans for a simple
version of this device that can self-sustain. I recognize there are
dangers involved. However, I personally know SEVERAL highly skilled
engineers with access to top notch equipment that would be interested in
replicating your technology. The issue is that I know they would want
*details* for replication instead of spending their time and money
trying to “guess” what is the best way to go forward. They have went
down that path before with other claims without success. If you could
provide even basic plans for a simple version of your device it would be
tremendously helpful. In such plans you could list….
a) The size/shape/volume of the cell and it’s material.
b) The part number of the resistor.
c) The input current/voltage.
d) The amount of nickle powder and a source for the powder.
e) How to put the powder in the cell. I have read that it is placed into
a ceramic?
f) How much shielding you would recommend.
g) How to make sure that enough of the dihydrogen is being converted to
hydrogen.
Basically, a “bill of materials” and a brief instruction guide.
Would you please consider this?
3) For the past two days I have been pouring over all the information I
can find about your technology. I am simply blown away. I have no reason
to think you are lying so it seems you have the HOLY GRAIL of energy
production. If this is the case the world needs to be convinced ASAP.
The best way I know to do this is with replication by hundreds of
people. Are you willing to help those that want to replicate?
.
January 16th, 2011 at 4:01 PM
1- I am the inventor of the method and the apparatus.
2- You are asking to me to give away for free technology and know how.
It is impossible, for obvious reasons.
3- We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived
to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market.
In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories,
hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the
market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince
people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell
it, as we are doing.
You are not convinced? It is not my problem. My problem is make my
reactors work. I think that the reason for which I arrived to a working
reactor is that I bellieved in my work, therefore, instead of chattering
and play the big genius with mental masturbations, spent all my money,
without help and financing from anywhere, to make thousands of reactors
that didn’t work, until I made the right one, following my theories that
may be are wrong, but in any case gave me the result I wanted.
If somebody is convinced he has a good idea, he has not to convince
anybody by chattering, he has to make something that works and sell it
to a Customer who decides to buy because can see a product which works.
If a Customer wants not my product no problem, I go to another, without
chattering or giving away free technology.
What I made is not a “Holy Graal”, as you ironically say, is just a
product. My Customers know it works, this is why they bought it,that’s
enough for me. We are investing to make thousands of reactors and is
totally irrilevant for us if somebody or manybodies make negative
chatterings about our work.
To ask us to give away as a gift our technology, in which I invested my
life, to convince somebody or morebodies that my reactors work is
contrary to the foundamental rules of the economy.
To convince the World of our product we have just to sell products which
work well, not to chatter. If somebody is convinced to have invented
something better or equal to our product, he has not to chatter, he has
to make a product better or equal to ours and sell it.
* * *
This device will work at temperature a minus of 30 degrees of Celsius?
January 17th, 2011 at 3:16 PM
No , the device does not work at those temperatures; it needs at least 400°C
* * *
I’m interested to know if you have any scientific articles in
preparation about your experimental set up and results.
I’m a bit worried that this is again taking place at a press conference
rather than a scientific journal.
Please be aware that by no means I am critizicing your research or
casting doubts about your results, but you must understand that due to
the sensitive nature that the energy industry has I’m certain that you
will face constant attacks as others have in the past when publishing
research on this particular topic.
.
January 17th, 2011 at 3:35 PM
The report of the test that has been made by the indipendent reviewers
in Bologna will be put online as soon as the Prof. of the University of
Bologna, who made the test, will deliver it. I think it will take a
week, while they are elaborating the data.
The publication will be made on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, and all
the magazines and blogs will be free to publish them.
* * *
1. Does the integrity of the Ni lattice have to be maintained ? do
damage, disruption, and melting impede the results?
2. If so, then a single or a few reactions in one nanograin of Ni may
preclude further reactions within that grain ? what percentage of
grains might be disabled per hour of normal heat production?
2. How many other elements, solid at various temperatures from
cyrogenic to incandescent, might have similar results, with increased
pressure and or temperature of H2 gas?
3. Could pressure alone be the major facilitating factor?
.
January 17th, 2011 at 3:39 PM
1- No, it is not necessary within certain limits
2- see answer 1
3- I can’ answer
4- yes, provided pressure is properly used
* * *
Is this a batch process, or can it be run continuously?
.
January 17th, 2011 at 4:00 PM
It is a batch which lasts 6 months. Every 6 mo you have to change the
charge and make maintainance.
* * *
January 17th, 2011 at 3:52 PM
to start up the reactor you have just to turn on a switch. The reactor
works with enormous margins of safety, so there is no need of a
particular skill. Just follow the instructions. The refuelling is every
6 months and will be made by our dealers.
* * *
January 17th, 2011 at 4:12 PM
To make a device that self sustains, apart the enormous risk of
explosion that you would encounter, I would have to explain to you the
whole technology.
* * *
I think what the previous poster meant is if the device as a whole (not
its internal processes) needs specific conditions in order to properly
work. Does it need for example to be in a climate controlled
environment? Does it have a definite operating temperature range?
To be more specific and clear, could I put the device in a poorly
ventilated basement and expect it to work? Or in a semi-enclosed cabinet
outdoor subject to natural climate variations?
.
January 17th, 2011 at 4:18 PM
The device has not particular needs, I would say the same needs of a
normal boiler.
* * *
- will be the reactor on sell also for the common consumers?
- if yes what will be the cost of a reactor?
- to use the output power of the reactor, for example in a house, is it
possible to
connect the reactor to a turbine for the production of electricity? and
to heat also the
building?
.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:41 AM
soon as possible, our marketing division will give the necessary
communications about what you are asking.
* * *
January 18th, 2011 at 9:57 AM
The drive is necessary to stabilize the reactor .
The Authorization issue is a very important one and our legal department
is working on it.
* * *
Se nel catalizzatore mettendo Nichel si ottiene Rame e verosimele che
mettendo Platino si possa ottenere Oro ?
.
January 18th, 2011 at 4:06 PM
It is possible that Pt can be turned into Au, but are you sure it is worth?
* * *
I presume the reaction chamber is not sealed and the cooling water does
not flow through the reactor itself. In this case have you measured the
water vapour content of the reactor vent pipe to check for hydrogen
combustion?
.
January 18th, 2011 at 6:09 PM
There is no hydrogen combustion: we weight the hydrogen tank before and
after the tests, and the difference of weight is in the order of decimal
of grams.
* * *
The energy output should be useful but what Carnot efficiency are you
assuming in your electricity configuration? That’s an area I have looked
at, it may be possible to get efficiency up a little and add some
vehicular application with a pneumatic heat engine rather than a steam
engine.
.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:17 AM
once the energy has been produced, what happens after when you use it
has no differences from the usual : the Carnot cycle efficiency is the
same as usual, of course, depending on the efficiency of the power
generation system.
* * *
What will happen if the owner of commercial reactor violates safety rules?
What if the input electric voltage will be increased, with naive
intention to produce more output energy?
What if the lead shield removed/broken?
What if somebody drills a hole through operating reactor?
.
January 19th, 2011 at 11:04 AM
1- safety rules are impossible to violate, because if you violate them
the reactor turns off
2- in this case , also, the reactor turns off
3- to break or remove the lead shield is impossible unless intentional.
If they crash a hammer upon their head, there is nothing anybody can do…
4- the reactor will not turn on.
* * *
January 19th, 2011 at 2:55 PM
In our reactors we put metals and hydrogen, and at the end we have
metals, which are raw materials.
No radioactive waste is left.
* * *
in un futuro (spero non troppo lontano) sara possibile sfruttare la sua
tecnologia per produrre quantita massive di energia elettrica,
sostituendo in toto gli attuali combustibili ?
.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:57 PM
I think that many sources of energy will integrate themselves for a long
time.
* * *
“What if the lead shield removed/broken?” “to break or remove the lead
shield is impossible unless intentional. If they crash a hammer upon
their head, there is nothing anybody can do…”
Mr Rossi, you’re too much intelligent to don’t understand that this is
not an answer about the question.
What happen if someone remove protection intentionally or casually
break… which is the risks… how far can reach and hit people in dangerous
way.
.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:59 PM
You can break the shielding only if the reactor is not working. In this
case no harm is there.
* * *
if I understand are on the threshold of a new era. I would ask you if
there are problems to come out from your Energy Catalyzer with pressures
sing at 20/30 bar, or more, in order to power a steam turbine generator
with attached and, while we are there, to carryng the outgoing steam in
a heat exchanger steam / water to heat the house?
.
January 20th, 2011 at 5:56 AM
Yes it is possible.
* * *
I have a question:
1) The heat required for the fusion process is 400C at 80 bar pressure
and this you say is provided by a heating element consuming 1KW at first
and then reduced to 600W once the reaction starts. Why is the heater
required once the process starts when the main output is heat?
.
January 20th, 2011 at 6:00 AM
For safety reasons we need to maintain a drive.
* * *
Io non sono un fisico e non ho capito molto delle spiegazioni tecniche,
pero a me sembra che questa sia una notizia sensazionale e sinceramente
mi pare strano che se ne parli solo in ambiti ristretti e poi non
capisco questo ostruzionismo da parte di alcuni insigni accademici.So
che ci sono diverse persone anche in Italia che fanno studi sulla
fusione fredda, la prima domanda (forse banale) e questa: cosa c’e di
diverso (in termini di risultati) nella sua macchina Ing. Rossi rispetto
ai reattori che probabilmente altri scienziati hanno fatto sulla base
sempre degli esperimenti di Fleischmann e Pons? Quanto costera il
catalizzatore? ed i costi di manutenzione? Sara possibile investire in
quote/azioni della societa produttrice? Non posso che concludere facendo
i complimenti a lei e al Prof. Focardi (mio prof. di Fisica
all’universita) che gia 15 anni fa ci parlava nelle sue fantastiche
lezioni di questo fenomeno. Spero che l’evoluzione commerciale del
catalizzatore e della societa produttrice vengano divulgati su questo
post cosi da rimanere aggiornati
.
January 20th, 2011 at 6:04 AM
Come sicuramente Lei sa l’esperimento di Fleishmann e Pons era basato
sull’elettrolisi dell’acqua pesante mediante elettrodi di Pd e Pt.
Noi non usiamo elettrolisi, ne Pt, ne Pd, ne tanto meno acqua pesante.
La descrizione del processo puo essere trovata sul Journal Of Nuclear
Physics ( alla voce “brevetto”).
* * *
Approfitto della possibilita di scrivere in italiano, visto il mio
inglese non perfetto.
L’ing. Rossi ed il signor Pilotti, capiranno che dopo decenni di
delusioni nel campo della fusione fredda, una certa freddezza e
scetticismo e d’obbligo, anche in considerazione della presentazione
“non standard” del fenomeno.
Il mio consiglio, non richiesto, e quello di aprire la scatola e svelare
al piu presto il funzionamento del catalizzatore, in modo che la
comunita scientifica possa replicare l’esperimento e dare nel caso il
giusto risalto alla scoperta. Fintantoche sul funzionamento e sulla
replicabilita dell’esperimento rimarra un velo di mistero, lo
scetticismo e d’obbligo. Tutto questo chiaramente cautelandovi
preventivamente acquisendo i necessari brevetti.
mantenere a lungo segreti non fa bene agli inventori, ne alla scienza…
rischia invece di creare delle aspettative capaci di creare
rallentamenti delle ricerche nel campo delle energie alternative.
Questa e comunque la mia personale opinione, condivisa del resto da
molti che come me guardano con interesse alla cosa cercando di mantenere
il giusto distacco.
.
January 20th, 2011 at 8:55 AM
Lei ha ragione, dal Suo punto di vista, ma si metta nei panni di chi ha
investito capitali notevoli in questa ricerca e che adesso vuole rientrare…
* * *
1) Are there any issues with your technology related to scale? For
example, have you constructed working devices of several different
sizes? I’m curious about this, because I could imagine small versions of
your technology powering everything from laptops to cell phones.
2) Have you had any interest from NASA or other space agencies? I would
think your technology could be used to power satellites, space stations,
bases on other planets, rovers, etc.
3) Have you tested materials from different suppliers? I have heard
claims in the past of cold fusion scientists having great results with
materials from one supplier, but then having trouble producing the
effect with materials from another supplier.
4) I read a comment on another forum claiming that in one of your cells
after six months of operation the remaining nickel powder was 30%
copper. Can you confirm this?
5) When you are able to produce 400 times the energy out than you are
putting in are you simply consuming more nickel/hydrogen or are you
increasing the efficiency of energy produced from every gram of fuel?
For example, when you are producing 400 times the energy you are putting
in are you also consuming 400 times the fuel or are you getting more
energy from every gram?
6) Without disclosing any details about the catalysts would you say they
are common/cheap/affordable so obtaining them will not be an issue that
hinders this technology?
7) Could one of your devices function without the radiation shielding?
For example, what if someone wanted to use one of your devices to
irradiate food.
.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:14 AM
1- the modules are od 10 kW and can be combined without superior limits.
No possible smaller modules, so far
2- No
3- No
4- No
5- More energy from same charge
6- No info about cats
7- no
* * *
So in theory it could run without input power once the operating
temperature is reached and the reaction has initiated.
Why is it unsafe to remove power to the heating element when it is in
operation?
I would have thought that controlling the core temperature so it is
below a safe level would be more important than a steady supply of
additional heat via a heating element.
I understand that you need to pump the hydrogen gas through the nickel
powder to get the reaction to occur.
Does the flow rate of gas determine the amount of reaction that takes
place and hence the power output?
Can the process be made to work without your *secret* catalysis, in
other words, some powdered nickel and hydrogen gas for the fuel?
I am guessing that your catalysis is a gas or a cocktail of gases.
Can the vessel that contains the powdered nickel be filled with water or
will water boil at 80 bar and 400C?
.
January 20th, 2011 at 10:15 AM
1- No
2- No
3- No,
* * *
Some queries have been raised regarding the meter used to check that the
steam is dry. Could you indicate here details such as its working
temperature range and sensitivity?
.
To answer you I phoned to the scientist who made the measure of the
water in the steam, Dr Gilberto Galantini.
The instrument was:
Delta Ohm HD 37AB1347 supplied with a particular probe idoneous for the
high temperature.
I have received many other questions on this issue in these minutes, so
this answer is valid for all. Of course the probe was a high temperature
probe, if not it could not make the measure in the steam.
* * *
I see in the information sheet that there is indeed a probe available
with ‘application range’ up to 150 deg. C (though confusingly it says
below it sensor operating temperature -20 … +80 which I think must be a
mistake). The sensor is based on capacitance, which should provide a
good measure of the amount of water present.
.
January 20th, 2011 at 1:01 PM
Sincerely, the test has been made by very high level scientists who
brought their instrumentation. I am not a strumentist, but I assume that
a guy (Dr Galantini), president of the order of Chemists, with 50 years
of experience is able to measure the dryness of steam. I for sure did
not control the instrumentations of the scientists, because I believed
“a priori” to their very high professionality. I was terrorized of that
test, because should something go wrong I would have been killed, but I
accepted the test because I had total and full trust in the Scientists.
* * *
January 21st, 2011 at 2:39 AM
I think the demonstration you held in Bologna and the experimental
results obtained are really impressive!
I have a few questions for you:
1) It is possible to modulate the device output power (i.e. regulate it
dynamically), or it is fixed once it reaches a steady state?
2) How pure has to be the Ni, or what is the impact of impurities in the
reagents or in the reactor environment? (It seems that this is an issue
in some LENR reactions)
3) As an engineer I understand the need of an external drive, but I
suspect that this “safety drive” can be implemented in a more efficient
way, for example by employing an electronic control system. This will
provide a more precise control of operations, so allowing to recycle
part of the output power, yet maintaining high safety level. Do you
think it will be eventually possible or not due to very specific issues?
(I ask this question since if the input power could be reduced, your
technology will suite an even wider range of applications!)
.
January 21st, 2011 at 3:44 AM
1-The output of a single module is not modulable. The output of combined
modules is modulable turning on/off one or more modules
2- The kind of Ni is a factor. I cannot add infos to this issue
3- Thank you very much for this statement, it is important. You are right
* * *
Mr Rossi, I’ve one simple question : How do you estimate the
difficulties to increase the power of your reactor type? For example 1MW
(vapeur), a factor around 100 of actual output power.
.
January 21st, 2011 at 3:47 AM
The power is increase combining modules: combining in series you add the
delta T, combining in parallel you add the amountof thermal energy
maintaining constant the Delta T.
* * *
How many daily website hits were you getting a few weeks ago, and how
many are you getting now?
Do they keep increasing? Do you think you’re getting enough media coverage?
Are you going to “advertise” some more your demonstration?
I know you’ve already written that you’re beyond the phase to convince
people of your findings, but personally I think that it would be nice to
show to the general uninformed public something to fuel their
imagination, for example webcam filming streaming video of one of your
device doing a certain amount of work in an amount of time long enough
to inequivocally (even without scientific measurements) show that it
“just works!”.
I’m not sure if you’re realizing all the implications of this discovery
or if you’re just being too humble.
Since you’re not following the conventional scientific method in
disclosing it (instead, direct debut to the market before full peer
review and replication attempts) anyway, I think that you should try a
more wild approach!
.
January 21st, 2011 at 4:45 AM
1- I do not know
2- We are giving solid scientific information, apart the detaols inside
the reactor which will remain industrial secret at least untilthe patent
is granted
3- We made an important test with the University of Bologna, with whom
we are going to make a 1 year research program also.
4- Our next step: presentation of the 1 MW power plant we are
manufacturing in the USA for our European Customer.
* * *
Do you think to partecipate to the next ICCF16 that will be held in
India on Febbuary? Does somebody invited you to demonstrate the 10kW
reactor?
I can only imagine the expressions on the faces of the many scientists
that will be there when they will see a “cold fusion” reactor that make
10kW of continuous power.
It will be nice if, to do not waste the energy, it will be possible to
make some cup of good italian espresso and offer to everyone that is
present.
.
January 21st, 2011 at 1:55 PM
Yes there will be a Scientist talking about us, no demo anyway: no more
demos before the start up of the 1 MW plant.
* * *
Our factory uses about 1MW during the daytime at full production mode.
So a 1 MW plant is a small scale plant.
Even so, its a lot of power and I look forward to seeing the results of
further experiments.
When will the 1MW plant be ready for load testing?
Do you have any pictures of the plant in development?
.
January 21st, 2011 at 6:40 PM
It is matter of months, due mainly to authorization issues.
* * *
1) which is the Ni(64) contents of your sample?
2) did you try the same experiment by using vanadium instead of nikel?
(according to my possible interpretation of the phenomenon the vanadium
should be better)
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:25 AM
We use regular Ni, so the isotopic composition is the normal one.
We give not information about what is in the reactor beside Ni, H.
* * *
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:25 AM
Dear Mr Gianluca:
We use regular Ni, so the isotopic composition is the normal one.
We give not information about what is in the reactor beside Ni, H.
* * *
A few mainstream media organizations are posting about this discovery.
They are typically being very negative. Discovery and Popular Science
are two magazines who have posted negative articles online. The
skepticism in their articles is horrible. They automatically dismiss
cold fusion when thousands of experiments have confirmed it exists.
In many of the subject areas I am interested in I have had to deal with
pathological skepticism like this. My hope is this new cold fusion
technology will launch as quickly as possible. With articles like these
waiting two or three months for the 1 megawatt plant to open will drive
me crazy.
If authorization issues stop the plant from opening I would urge you to
find a nation somewhere which will allow you to quickly open a plant. If
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gives you any grief I would suggest
you go into talks with China. I am sure they would pay a LOT of money to
utilize this technology.
I bet a demonstration of the technology to a few top Chinese scientists
would quickly result in an offer of billions of dollars for usage
rights. China has more people than any other nation in the world and
desperately needs a source of clean energy.
.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:28 AM
I think that now is important to make plants which work regularly, so
that chattering will vanish.
When first cars appeared at the end of the 19th century nobody could
believe horse’s era was over.
* * *
Sorry to write with another potential problem.
Someone has pointed out that even very small amounts of water (e.g. 1%
by volume) have a large effect on the heat capacity (because this would
be a large fraction by mass). And the capacitance change is related to
the volume (and dielectric constant) of liquid water, not the mass.
So the error bars on the measurement of liquid water content are quite
important, and it would be nice to know what the upper bound on liquid
water content actually is (and alternative ways of determining heat
content would be of value as well). I should say though that from the
figures for input and output power even raising the water to boiling
would imply over-unity.
.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:41 AM
When we run the reactor with water, not steam, the measured power is the
same as when we produce steam and I deem this is the proof of the
correct measurement made with steam. We made many tests with water and
the operation with steam has just confirmed the same efficiency.
Anyway:
1- We will continue our R&D program with the University of Bologna and
we will continue to put online the not confidential data, comparing
efficiency with steam vs with steam production
2- We are manufacturing in the USA a 1 MW plant and we will make a
public presentation of it. As I always say, in this field we need
production of facts and facts are working plants. We need WORKING
PLANTS, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, THEORY IMPROVEMENT.
This is a lot of work, but we have just to do it.
* * *
Is your novel invention somehow related to Dr. Randell Mills (Blacklight
Power, Inc.) hydrogen reactor based on hydrino reaction?
If not, do you see any possible relation with it?
.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:15 AM
My method and technology is not at all related with the one you
mentioned. If you read my patent (go to
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com and click on Patent) and the
description of the method you mentioned, there is no relationship at all.
This my statement is absolutely not a criticism agaist the other method,
it is just a statement about the total difference between the two.
* * *
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:34 AM
The same Professors of the University of Bologna who made the test of
the 14th of January, had made a preliminar test, closed doors, on the
17th of December 2010.
During that preliminar test, made to check the idoneity of their
instrumentation, being closed doors we could make a mode of operation
that, for safety issues, I cannot make in public, it is they made the
reactor go also without the drive of the electric resistance. This
preliminar test will also be described in the report that will be
published on monday. In that case, we had a production of energy, with
no energy at all at the input. The same thing happened in tests we made
for our Customers, in the USA and in Europe.
You know what happens if you put any number upside a line of fraction
and zero below the same line.
This is why this mode is dangerous: before use it we need to know
perfectly the theory. Where I need real help is the formulation of a
solid theory; books can help, but up to a certain point, here is a new
chapter to write. Less than all help comments of imbeciles (from Latin
“imbacula”, not an offense at all) who just say “it is impossible” ,
turn around, and go.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Useless to say that if you make just warmed water instead of steam the
output energy calculated is the same.
Warm Regards,
* * *
What is the longest time you have been able to let a cell run without an
input (self sustain mode)? What made the cell stop?
Have you taken any readings of the radioactive emissions inside of the cell?
Thanks for answering all of our questions.
.
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:38 AM
We used that extreme mode, closed doors, also for many hours, sometimes
having troubles to stop the reactor.
To stop the rreactor we cut the injection of hydrogen and increase the
water flow to cool down the reactor.
* * *
First of all, I didn’t say the energy output would be the same for hot
water or for steam, only that it would still be over unity (i.e. more
than the input energy) in the former case.
I should like to make it clear that the comments I forwarded were from
people sympathetic to cold fusion, as I am (if you follow the link to my
web site you’ll see that I have made your demonstration my ‘link of the
day’), and who would hope that they can be addressed satisfactorily. I
have visited an number of CF labs, including that of Prof. Celani at
Frascati, and have been favourably impressed with much of the evidence.
The point however is that even experts have been known to overlook
things and it is important to try to catch any problems before the real
sceptics get to work. I myself was surprised to learn how even small
amounts of liquid water have drastic effects.
No doubt your experts have taken this into account and I look forward to
reading Dr. Levi’s account with the details. And if you can run the
reactor in self-sustaining mode as you have described, that should
settle people’s doubts.
Incidentally, there are (believe it or not) some experimentalists at
Cambridge University who are very interested in the subject, and may
have an interest in doing some of the backup research that you have
mentioned.
.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:48 PM
Thank you for your insight. By the way, your comments have been
important. I am really interested to interact with your group to study
on the theory. By the way: after the short test of Bologna, we decided
that we will go ahead studying with the University of Bologna, through a
Research Program, to indagate the reactions. We will make you acquainted
with this research, for what concerns data which we can release, I mean
data which we deem not confidential, at least until the patent is granted.
* * *
I was just wondering … does the reactor contain any radioactive
materials before the reaction begins, or is all the radioactivity
produced by the functioning of the apparatus itself?
.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:49 PM
No radioactive material is in the reactor before.
* * *
I was expecting to find into the report some explanation on the system
used to validate the data about water Input/ Steam Output. Unfortunately
I do not see them into the report.
How was the amount of water transformed to Steam controlled?
Considering that the inflow rate of water for 1 hour of test would be
less than 16 Lt, one might think that not all the water coming in was
transformed into steam, but that it simply accumulated inside the reactor.
A proper setup should have a way to directly determine the quantity of
steam coming out of the apparatus. An easyer and cheaper setup might be
a simple digital balance placed under the reactor itself so to check the
weight of the apparatus in the start of the experiment and, most
important, “during” the experiment.
This simple data can make a huge difference in your next pubblic
demostration.
Do you have any data that was not disclosed that can clarify these points?
.
January 23rd, 2011 at 10:49 AM
The volume of the reactor is 1 liter.
If you read carefully the report you find all yuo are asking for.
In any case, soon we will have operative reactors of 1 MW at work 24
hours per day.
This will be our next public demo.
* * *
You wrote: “In any case, soon we will have operative reactors of 1 MW at
work 24 hours per day.”
Do you mean 1 MW electric power generator? Or a 1 MW steam generator,
for factory process heat?
I asked this before. Perhaps you answered but I do not see the answer.
A 1 MW electric power generator needs ~3 MW of heat.
.
January 23rd, 2011 at 4:48 PM
Thermal.
* * *
January 27th, 2011 at 5:26 PM
During the test of the 14th, before turning on the reactor the
Professors who made the test have controlled the absence od exotic
devices. By the way, they had tested previously the reactor one month
before (see the report), to know better about it.
By the way, we are manufacturing our 1 MW plant, which will go in
operation pretty soon, 24 hours per day, so that all these
considerations will be deleted.
And the attempts we are fighting against to try to block the evolution
of this tech will be deleted too.
* * *
Why do you need a continous heat input of 400W also during fusion
reaction? The input electrical heater should then be obsolete when
fusion starts?
.
January 27th, 2011 at 5:32 PM
Yes, but a continuous drive is necessary for safety issues.
* * *
January 27th, 2011 at 6:28 PM
I MISSED WITH A WRONG CLICK A QUESTION OF A READER, BUT I REMEMBER THE
QUESTION, WHICH IS:
WHICH KIND OF PUMP WAS THAT YOU USED TO FEED THE WATER TO THE REACTOR
DURING THE TEST?
ANSWER: THE PUMP IS A PERISTALTIC PUMP. THE FLOW OF WATER HAS BEEN
MEASURED BEFORE TURNING ON THE REACTOR BY THE PROFESSORS WHO MADE THE
TEST, BY OPENING THE CIRCUIT AND CHRONOMETRING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT
FILLED UP A RESERVOIR OF 1 LITER. THEY REPEATED THE MEASUREMENT THREE TIMES.
APART THE PUMP, THEY ALSO WEIGHTED THE HYDROGEN TANK BEFORE AND AFTER
THE TEST, TO MEASURE THE REAL HYDROGEN CONSUMPTION, WEIGHTED THE REACTOR
BEFORE AND AFTER THE TEST, TO BE SURE THAT THE REACTOR WAS ALREADY
FILLED UP WITH WATER BEFORE THE START UP (OTHERWISE THE MEASUREMENT
COULD HAVE BEEN FALSATED). ALL THE OTHER INSTRUMENTATION WAS OF THEIR
PROPERTY AND INSTALLED BY THEMSELVES.
SORRY FOR THE LOST MESSAGE, BUT HERE ARE ANYWAY THE REQUESTED INFORMATIONS.
* * *
I found it interesting that only hydrogen works in your system and not
deuterium (in fact deuterium quenches the reaction). Perhaps a proton
can tunnel into nickel(and a deuteron can not).
.
January 30th, 2011 at 10:52 AM
I too have your opinion about Deuterium.
* * *
As a nuclear engineer, judging by the information found on the internet
(videos, translations from Italian, news articles & US patent regarding
your recently demonstrated device) if what I’m reading is true (by
whatever phenomenon or process it achieves xP), you may seriously need
to do an environmental impact & life cycle analysis of your device
before anything is sold world wide to laboratories, or to the public. In
case you have been successful, I think you would be well advised to
think through & prevent “possible” safety issues later. I certainly hope
I’m wrong.
.
January 30th, 2011 at 11:03 AM
You are perfectly right. We are working hard on the issues you
indicated, with Focardi and the University of Bologna.
* * *
About the 1MW reactor planned for october: is there any idea about where
it will be located or it is a secret info?
.
January 30th, 2011 at 1:47 PM
As soon as possible we will give this information.
* * *
January 31st, 2011 at 4:46 AM
very important: the volume of the reactor, taken off the insulation and
the shielding, is 1 liter.
* * *
PAGE 8
********************************************
Cheers,
S.A.
