by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Abstract
Recent accelerator experiments on fusion of various elements have clearly demonstrated that the effective cross-sections of these reactions depend on what material the target particle is placed in. In these experiments, there was a significant increase in the probability of interaction when target nuclei are imbedded in a conducting crystal or are a part of it. These experiments open a new perspective on the problem of so-called cold nuclear fusion.
Introduction
Experiments of Fleischmann and Pons made about 20 years ago [1], raised the question about the possibility of nuclear DD fusion at room temperature. Conflicting results of numerous experiments that followed, dampened the initial euphoria, and the scientific community quickly came to common belief, that the results of [1] are erroneous. One of the convincing arguments of skeptics was the lack in these experiments of evidence of nuclear decay products. It was assumed that “if there are no neutrons, therefore is no fusion.” However, quite a large international group of physicists, currently a total of about 100-150 people, continues to work in this direction. To date, these enthusiasts have accumulated considerable experience in the field. The leading group of physicists working in this direction, in our opinion, is the group led by Dr. M. McKubre [2]. Interesting results were also obtained in the group of Dr. Y. Arata [3]. Despite some setbacks with the repeatability of results, these researchers still believe in the existence of the effect of cold fusion, even though they do not fully understand its nature. Some time ago we proposed a possible mechanism to explain the results of cold fusion of deuterium [4]. This work considered a possible mechanism of acceleration of deuterium contaminant atoms in the crystals through the interaction of atoms with long-wavelength lattice vibrations in deformed parts of the crystal. Estimates have shown that even if a very small portion of the impurity atoms (~105) get involved in this process and acquires a few keV energy, this will be sufficient to describe the energy released in experiments [2]. This work also hypothesized that the lifetime of the intermediate nucleus increases with decreasing energy of its excitation, so that so-called “radiation-less cooling” of the excited nucleus becomes possible. In [5], we set out a more detailed examination of the process. Quite recently, a sharp increase of the probability of fusion of various elements was found in accelerator experiments for the cases when the target particles are either imbedded in a metal crystal or are a part of the conducting crystal. These experiments compel us to look afresh on the problem of cold fusion.
Recent experiments on fusion of elements on accelerators
For atom-atom collisions the expression of the probability of penetration through a Coulomb barrier for bare nuclei should be modified, because atomic electrons screen the repulsion effect of nuclear charge. Such a modification for the isolated atom collisions has been performed in H.J. Assenbaum and others [6] using static Born-Oppenheimer approximation. The experimental results that shed further light on this problem were obtained in relatively recent works C. Rolfs [7] and K. Czerski [8]. Review of earlier studies on this subject is contained in the work of L. Bogdanova [9]. In these studies a somewhat unusual phenomenon was observed: the sub-barrier fusion cross sections of elements depend strongly on the physical state of the matter in which these processes are taking place. Figure 1 (left) shows the experimental data [8], demonstrating the dependence of the astrophysical factor S(E) for the fusion of elements of sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of the matter that contains the target nucleus 7Li. The same figure (right) presents similar data [7] for the DD reaction, when the target nucleus was embedded in a zirconium crystal. It must be noted that the physical nature of the phenomenon of increasing cross synthesis of elements in the case where this process occurs in the conductor crystal lattice is still not completely clear.
Figure 1. Up – experimental data [8], showing the energy dependence of the S-factor for sub-threshold nuclear reaction on the aggregate state of matter that contains the nucleus 7Li. Down – the similar data [7] for the reaction of DD, when the target nucleus is placed in a crystal of zirconium. The data are well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV.
The phenomenon is apparently due to the strong anisotropy of the electrical fields of the crystal lattice in the presence of free conduction electrons. Data for zirconium crystals for the DD reactions can be well described by the introduction of the screening potential of about 300 eV. It is natural to assume that the corresponding distance between of two atoms of deuterium in these circumstances is less than the molecular size of deuterium. In the case of the screening potential of 300 eV, the distance of convergence of deuterium atoms is ~510ˆ12 m, which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the size of a molecule of deuterium, where the screening potential is 27 eV. As it turned out, the reaction rate for DD fusion in these conditions is quite sufficient to describe the experimental results of McKubre and others [2]. Below we present the calculation of the rate process similar to the mu-catalysis where, instead of the exchange interaction by the muon, the factor of bringing together two deuterons is the effect of conduction electrons and the lattice of the crystal.
Calculation of the DD fusion rate for “Metal-Crystal” catalysis
The expression for the cross section of synthesis in the collision of two nuclei can be written as
where for the DD fusion
Here the energy E is shown in keV in the center of mass. S(E) astrophysical factor (at low energies it can be considered constant), the factor 1/E reflects de Broglie dependence of cross section on energy. The main energy dependence of the fusion is contained in an expression
that determines the probability of penetration of the deuteron through the Coulomb barrier. From the above expressions, it is evident that in the case of DD collisions and in the case of DDμcatalysis, the physics of the processes is the same. We use this fact to determine the probability of DD fusion in the case of the “metal-crystalline” DD-catalysis. In the case of DDμ- catalysis the size of the muon deuterium molecules (ion+) is ~5×10ˆ13m. Deuterium nuclei approach such a distance at a kinetic energy ~3 keV. Using the expression (1), we found that the ratio of σ(3.0 keV)/σ(0.3 keV) = 1.05×10ˆ16. It should be noted that for the free deuterium molecule this ratio [ σ(3.0keV)/σ(0.03keV)] is about 10ˆ73. Experimental estimations of the fusion rate for the (DDμ)+ case presented in the paper by Hale [10]:
Thus, we obtain for the “metal-crystalline” catalysis DD fusion rate (for zirconium case):
Is this enough to explain the experiments on cold fusion? We suppose that a screening potential for palladium is about the same as for zirconium. 1 cmˆ3 (12.6 g) of palladium contains 6.0210ˆ23(12.6/106.4) = 0.710ˆ23 atoms. Fraction of crystalline cells with dual (or more) the number of deuterium atoms at a ratio of D: Pd ~1:1 is the case in the experiments [2] ~0.25 (e.g., for Poisson distribution). Crystal cell containing deuterium atoms 0 or 1, in the sense of a fusion reaction, we consider as “passive”. Thus, the number of “active” deuterium cells in 1 cmˆ3 of palladium is equal to 1.810ˆ22. In this case, in a 1 cmˆ3 of palladium the reaction rate will be
this corresponds to the energy release of about 3 kW. This is quite sufficient to explain the results of McKubre group [2]. Most promising version for practical applications would be Platinum (Pt) crystals, where the screening potential for d(d,p)t fusion at room temperature is about 675 eV [11]. In this case, DD fusion rate would be:
The problem of “nonradiative” release of nuclear fusion energy
As we have already noted, the virtual absence of conventional nuclear decay products of the compound nucleus was widely regarded as one of the paradoxes of DD fusion with the formation of 4He in the experiments [2]. We proposed the explanation of this paradox in [4]. We believe that after penetration through the Coulomb barrier at low energies and the materialization of the two deuterons in a potential well, these deuterons retain their identity for some time. This time defines the frequency of further nuclear reactions. Figure 2 schematically illustrates the mechanism of this process. After penetration into the compound nucleus at a very low energy, the deuterons happen to be in a quasi-stabile state seating in the opposite potential wells. In principle, this system is a dual “electromagnetic-nuclear” oscillator. In this oscillator the total kinetic energy of the deuteron turns into potential energy of the oscillator, and vice versa. In the case of very low-energy, the amplitude of oscillations is small, and the reactions with nucleon exchange are suppressed.
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the mechanism of the nuclear decay frequency dependence on the compound nucleus 4He* excitation energy for the merging deuterons is presented. The diagram illustrates the shape of the potential well of the compound nucleus. The edges of the potential well are defined by the strong interaction, the dependence at short distances Coulomb repulsion.
The lifetime of the excited 4He* nucleus can be considered in the formalism of the usual radioactive decay. In this case,
Here ν is the decay frequency, i.e., the reciprocal of the decay time τ. According to our hypothesis, the decay rate is a function of excitation energy of the compound nucleus E. Approximating with the first two terms of the polynomial expansion, we have:
Here ν° is the decay frequency at asymptotically low excitation energy. According to quantum-mechanical considerations, the wave functions of deuterons do not completely disappear with decreasing energy, as illustrated by the introduction of the term ν°. The second term of the expansion describes the linear dependence of the frequency decay on the excitation energy. The characteristic nuclear frequency is usually about 10ˆ22 sˆ-1. In fusion reaction D+D4He there is a broad resonance at an energy around 8 MeV. Simple estimates by the width of the resonance and the uncertainty relation gives a lifetime of the intermediate state of about 0.810ˆ22 s. The “nuclear” reaction rate falls approximately linearly with decreasing energy. Apparently, a group of McKubre [2] operates in an effective energy range below 2 keV in the c.m.s. Thus, in these experiments, the excitation energy is at least 4×10ˆ3 times less than in the resonance region. We assume that the rate of nuclear decay is that many times smaller. The corresponding lifetime is less than 0.3×10ˆ18 s. This fall in the nuclear reaction rate has little effect on the ratio of output decay channels of the compound nucleus, but down to a certain limit. This limit is about 6 keV. A compound nucleus at this energy is no longer an isolated system, since virtual photons from the 4He* can reach to the nearest electron and carry the excitation energy of the compound nucleus. The total angular momentum carried by the virtual photons can be zero, so this process is not prohibited. For the distance to the nearest electron, we chose the radius of the electrons in the helium atom (3.1×10ˆ11 m). From the uncertainty relations, duration of this process is about 10ˆ-19 seconds. In the case of “metal-crystalline” catalysis the distance to the nearest electrons can be significantly less and the process of dissipation of energy will go faster. It is assumed that after an exchange of multiple virtual photons with the electrons of the environment the relatively small excitation energy of compound nucleus 4He* vanishes, and the frequency of the compound nucleus decaying with the emission of nucleons will be determined only by the term ν°. For convenience, we assume that this value is no more than 10ˆ12-10ˆ14 per second. In this case, the serial exchange of virtual photons with the electrons of the environment in a time of about 10ˆ-16 will lead to the loss of ~4 MeV from the compound nucleus (after which decays with emission of nucleons are energetically forbidden), and then additional exchange will lead to the loss of all of the free energy of the compound nucleus (24 MeV) and finally the nucleus will be in the 4He ground state. The energy dissipation mechanism of the compound nucleus 4He* with virtual photons, discussed above, naturally raises the question of the electromagnetic-nuclear structure of the excited compound nucleus.
Fig. 3. Possible energy diagram of the excited 4He* nucleus is presented.
Figure 3 represents a possible energy structure of the excited 4He* nucleus and changes of its spatial configuration in the process of releasing of excitation energy. Investigation of this process might be useful to study the quark-gluon dynamics and the structure of the nucleus.
Discussion
Perhaps, in this long-standing history of cold fusion, finally the mystery of this curious and enigmatic phenomenon is gradually being opened. Besides possible benefits that the practical application of this discovery will bring, the scientific community should take into account the sociological lessons that we have gained during such a long ordeal of rejection of this brilliant, though largely accidental, scientific discovery. We would like to express the special appreciation to the scientists that actively resisted the negative verdict imposed about twenty years ago on this topic by the vast majority of nuclear physicists.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. S.B. Dabagov, Dr. M. McKubre, Dr. F. Tanzela, Dr. V.A. Kuzmin, Prof. L.N. Bogdanova and Prof. T.V. Tetereva for help and valuable discussions. The author is grateful to Prof. V.G. Kadyshevsky, Prof. V.A. Rubakov, Prof. S.S. Gershtein, Prof. V.V. Belyaev, Prof. N.E. Tyurin, Prof. V.L. Aksenov, Prof. V.M. Samsonov, Prof. I.M. Gramenitsky, Prof. A.G. Olshevsky, Prof. V.G. Baryshevsky for their help and useful advice. I am grateful to Dr. VM. Golovatyuk, Prof. M.D. Bavizhev, Dr. N.I. Zimin, Prof. A.M. Taratin for their continued support. I am also grateful to Prof. A. Tollestrup, Prof. U. Amaldi, Prof. W. Scandale, Prof. A. Seiden, Prof. R. Carrigan, Prof. A. Korol, Prof. J. Hauptmann, Prof. V. Guidi, Prof. F. Sauli, Prof. G. Mitselmakher, Prof. A. Takahashi, and Prof. X. Artru for stimulating feedback. Continued support in this process was provided with my colleagues and the leadership of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, and I am especially grateful to Prof. R. Parkey, Prof. N. Rofsky, Prof. J. Anderson and Prof. G. Arbique. I express special thanks to my wife, N.A. Tsyganova for her stimulating ideas and uncompromising support.
References
1. M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. W. Anderson, L. J. Li, M. Hawkins, J. Electro anal. Chem. 287, 293 (1990).
2. M. C. H. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P. Tripodi, and P. Haglestein, In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000, Lerici (La Spezia), Ed. F. Scaramuzzi, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy, 2001), p 3; M. C. H. McKubre, In Condensed Matter Nuclear Science: Proceedings Of The 10th International Conference On Cold Fusion; Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 21-29 August, 2003, Ed by P. L. Hagelstein and S. R. Chubb, (World Sci., Singapore, 2006). M. C. H. McKubre, “Review of experimental measurements involving dd reactions”, Presented at the Short Course on LENR for ICCF-10, August 25, 2003.
3. Y. Arata, Y. Zhang, “The special report on research project for creation of new energy”, J. High Temp. Soc. (1) (2008).
4. E. Tsyganov, in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 1981–1989. Original Russian text published in Yadernaya Fizika, 2010, Vol. 73, No. 12, pp. 2036–2044.
5. E.N. Tsyganov, “The mechanism of DD fusion in crystals”, submitted to IL NUOVO CIMENTO 34 (4-5) (2011), in Proceedings of the International Conference Channeling 2010 in Ferrara, Italy, October 3-8 2010.
6. H.J. Assenbaum, K. Langanke and C. Rolfs, Z. Phys. A – Atomic Nuclei 327, p. 461-468 (1987).
7. C. Rolfs, “Enhanced Electron Screening in Metals: A Plasma of the Poor Man”, Nuclear Physics News, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2006.
8. A. Huke, K. Czerski, P. Heide, G. Ruprecht, N. Targosz, and W. Zebrowski, “Enhancement of deuteron-fusion reactions in metals and experimental implications”, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 78, 015803 (2008).
9. L.N. Bogdanova, Proceedings of International Conference on Muon Catalyzed Fusion and Related Topics, Dubna, June 18–21, 2007, published by JINR, E4, 15-2008-70, p. 285-293
10. G.M. Hale, “Nuclear physics of the muon catalyzed d+d reactions”, Muon Catalyzed Fusion 5/6 (1990/91) p. 227-232.
11. F. Raiola (for the LUNA Collaboration), B. Burchard, Z. Fulop, et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.31, 1141 (2005); Eur. Phys. J. A 27, s01, 79 (2006).
by E.N. Tsyganov
(UA9 collaboration) University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, Texas, USA
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
We need othe weeks of test, then we will release the data.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
No, they are totally different. One thing is to heat water, one thing superheated steam. But you are right thinking that the costs will be anyway reduced in time, as always happens withtechnological products, mainly due to the economy scale.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear dott Rossi,you told about the possibility to build a machine able to produce 7,5 MWh el net at the price of 30 millions $.Can we suppose that with the second generation reactor the same machine will give 12 MWh el net?This apparatus should have a thermal power of about 50 MWh.The cost of a turbine is nearly 800 $/kW and for a power of 20 MW el are 16 millions $.
So 14 millions $/50 MW are 280 $/ kW term.The e-cat for domestic use should have a price about 90 $/kW.
Do you think you’ll can reduce the price of the reactors in the apparatus with turbine?
Then I hope you’ll build machines of smaller size,because I think it would consent the fast diffusion of this tecnology realizing one of its grater objects.It is my opinion and my hope.
And now we can say…hot regards !
G G
Dear Mr. Rossi,
In the last two days, with a stable 600C, you may have already flung us into the future.
What fun!
Charlie
Caro Andrea,
per festeggiare i 600 celsius mi sono fatta fare una maglietta
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c244/AntoDellaBandaBasilico/IMG_1465.jpg
Dear K.D.:
I understand.
We will go carefully through your suggestions.
You are not wrong.
The industrialization of the 1 MW plant is in course. Detailed communication of the high temperature reactor will be published as soon as we will have finished the tests.
The focus of us is in thermal ( done) and electric ( in fieri) power in the short term, but we are not ignoring the other declinations of this technology.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Well done Hank Mills.
All should give big respect for what Rossi achieved. Since the cold fusion or better said LENR is real, instead attack Rossi, why not work on others ways to develop new sources of energy.
K. D.
Of course any one can find the information on ECAT.com if they about it existence.
Other thing. The site can be read by any one, all over the world. But only by English speaking,so not everyone can know about E-Cats.
What I want to suggest is. As you said, you have representation in most countries of the world. But they will be reveled when the E-Cats will be ready for sale.
But meantime they can organize the E-Cat websites, where will be copy in theirs languages of the information given on your official website ECAT.com
The more peoples know about your discovery, the more influence they might have on theirs representatives in governments.
The other things is. You could receive more information about how many peoples might be interested in each country, which can be helpful in setup future distribution.
Andrea Rossi
Dear K.D.:
We did it:
please see “http://www.ecat.com”
Dir. Mr. Rossi.
You misunderstood my suggestionor maybe I did not express myself clearly.
I know about existence of your website ecat.com,. and I can find there interesting me information.
I do not mean creation new ecat website. Bu to find the way trough your licences, so the information. and articles from your website could be read in other languages in correct translation.
Especially now, when you achieved 600*c working temperature it is important that as much as possible peoples know about the new energy source.
You said, you organised mass production 1 million E-Cats for home use.
With new achievement, why not organise something, robotised mass production MEGAWATS units.
Utilities might install it at presently existing energy transfer stations, to prevent problems in event of natural disasters.
It should not collide with presently existing system, because every year we use more electric energy.
Also the research for devices to storage electric energy and using it in cars for transportation have big future, and for long time will endanger present suppliers of energy.
And, all world is not the same as one country as USA or Italy
Sincerely KD
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
We prefer define COP as the ratio between the kWh produced and the kWh consumed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Some calculations for new 600 C device. Assuming 70% efficiency relative to ideal Carnot in electricity generation and assuming 40 C external coolant temperature, when configured for electricity production the waste heat factor is 2.54. If configured for heat production, the heat is produced at 392 C (necessarily less than 600 C because the device’s own electric input must be obtained by an internal heat engine).
If the internal COP would be 12 instead of 6, for example, the waste heat factor in electricity production would be reduced to 1.74, and in heater use the heat could be produced at higher temperature (496 instead of 392 C). While desirable, such improvement would be crucial only in some special applications.
Conclusion: With 600 C devices, the internal COP has limited importance, and in normal heater use its impact is null.
Suggestion: Perhaps, when speaking about the new 600 C devices, it would be good to call the “COP” the “internal COP“, because the “external COP” is in any case infinite for 600 C devices.
Dear Francesco:
1B: 6
2B: Zero
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Greg Leonard:
No, not for now. We want not to complicate the certification path.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Hank Mills:
1- 600 celsius is the temperature of the external surface of the primary heat exchanger.
2- thank you. We are studying with Siemens; somebody told me with these temperatures they will become lyric
3- I will make a publication on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics of this test when it will be finished
Thank you for your continuous attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
Thanks to you also for your endeavour to write in English,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
This is a dream that becames true,thank you Mr Rossi !
Dear Andrea Rossi,
It is great to hear you are continuing to produce steam at 600C with no stability issues. This is something to dance about! A few quick questions…
1) If 600C is the temperature of the steam, what is the temperature inside and on the surface of the reactor core? Is it close to the melting point of nickel?
2) Here is an article on the Siemens website about how a new technology was needed to prevent 600C steam from damaging a conventional steam turbine. They figured out a design that could provide COOLING to certain parts of the turbine to prevent damage from the super-critical steam. This new generator has 45% efficiency (FORTY FIVE PERCENT!) with 600C steam. This article proves that stable, 600C steam is MORE than enough to provide EXCELLENT efficiency!
http://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/inventors_innovators/energy/inventor-2009-wechsung.htm
Are there any specific turbines or other systems you are favoring to be the first to be mated with an E-Cat?
3) Thank you for being willing to share some test data from the new E-Cat. I’ll be looking forward to it! Any idea when we might be able to expect it being posted?
—
Keep up the great work!
Sincerely,
Hank Mills
Dear AR
This is very welcome news.
As you say this opens up all sorts of applications.
My question is:
Will this development be applied to the ‘Home Ecat’ as well as the 1 MW plants?
Dear ing.rossi
This is great news.
Then:
1)reaction stable;
2)600 °C;
ostrega! I’m dancing even unintentionally!
Can I ask you some things … I do try!
1B) average COP always 6 or >6?
2B)harmful Emissions zero?
Thanks to you
F. T.
F.T.
Dear Francesco:
Dance on 2 feet, because you will have to dance a lot. Yes, it works.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@A.Rossi “p.s. Today, Saturday May 19th,right now, 6.10 p.m. in Miami, I am working at 600 Celsius with the new E-Cat”
New E-Cat? 600 Celsius?
This news is almost a joke!
Is that really true?
How you finished this test? Is positive?
If it were positive we dance with only one foot for the joy …
F.T.
Dear Franco:
We are working with good stability at 600 Celsius degrees. This, if confirmed by the next tests, clearly opens all the possible doors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
p.s. Today, Saturday May 19th,right now, 6.10 p.m. in Miami, I am working at 600 Celsius with the new E-Cat
Dear Ing. Rossi,
You spoke about large improvement of steam temperature that now E-Cat system is able to produce, therefore the steam can be used, with very good efficiency, to produce electric energy by means of a classic turbine or Stirling turbine.
Please could You specify which is this new operating temperature value and the steam pressure now available?
Thank You.
Kind Regards
Franco
Dear M.B.:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Calaon:
Thank you for your insight,
W@arm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Looking around in the many internet-sites about the E-cat, it seems to me that only a minor part of your world-wide audience has fully realized yet what the test at 600 C will mean if successful (even if a few slow neutron would escape the reactor at that energy density …). There would be no technical limit for LENR energy production. The civilization would immediately understand to have “almost free” energy. Electric energy production will be just a matter of buying a turbine and paying for its maintenance (and the new large molten salts batteries could absorb the peaks). Oil price will drop, many will be hit by this. Oil producers will have time for adapting, but many others no. Only cheap gas and coal will stand for a while, but then … and all renewable will be hit as well.
This civilization in on the brink of change.
When energy will be abundant and its price will be very low (40 years ahead?), then the rare-nuclei equilibrium will gradually establish and China will reign even more than now, at least for a while.
Beware of military and large companies. A turbine is still not something your can get anywhere for low prices.
Good luck to you and to mankind!
It’s me once again.
If you are currently building factories for e-cats there is something else where both the e-cat and the industrial facility would be useful.
Cars might be 20 years away and airtravel 50, but boats aren’t.
Licencing (or better yet a joint venture) with these guys
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3321-steam-fires-underwater-jet-engine.html
For a long course refuel-free drive…. think of sailboats with an added e-cat+steamjet, hot water for showers, heating and/or propulsion.
Or merchant ships on slow cheap jets crossing the globe.
On the other hand maybe the e-cat is strictly a beta decay – issue for the nickel copper conversion , but the 20.000 hz might be causing the iron by alpha decay (cardone et al thorium decay 20 khz). So my previous fear about cobalt might be completly unfunded. Would it be rude to ask if you find any helium on spent charges?
best regards
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
I want to repeat that the aerospace issue is for the future.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
I would be happy just to fly like a balloon…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Antonella,
Thanks to you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Francesco, Pekka, Joseph, and Andrea,
I am very encouraged by your exchange of ideas and technical data concerning aviation. Remember, a Piper Cub requires less than 50hp to carry two passengers and a load of fuel at 80-90mph. Given the unlimited range provided by a properly designed e-cat system, NYC to Orly Field in less than 40hours is not out of the question for an ordinary pilot and a buddy. How about somebody offering a prize?
I’m game….
Charlie
A.R., Pekka,
More on airships:
http://www.dynalifter.com/page59.html
Maybe, you can use a few “Air-Cats” to propel a heavier-than-air Dynalifter to compete very favorably with cargo shipping via truck/rail/ship.
Maybe someday there will be airship corridors for cargo transport. Why waste gasoline on transport? And perhaps, newer structural designs/materials will permit safe travel at 150-160 knots instead of 80 knots.
(If you don’t mind going slower than an airplane.)
J.F.
Dear Hank Mills,
thank you for your post.
Dear Andrea,
thank you for your response.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
He,he,he,he…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Interesting,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Tim Harrell:
Interesting projection, I think the applicatins of this technologies will go along new paths, indipendently from us. Probably new businesses , today unforeseeable, will spread out of this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for keeping your focus. You take care of getting your E-Cat right; there are a whole bunch of us who will take care of the rest! There is a relatively new book out titled “Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think” by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler. Its premise is that providing abundance is humanity’s grandest challenge and it discusses how we’re going to meet the challenge. Though your invention doesn’t appear in the book, it would certainly fit nicely into several parts of the Section on energy. One nice solution I can see right away, particularly since you’ve solved the high temperature stability problem, is as a heat source for Liquid Metal Batteries, (LMB), where the heat must be kept high enough to keep 2 different metals and a molten salt between them liquid. Antimony and Magnesium both melt below 650 deg. C. LMB’s will provide current densities 10 times higher than current high end batteries at 1/10th the cost. My personal opinion is that the E-Cat stands to make the largest impact in the short term in the area of water purification. The solution to this problem alone is likely to tip the first of many dominoes, leading to an abundant future for mankind.
Best Regards,
T.H.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oODisCdWnf8
-HEI! who are you,what are you doing..what are you carring ?-
-one e cat!-
-ONE FIORINO!-
Now,we can only cry.
Saluti G G
Andrea, Pekka:
With a T-Hot temperature of 260 degrees C (533 degrees K) and T-Cold temperature of 60 degrees C (333 degrees K), you can get 25 % efficiency with only 70% of Carnot efficiency.
Eff. = 0.7*[(533) – (333)/(533)] = 0.26 (or 26%)
Using super-critical CO2 instead of steam would save a lot of weight.
If you want flying E-Cats, a helium filled ‘E-Blimp” or Airship may be practical.
Joseph
E’notizia di oggi che il governo italiano sta pensando ad una proposta di legge che conceda ai comuni la possibilità di tassare cani e gatti.Strano,visto che il sottosegretario ha dichiarato che l’e CAT in Italia difficilmente potrà aver larga diffusione…o forse non è convinto di ciò che ha detto e sta mettendo le mani avanti?
Saluti (: G G
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
About the utilizations in aerospace technology, I leave the issue to experts of the field. I think in future ( not in a short or middle term) maybe it will be possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi, Francesco, Charlie Sutherland:
Concerning possible aircraft applications: If a future high temperature E-cat system has 1 kW/kg (or 10 kW/10 kg) thermal power/mass ratio and if it produces electricity at some reasonable efficiency (25%, say), then it produces more energy than the same mass of kerosene after 12.5 hours (45 MJ/kg/1 kW=12.5 hours). From this it follows, I think, that once such devices come into existence, it will be possible to use them in at least such long-distance airplanes whose flighttime exceeds 12 hours, roughly speaking. Besides saving the fuel, one would also get an unlimited range as a bonus.
As an intermediate solution, one might use ordinary engines for takeoff and E-cat energy only during cruise. Then the E-cat controllability timescale becomes unimportant: it works even if they are run at constant power.
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
You are right, but the persons that misrepresented the statement are experts who made it on purpose, to damage us.
The USA Authority has been absolutely perfect and right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Francesco:
OK, I hope you are right, but I stick on heat and power production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi
Despite its response “It will take at least 20 years for cars and trucks, as an expert told me with evidence, you can imagine the application in an aeroplane…”
in the question of Charlie Sutherland , I remain very optimistic that once made known to the physical dynamic of the phenomenon and the related control, you will trigger a exponential thrust of research that will reduce this time gap. She has taught me that today the technological evolution travels at a speed that some times is greater than the human imagination.
Warm greetings
F.T.
The claimed ‘conflicting statements’ about nuclear/non-nuclear in the De Vincenti text possibly has its origin in an Internet misquotation of a Florida radiation official’s written statement which I here assume is authentic (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20120309BRC-Report.pdf, page 31):
“He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low energy photons in the energy range of 50-100 keV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste is generated by it, the State of Florida. Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction.”
Almost nothing could be clearer than this. Still, some people managed to mix it up, because “he acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process” was echoed on some websites as a ‘proof’ that Rossi had been double-tongued about radiation. They dropped the continuation of the sentence which makes it purposeful.
It seems that in the radiation authority’s language, the word “nuclear” has a specific meaning which covers fissionable and radioactive isotopes, but does not include photon sources such as x-ray machines or E-cats.
One can claim on the Net anything. In this case it seems that a Net misquotation found its way to the undersecretary’s statement.
Dear Charlie Sutherland:
Just forget aviation applications of this technology for at least half century. It will take at least 20 years for cars and trucks, as an expert told me with evidence, you can imagine the application in an aeroplane…
I prefer to stay with the feet solidly seat on the ground.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi and Pekka Janhunan,
My question was not about aerodynamics, but about e-cat applications.
I am interested in aviation, so I asked the question framed around my own interest. Given that it takes e-cats about an hour to get from cold up to working temperatures, they might be more suitable for powering aircraft engines where flights are nearly always measured in hours rather than the stop/start use of the family car.
A four seat Cessna 172 requires about 150hp of usable energy for normal operations. A number of e-cat elevated temperature generators arranged in parallel might be able to supply enough energy to generate 150hp in a Sterling engine. To work, the Sterling engine and the parallel e-cat generator system need to weigh close to or less than the 300lb of fuel that needed to fill the tanks and the 275lb of a standard Continental o-300-d 145hp aircraft engine.
There might be other engines more suitable than the Sterling.
Dear Antonella,
Good article.
A.R.
Dear Emidio Laureti:
Thanks, I will,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Francesco:
Thank you for the correction,
Warm Regards,
A.R.