110+ quotes by Andrea Rossi about the e-Cat and that he is making gamma rays and transmutations inside them – and Mats Lewan, writing for Ny Teknik, does not think it is news that Andrea Rossi has lied hundreds of times.

110+ quotes by Andrea Rossi  about the e-Cat and that he is making gamma rays and transmutations inside them – and Mats Lewan, writing for Ny Teknik, does not think it is news that Andrea Rossi has lied hundreds of times.

Please remember that Mr. Rossi told the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control that;

He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low-energy photons in the energy range of 50 to 100 KeV occur within the device.”

 This posting is about the contents of the e-Cat and whether or not Mr. Rossi claims there are any gamma rays, transmutation, or x-rays during the operation of the e-Cat.

What this means is that the e-Cat, according to Rossi, as told to the Florida BRC, produces just x-rays, not gamma rays inside the e-Cat.  Any high school student knows by just looking at any chart of the electromagnetic spectrum what the energies are in x-rays and gamma rays, therefore when Rossi claims to be producing gamma rays inside his reactor he knows exactly what he is saying, it cannot be a “translation” problem as so many like to claim. That would be the same as confusing infrared radiation and visible light, which are also next to each other on the spectrum scale.

Mr. Rossi also claims that transmutation occurs within his device.  This can only happen by a nuclear reaction, but he told the Florida BRC “no nuclear reactions occur.”

Mats Lewan, writing for Ny Teknik, has written over and over that Mr. Rossi is producing  gamma rays and transmutations inside the e-Cat, when Mr. Wright asked him why he didn’t print a story on the report of the Florida BRC, Mats said that is not news.

The following 110 statements by Andrea Rossi about what is happening concerning his e-Cat does not include what Mr. Rossi says in his patent applications or in the hundreds of articles, interviews, and videos where he also says the same things.  These 110 statements are just the ones on Mr. Rossi’s own blog and written by him there:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?cat=3

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 4th, 2012 at 2:43 AM

Dear Paulina:
The copper has been detected by means of a SEM and a SIMS and it has been found in form of amorphous grains. But this is an issue still under probe, the effect is much more complex than imagined originally. When you say “layering or banding” what exactly are you referring to?
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 1st, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Dear Steven N. Karels:
We use regular Ni, then we make series of treatment. The cost of treatment is irrelevant compared to the energy produced.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 1st, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Dear Felize:
1- yes
2- MPC
3- seconds
4- The E-Cats can’t explode because they are intrinsically safe.
I have erased the video you propose, because there is an AD of one of the Italian puppeteers of the Italian puppets , as we knew from our intelligence. Kind of a Troy Horse.
Warm Regards,
A.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 29th, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Dear Steven N. Karels:
You are right, this is why we are making all the necessary certifications.
Anyway, the problem of stabilization is not for E-Cats that have to make thermal energy, because up to 260 celsius the E-Cats are perfectly stable. The problem arises when we have to reach higher temperatures to get higher efficiencies in the production of electric power.
Anyway, from the pre-orders we got I experienced that millions of People has perfectly understood that the E-Cats do not pose any problem under the safety aspects. Then the diffusion and safe operation of the E-Cats will spread. Remember that when trains have been invented there were many persons, even physicians, who said that trains were very dangerous for health, because a speed of 40 miles per hour could damage seriously the heart of persons…
Certifications are in course, anyway, also because the law demands them.
About what happens if temperature goes out of control: nickel melts, then it is no more powder, then the E-Cat shuts down. It is intrinsically safe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Rob

March 28th, 2012 at 6:40 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Will the commercial e-cat also contain Boron, as described in you patent?
Would it be possible exclude the use of Boron in the e-cat concept?

Kind regards,
Rob

Andrea Rossi

March 28th, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Dear Rob:
Boron is part of the shielding system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Joe

March 5th, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Dr Rossi,

1. What is the highest temperature that could be achieved in the reactor of the MW plant, just short of meltdown?

2. What would the output thermal power be at that temperature?

3. What is the highest temperature that could be achieved in the reactor of the domestic E-Cat, just short of meltdown?

4. What would the output thermal power be at that temperature?

All the best,
Joe

Andrea Rossi

March 5th, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Dear Joe:
1- a 1 MW plant is just an assembly of 100 10 kW modules
2- the max power we have per module is 10 kW
3- just under the melting point of nickel: if nickel melts, it is no more powder and immediately the E-Cat stops the operation. This is why it is intrinsically safe.
4- at the melting point of Ni the output is zero, as explained in point 3. Below it, the energy produced is anyway 10 kWh/h.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 1st, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Dear Readers:
Somebody has put in the net the new that since our E-Cat has nuclear reactions it cannot be authorized, therefore it will never hit the market.
It is opportune to make clear that:
1- we are making the certification necessary to go in the market respecting the law
2- we already got important authorizations
3- the basic fact is that no radiation has ever been detected outside the E-Cat
4- when I will be able to release the theory of our process, it will be pretty clear that it is impossible for radiations exit the E-Cat.
5- we are already making the robotized line to make 1 million pieces per year and sure as heck I will put the E-Cats on the market, respecting the law.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 23rd, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Dear Redazione NextMe.it:
1- no radiations have been detected outside the E-Cats in thousand hours of operation
2- we will disclose the theory regarding the physics of the E-Cat after the product will be in the market: as you know, we will put it in the market at a price that will make useless any reverse engineering.
3- we made repeatedly tests
4- we are working also on the electric power production
5- NASA is not in contact with us
6- About the university of Bologna I am under NDA, as well as they are.
7- I do not think the E-Cats can produce new materials. They can only produce thermal energy.
8- The E-Cat will be sold at a price between 500 and 900 US$.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. R. Meiner

February 16th, 2012 at 8:17 AM

What would happen if I had a power failure in my home such that the ecat controls AND the (cooling-) water pump stops. Would the ecat overheat? Would it be reusable?

Andrea Rossi

February 16th, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Dear R. Meiner:
1- if the E-Cat overheats the nickel becomes liquid, so it is no more powder, therefore the E-Cat stops. It is intrinsically safe.
2- The charge, in this cases, has to be changed ( 10 US$).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 8th, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Dear Stefano Libardi:
1- The E-Cat is absolutely safe, does not emit absolutely any kind of radiation in the room: we made thousands of hours of tests. You can install with absolute safety an E-Cat inside your room.
2- There will never be any kind of gamma emission, but our control panel will detect any kind of radiation anyway, and in case of detection of any kind of radiation above the background will stop the E-Cat. But, again we never detected radiations above the background outside the E-Cat ( Background radiation is the radiation you have in your room right now, coming from the Universe).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 16th, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Dear Harold:
It will be a real miracle if we will succeed to be ready with our extremely complex industrialization by the next winter.
Probably you have no idea what does mean to make a device like this at 50 Euro/kW.
By the way: with all respect, this technology has absolutely nothing to do with the F.P. electrolysis: we do not make electrolysis, do not use deuterium, nor palladium, nor platinum.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. John Tobey

January 16th, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Imagining a future with billions of devices based on e-cat technology, I wonder at what rate tritium will enter the environment as the reactors break down or even from normal use. Is the amount produced negligible at the scales imagined? I fear that this dream-come-true could become a nightmare for public health and the ecology. Please help calm my fear.

Best regards,
John

Andrea Rossi

January 16th, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Dear John Tobey:
We do not produce tritium. Besides, all the tests we made have given evidence of the fact that there are not radiations from the E-Cat versus the outside that change significantly the background. The gamma rays produced during the operation are turned into heat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 7th, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Dear Cornè:
1- The physics concerning the reactions within the E-Cats are well known ( we just do not publish them for confidentiality issues) and there are patents pending for those, while the certifications are in course. We made thousands-hours tests without any radiations emitted from the reactors to the environment outside the reactors. This is very easy to be measured anyway.
2- Our specialists will decide the ads.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

December 7th, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Dear Simon Derricut:
Shielding is a very delicate issue. We studied very thoroughly this aspect of our tech, with the help of Prof. Sergio Focardi.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Giancarlo

December 6th, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Dear Dr. Rossi,

reading on the free encyclopedia about the item “energy catalyzer” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer) the following arguments are reported (paragraph “Evaluation of the device”):

“…the 10% copper in the spent fuel strangely having the same isotopic ratios as natural copper, and the lack of any unstable copper isotope in the spent fuel as if the reactor only produced stable isotopes.”

The facts reported don’t match at all with the declarations of Prof. Focardi who talks about the exact contrary.
Well, if bad informations are written on Wikipedia I think they must to be correct soon.

…it’s a hard battle!
Thank you sincerely for your work.

Giancarlo

Andrea Rossi

December 6th, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Dear Giancarlo,
As I have explained many times, we use Ni enriched of 62 and 64 Ni, which are the sole to react, and 63 and 65 Cu are stable. Our process has been developed upon a theory that became stronger in time, based on the results of the thousands of our tests we made with our apparatuses. At this point we have a solid theory which is leading our R&D, making progress by the day. The problem is that the theory leads directly to the industrial confidential IP and since we have not a granted patent we deem opportune not to disclose the theory.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Charlie Zimmerman

November 28th, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

I was interested in your comments regarding intentionally causing explosions of the device during safety testing. I had previously understood that short half lived radioactive isotopes of Copper and Nickel were rapidly decaying within the device and that this radioactivity was shielded. But, during an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be exposed to the environment without shielding before they would have a chance to decay.

1) Are there short lived radioactive isotopes as in your patent and paper published here?
2) Do those radioactive isotopes escape during an explosion?
3) Are you taking proper precautions yourself against such dangers?

A concerned fan,
Charlie Zimmerman

Andrea Rossi

November 28th, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
I confirm that no radiations above the background in relevant measure have been found in the controlled explosive tests. I cannot enter in particulars, because I cannot give information regarding what happens in the reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Italo A. Albanese

November 24th, 2011 at 5:25 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi:
I’m sorry I have to insist on this point but safety is very important.
You said that when nickel melts, reaction stops so the system is intrinsically safe. But in a explosion, the temperature can rise, for a short moment, much more than the melting point of nickel. What could happen in that moment, just before nickel starts melting (or vaporize, if the explosion is strong enough)?
You said also you can control the reaction by varying the hydrogen pressure. Have you found an upper limit for it? Maybe there is a theoretical upper temperature/pressure limit for the reaction? Or an absolute energy/time maximum?
You don’t have to answer to question that can discover industrial secrets, but please say you have considered these points.

Best regards,
Italo A.

Andrea Rossi

November 24th, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Dear Italo A. Albanese:
1- during our safety tests we produced on purpose explosions to test and measure the consequences: no relevant differences have been measured from the background.
You are right: all the issues connected with safety have to be addressed with extreme attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Charlie Zimmerman

November 16th, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Congratulations on a growing contingent of customers! The future is bright indeed.

I just re-read your paper, “A new energy source from nuclear fusion”. The paper indicates reactions of all isotopes of NI. On this blog you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react. Regarding this paper:

1) Do all isotopes react?
2) This paper does not acknowledge depletion of NI58. Did the idea to deplete the NI58 come later?
3) Table 3 shows NI58 to be much more energetic. This seems inconsistent with the depletion of NI58. Do you agree?
4) Is the lower COP in the production device relative to the experimental results in the paper a result of depleting NI58?
5) If so, can it be assumed that NI58 is depleted as a matter of adding control?
6) Or, is NI58 depleted to reduce long half lived NI59 production?

I am thinking that your ideas regarding the process have changed dramatically from the original writing of this paper. You mentioned that you will be publishing the theory after the 1 MW reactor demonstration.

Will you publish your theory soon?

Translate

Andrea Rossi

November 16th, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
1- no
2- no
3- yes
4- no
5- no
6- no
Sorry, I can’t be fluent in confidential information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

November 3rd, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Dear Tony Naebauer:
1- yes, just see all the rests reports about this issue. We run thousands of hours controlling radiations. We have always a radiation control instrument applied to every E-Cat under testing.
2- We did not publish the analysis of spent fuel because they contain confidential data.
3- It is proven that we do not use radioactive materials, we do not produce radioactive wastes, we do not have radioactive emissions outside the reactors during the operation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Charlie Zimmerman

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Congratulations on the demonstration and sale of the 1MW plant. I am sure many great things are to come for you and the world. I am also super excited to hear more about the theory that you have developed regarding this process. I think you mentioned that you would be revealing this after the 1MW demonstration.

I has a few isotopic questions.
1) You said that NI58 is depleted. Does this mean that it is eliminated or just that the ratio is reduced?
2) If NI58 is eliminated, why is it eliminated? Does it react and you are eliminating it to avoid long half life byproducts (NI59 decayed from CU59)?
3) Is (2) inconsistent with your statements that only NI62 and NI64 react?
4) Significant enrichment of the Nickel for NI62 and NI64 is necessary to produce 30% transmuted copper. Do you agree?
5) I have argued that you are not claiming cheap isotopic enrichment but rather that you are saying that the isotopic enrichment is not expensive relative to the overall costs of the production of the powder. Is this correct?
6) Is Leonardo Corp doing the enrichment?
7) Finally, Prof. Focardi in a recent interview talked about all nickel reacting and a series of decays which seems inconsistent with your statements of only NI62 and NI64 reacting to produce stable copper. Are you guys in agreement about the process?
Thanks,
Charlie Zimmerman

Andrea Rossi

November 2nd, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Dear Charlie Zimmerman:
1- just reduced
2- not eliminated
3- no
4- no
5- yes
6- yes
7- I cannot answer to this question, until I will disclose the theory of the effect we get.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 31st, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Dear Prof. Lino Daddi:
Dr Bianchini, of the Bologna University, has only measured the radiations outside the reactors, for safety issues, and compared them to the background: there have not been significant differences between the background and the measured radiations outside the reactors during the operation.
I do not give any information about the radiations inside the reactors, because such radiations are confidential.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 30th, 2011 at 4:03 AM

Dear Robert Mockan:
We do not use radioactive materials and do not leave radioactive waste, while operating do not leave radiations outside the plant, as clearly has been evidenced on the 28th test. All this will help.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 25th, 2011 at 3:58 AM

Dear R. Breathnach:
We do not use radioactive materials, do not leave radioactive material and the highest temperature we can reach is the melting point of nickel : once the nickel melts, the E-Cat stops and this fact makes it intrinsically safe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 21st, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Dear Goran Crafte:
We enrich Ni 62 and 64 isotopes, but this is not an effect of the operation of the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

October 16th, 2011 at 2:14 AM

Dear Giovanni:
We will run also in self sustained mode, the periods will depend on many factors. In any case, the power output will be 6 times the power input. About the snakes: the time of the snakes is over. The start up of the 1 MW plant is the end of the mental masturbations of enviuos, wannabe theorists, lecturers of calorimetry and engineering. Now LENR goes to the market. The test will not be made by me, but by the Customers’ consultants. Time of chatters is over. Maybe the test will not be good, maybe: it will be the first time I will start up a plant of that dimension, but in this case the problem will be the Customer, not the bunch of imbeciles that instead of understanding that we actually made LENR a reality lose their time digging holes on the surface the water in the middle of the ocean to find the wine. And in the case this test will go not well, we will learn and remake another, and another, and another, but, be sure, we will arrive to the target. At any cost.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Ivan

September 27th, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Mr. Rossi

Now that you understand what’s happening in your e-cat, is Cold Fusion or LENR the most appropriate definition?

Ivan

Translate

Andrea Rossi

September 27th, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Dear Ivan:
LENR
Warm Regards,
A.

  1. Enrico De Toni

September 26th, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Dear Ing. Rossi,

Few days ago I told a colleague here in Germany of the e-cat. His burst of laughter is still echoing: “impossible!”

Now, with regard to the firm conviction on the fact that a woking e-cat contradicts the laws of physics, I wish you that this quote will apply to your discovery:

“They didn’t know it was impossible, so they did it.” – Mark Twain

Best,

Enrico De Toni

Andrea Rossi

September 26th, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Dear Enrico De Toni:
We do not contradict the laws of physics.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 25th, 2011 at 7:24 AM

Dear MT:
Thank you for your important question, I already answered to these questions, but when it turns into safety repetitions are useful.
1- The E-Cats we will put in the market will be regulated to work at 1/3 of their power and they will work in conditions of stability. This is why they will not work only in self sustained mood, but will maintain a drive. If the stability is lost, automatically the pressure inside the reactor will be zeroed and the E-Cat will be turned off, as we have experienced in thousands of tests But there is an intrinsic safety system: if the temperature goes above the stability limit, an essential component of the charge will melt, and at this point, not being in the status of powder, the reactor cannot work.
2- As you know, we do not use radioactive materials and we do not produce radioactive wastes, therefore no radiations are left when the E-Cat is turned off. By the way: we have a double shield of lead, and it is impossible that the 2 walls break at the same time. It is absolutely impossible that the E-Cat is opened during the operation, because it is tightly sealed with multiple casing, and each case is very difficult to be opened not intentionally; as for the reactor, it is impossible to be opened, if not by our specialized personnel: the opening of the reactor has been made impossible both for safety and security reasons; in fact, to change the charge, we change the whole reactor, and the recharge will be made in our factories.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 21st, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Dear John Salinger:
1- Yes for the modules, impossible for the 1 MW
2- Yes, recovering the liquid water at the output and subtracting it from the amount of treated water, which gives us a penalty, because the liquid water is also made by condensed water after the vaporization, but we can accept this conservative issue
3- the apparatus is smaller than before: the volume is occupied from the heat exchanger. We will allow the Scientists to open the envelope which contains the heat exchangers to see that the reactors are very small. The volume of the reactors is about 30 centiliters/kW.
After 1 hour any possibility of electrochemical energy source is over, no batteries exist anywhere able to produce 1 kWh of energy in 1 hour in a volume of 30 cl (centiliters).
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Peter Heckert

September 20th, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Mr. Rossi,

400°C is abobe the melting point of lead, so far I know.
Wouldnt this limit the temperature?
Best,
Peter

Andrea Rossi

September 20th, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Dear Peter Heckert:
Lead is protected by water through a particular design, but, yes, lead melting point is a limitation, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Translate

Andrea Rossi

September 15th, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Dear Don Witcher:
The lead shielding is inside, not over the insulation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 13th, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Yes, everything is going on as scheduled, so far. You are right, there are many difficulties, we did not have any financing and are working exclusively with our money, the technology and the process we are using is new, all the different LENR made before are totally different and we have no experience from competitors that can be helpful, honestly: even the ones who got some watt have technologies totally different from ours, as everybody will see when we will disclose the theory, and no experience at all has been made from anybody on reactors producing real amounts of energy, I mean in the range of kWh/h. Now there is a race of guys who try to say that our work derives from theirs, but unfortunately there is no way that there is around something useful, so we have to open our path through an unexplored jungle of difficulties, and the expenses become everyday higher, for unforeseen problems. But , so far, we will be able to respect the scheduled term of delivery for the 1 MW plant, and to anticipate our ability to put in the market an E-Cat for everybody. I repeat that we will be able to produce heat immediately, while for the electric power we should be ready in one year. By the way: the E-Cats for the public will produce hot water for heating, not steam.
This is a very, very hard period, so you all will excuse me if the answers will become more synthetic and late.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 7th, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Dear Silvano Mattioli:
1- without Ni the process doesn’t work.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 1st, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Dear David Roberson:
Gamma rays are the ones that heat the coolant fluid in our reactors, therefore all our energy comes from the photons. The issue is that so far the efficiency of direct conversion is too low.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

August 27th, 2011 at 3:45 AM

Dear Mr Paolo:
I confirm, as always said, that the photons produced inside the E-Cat are thermalized inside. We make continuously measurements of radiations outside the reactor, and never found values above 0.2 microSievert/h.
The nature of the process, after years of tests I made, are now well known to me, and there are no reasons to emit neutrons, high energy photons. The shielding has been perfectly calculated, also with the help of Sergio Focardi. The measurements of radiations have always been made by experts, who usually check the radiations in all the sites where they can be produced (cyclotrones, Hospitals, and so forth).
Of course the fact that we have chosen to make small modules instead of big reactors is aimed to safety issues: in particular, I am a galileian-approach-guy, so that I am sure only of what I experienced repeatedly; therefore, I am sure of the E-Cat as they are, because I have thousands of hours on those, while I have no experience with big reactors, so far. Besides, there is no reason to get bigger reactors, because to make a big building you can use small bricks. Of course I got my risks at the beginning of the work, when there were no certainties at all…this is why I never wanted anybody working with me. Now all the safety data are well known.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Erik Ander

August 25th, 2011 at 6:39 AM

Best Mr Rossi!
Im sorry but i really have to draw your attention to this!
Because im worried your health may be in danger!!
I have calculated that when the Ni-He fusion occurs in the e-cat
you must have much moore than 2cm lead-shilding, i think its around
50cm (no gurantee). so please dont run the e-cat whitout this you can get very sick
and even worse. so pleae be careful.

Best regards! Erik

Andrea Rossi

August 25th, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Dear Erik Ander:
I am in very good health, even if I work 16 hours per day with my E-Cats. As I said, we have not neutrons and high energy gamma emissions, and we know now perfectly why. I will give the theory in November.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Erik Ander

August 23rd, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Best Mr Rossi.
Thanks for the answer of my questions!
I have only one more, i wonder where is
the lead-shield actually located?
I have seen pictures of the e-cat but
i can not see the lead. Why i ask is if
its 2cm lead suronding the entire e-cat is
it not very heavy? or is the lead only around the
reactor inside the coppertube or what?

Best regards Erik!

Andrea Rossi

August 24th, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Dear Erik Ander:
I can’t give this info.
I can say that the lead is ALSO around the external body of the Cat.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Erik Ander

August 23rd, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Best mr Rossi!
Sorry if you have answered this before.
But i wonder about the gamma-radiation in the
e-cat. is it or is it not any gamma-radiation
from the reactor? and if no, why you need lead and boron?

Best regards! Erik

Andrea Rossi

August 23rd, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Dear Erik Ander:
We produce gamma rays, and our energy comes from their thermalization.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. S Woosnam

August 11th, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Dear Mr Rossi,
I wonder if you’ll be able to clarify something for me:
Have you ever done an experiment where you have removed the Pb shielding from the e-cat and directly observed gamma rays? Obviously, I can understand that you don’t want to publicize precise details about the energy flux of the spectrum, since to do so could gives clues about the nature of what happens inside the core (proprietary), but if you can just confirm that gamma rays are definitely produced by fusing Ni and H and you have seen them, this would be strongly indicative of a nuclear process.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Andrea Rossi

August 12th, 2011 at 3:00 AM

Dear S. Woosnam:
Yes, we measured gamma rays inside the E-Cats: are such gamma rays to heat the water.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 20th, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
No, muons are not involved, we are far from the energy levels necessary to get them.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. S Woosnam

July 19th, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi,
First may I say how refreshing it is for a scientist such as yourself to engage with the public in the way you have done here. I think it is commendable.
Second could I ask you about a technical aspect of your invention? I know you do not subscribe to the Widom-Larsen theoretical explanation of your empirical results; I found their theory rather plausible save for the neutron capture gammas which one would expect but aren’t observed. If neutrons aren’t generated (whether or not in the way they propose), what is the purpose of the boron shield?

Andrea Rossi

July 19th, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Dear S. Woosnam:
Good question. We put boron just for safety, as Prof. Focardi teached to me. Kind of just in case…
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 15th, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Dear Nikita Alexand:
1- The costs of catalizers will remain the same, quantities we use are small
2- We do not use electrolysis
3- The processing of the catalist is proprietary and confidential
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Emma Russel

July 14th, 2011 at 4:48 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

About my faulty calculations of July 13th, 2011 at 8:41 AM I think that I found the error. I was not aware that you enrich the Ni62 and Ni64. And I am thrilled to learn that you have invented a new cheap way of enriching nickel isotopes. That is truly wonderful and worth a Nobel prize on its own merits. Did you already apply for a patent on this invention?

Kind regards, Emma Russel

Andrea Rossi

July 15th, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Dear Emma Russel:
You are correct.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 15th, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Dear Carlo:
As I always said, we do not produce and we do not use radioactive material. We do not produce Tritium.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Emma Russel

July 13th, 2011 at 2:36 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Some time ago you sent two nickel powder samples to Professor Sven Kullander in Sweden for analysis. One of the nickel powder samples had been used for 2.5 months in an E-Cat, the other was unused nickel powder.

Chemical analysis showed that the used powder contained 10% copper and 11% iron. Isotopic analysis using ICP-MS showed that within measuring errors the isotopic ratios in the nickel as well as in the copper were natural.

The theory for the E-Cat nuclear process that you hopefully will make public in October, is it consistent with these results?

Best regards Emma Russel

Andrea Rossi

July 13th, 2011 at 6:57 AM

Dear Emma Russel:
Yes, my theory is consistent with these results.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 11th, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Dear Dr. Mario Voltaggio:
The answers to your questions have been given in this blog already, anyway, repeating rapidly:
1- The isotopic composition of Ni after 6 mo is slightly different, but the difference is also compensated from the enrichment we make in the Ni
2- The Cu produced is 63 and 65, because only Ni 62 and 64 react in this sense
3- the heating is due to the gamma radiation, which is contained from the lead shielding. The gamma produced in the reactor have mainly low energy. The reason of this will be clear when I will disclose the theory at the base of the process.
4- the medium by means of which the heat is exchanged with the water is the wall of the reactor, properly designed.
5- The patent of the invention discloses enough information to allow an expert of the matter to replicate the effect. In fact , many persons have replicated the effect using the text of my patent application. A totally different thing is the industrial secret regarding information useful to make a product with best performances.
6- Public demos were opportune for R&D purposes, and also for commercial purposes. Patent processes can take up to 6-7 years, and a private industry, not financed by the taxpayer, cannot wait. Therefore, maintains the industrial secrets, while the production takes place and the patent application is cropped.
7- The Journal Of Nuclear Physics is not dedicated to my process: most of the articles are independent from it, sometimes alternative.
Thank you for your sincere critics,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Herald Patterson

July 4th, 2011 at 7:57 AM

Hello Mr. Rossi,

Have you done any tests to determine if the fusion reactions in your reactor produce electromagnetic pulses? If so, do you think you could wrap a pick up coil around the reactor vessel (the reactor vessel would need to be non-magnetic so it would not block the EMP pulses), and collect the EMPs as electricity?

Thanks.

Herald

Andrea Rossi

July 4th, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Dear Herald Patterson:
No, we never got evidence of this emission. We checked, for other reasons, e.m.p., but found nothing relevant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Franco Ragazzi

July 2nd, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi.
the absence of gamma ray is due to internal shield or to intrinsic operating principle of the catalyzer?
Best Regards

Andrea Rossi

July 3rd, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Dear Franco Ragazzi:
There are gamma rays inside the reactor during the operation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 1st, 2011 at 7:17 AM

Dear Wade:
Every module has its own shielding.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

July 1st, 2011 at 7:15 AM

Dear Luiz Carlos:
1- I am not Professor. I am Philosophy Doctor, with a Thesis on the Relativity, and this is important to underline, after some clowns have written in New-Bullshit News that I have not a Philosophy Doctor degree.
2- We enrich the charge of the isotopes 62 and 64 Ni, with a proprietary system, very cheap to deal with.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Marco De Leonardis

June 24th, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,
Why the gamma rays (behind the shield) are not measured in the public experiments?
A simply energy measure (not the spectrum) will not release any confidential information, allowing the most skeptical to change idea.
This is the easiest way to monitor what is happening inside the e-cat.
Thanks
Marco De Leonardis

Andrea Rossi

June 24th, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Dear Marco De Leonardis:
Surely you are not a Physic: gamma rays are the fingerprints of their source.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Dear Brad:
1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions are stopped: it is intrinsically safe
2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. Anyway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any explosion risk.
Good questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 20th, 2011 at 5:20 AM

Dear Staffan:
When Galileo and Copernicus published their works, their papers were considered pseudoscience.
Just let our plants go regularly in operation. It is not matter of creating new Physics, it is just matter to understand better the existing ones.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.

  1. Italo A. Albanese

June 19th, 2011 at 3:11 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi: Very interesting your test with zero input. If you try to control the output power by varying the hydrogen, in my opinion it could be useful to use a pulsed pressure. Just set the base pressure low enough not to start the reaction, and let the additional pressure of the sound waves “ignite”. With a simple loudspeaker in the hydrogen vessel, and the proper resonant geometry, you can get very high instant pressures. BTW, when the front wave hits the nickel core, the temperature rises too. So you could have a double control system, temperature and pressure at the same time.

Best regards,
Italo A.

Andrea Rossi

June 19th, 2011 at 4:12 AM

Dear Italo A. Albanese:
Thank you for your insight: as you know, I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor.
To work without a drive is very dangerous, anyway, in my lab I am making with a reactor 14 kWh/h without energy input, but, again it is very dangerous. When I make this I have to be alone on the reactor, even if on the 14th of June in Bologna I did this for about 1 hour at the presence of Dr Bianchini, of the University of Bologna, asking him to check the radiations outside the reactor: the Geiger I always work with had an increase of emission, but it turned out that we were inside the acceptable limits. Bu it is out of question that I can accept to use the reactors this way in public or for the Customers. To be safe, totally safe, we must have a drive and we must not exceed the factor of 6 (I mean producing 6 rimes the energy consumed by the drive). Which is what we guarantee to our Customers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Herald Patterson

June 18th, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

I’m not sure if my post went through, so I will post it again.

Thank you for sharing the information about the test of an E-Cat with zero input. It is very exciting and interesting!

Could you please share a few extra details about the experiment?

– The size of the E-Cat (50cc or one liter in volume).
– How high the output went before the test had to end.
What variables you are changing to allow for safe operation with zero input.
– Anything else you would like to add.

If you don’t feel like answering any questions, that is perfectly fine. I realize you are very busy and have lots of work to do. I do not want to get in the way of your efforts. I am just very excited about your technology, and cannot resist asking questions. If I am being rude by asking, I apologize.

Sincerely,
Herald

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 18th, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Dear Herald Patterson,
Thank you for your kind attention. Here are the answers:
1- 50 cc total
2- Once the Cat reached the stability, the output doesn’t change. It ends within 20 minutes after you stop it.
3- hydrogen pressure, but it is still dangerous
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 15th, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Dear Fahad:
1- E-Cat: is a trade mark, means “E-nergy Cat-alyzer”
2- Cold Fusion: means a nuclear fusion obtained at low temperatures compared to the temperatures of hundred millions °C necessary in natural occurring processes of nuclear fusion.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Ivan Antipov

June 12th, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Hello Andrea Rossi,

Does the E-Cat work in the same way as Blacklight Power’s using CQM and Hydrinos.

Regards
Ivan

Andrea Rossi

June 13th, 2011 at 6:06 AM

Dear Ivan Antipov:
Absolutely not. My effect has nothing to do with all the ones already published.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

June 13th, 2011 at 6:04 AM

Dear Malcom Lear:
No, this reaction cannot happen in Nature, where are no catalyzers, right P & T etc.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Bob Dingman

June 12th, 2011 at 10:05 AM

A new branch of science, a monumental paradigm shift is taking place. Today, nickel and hydrogen produce copper and excess heat. This is just an ice cube on the tip of the iceberg. As Andrea Rossi has said, it is a new type of “Fire”. Today, Only a few people really understand the process involved. The enigmatic catalyst is at the heart of the mystery.

Once a rudimentary understanding is available, the list of possible elemental combinations will be infinite. what about Chromium to Manganese, Iron to Cobalt, or even Phosphorus to Calcium?

My guess is that the Nickel+Hydrogen >> Copper reaction is not the easiest nor the best reaction to utilize to achieve the goal of low cost energy. Once the prima donna scientific community gets on board, the scientific advances will turn exponential. Patience is either a virtue or a curse depending on your point of view.

I find it odd and somewhat frustrating at our Guru’s reluctance to offer insight into the work of Pons-Fleischman. Surely their disputed modest success and failure to replicate the results with consistency eliminate them from the category of “competitor”.

With profound admiration and respect,
Bob Dingman

Andrea Rossi

June 12th, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Dear Bob Dingman:
My effect has nothing to do with the electrolysis of Fleischman-Pons.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. H-G Branzell

June 12th, 2011 at 4:56 AM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

According to your working hypothesis as we understand it, nickel is transformed into copper.

In the March 22 report it is stated that the ratio Cu63/Cu65 in the resulting copper is 1,6.

Do you consider this statement to be consistent with the theory that you will reveal in November?

Best regards, H-G Branzell

Andrea Rossi

June 12th, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Dear H-G Branzell:
Theories are named so because they are not rules. Theories are dynamic entities, whose integrals change through the time. I started with the supposition of a theory, but I said from the beginning that I was not convinced of the theory: evidence of this is in the phylogenesis of this very blog. The theoretical system at the base of my process is different from it was two years ago. When you work 16 hours per day on your reactors, two years are an eternity which unavoidably contains evolution. And I am working on my reactors very hard every day.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. John M

June 11th, 2011 at 4:03 AM

Unless the eCat is somehow producing positrons, it’s hard to understand how such a large amount of energy is being released without leaving behind any residual radioactive material.

I’m very much looking forward to understanding the physics behind this invention Mr Rossi

Andrea Rossi

June 11th, 2011 at 7:46 AM

Dear John M.:
In November, after the start up of the 1 MW plant, I will explain my theory, which is substantially different from the very respectful hypothesis made so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Bill Conley

June 10th, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Mr. Rossi,

Please forgive me if you have answered this question before.

You reportedly furnished the Swedish Profs. two E-Cat fuel samples, one spent and one which they said represented the raw (unspent) fuel used in the E-Cat.

Their mass spect. analysis showed the “raw” fuel to be very nearly pure Ni. I assume then that the raw fuel sample you furnished them was not a sample of the fuel ready for actual use in the reactor, but only the base Ni powder prior to your preprocessing of it including any catalytic additives you introduce.

I wish you all best in this exciting journey.

Bill Conley

Andrea Rossi

June 10th, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Dear Bill Conley:
Exactly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Charlie Zimmerman

May 30th, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

I am so excited about your invention that I often go back and watch older information. I was watching the Jan 15th video, with English subtitles and was confused by some comments in it compared to more recent information you provided:

1) You said that gamma radiation may be hidden by the extremely complex internal geometry of the device. Did you mean physical geometry or the geometry of the reaction, ie, Nickel lattice?
2) You said that a rare isotope of copper is produced. Can you elaborate on this more? I thought only NI62 and NI64 are reacting to produce copper 63 and 65.
3) You said that you ran a reactor for 6 months with NI59. You didn’t mean pure NI59 did you? Plus, since you have said that only NI62 and NI64 react, then how did this reactor with 59 work?

Obviously some things are confusing me. Potentially, it was just bad translation in the subtitles or my own misunderstanding of comments you have posted here.

Best Regards,
charlie zimmerman

Andrea Rossi

May 30th, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Dear Mr Charlie Zimmerman:
1- I cannot give this information
2- No, I did not say that. There has been a misunderstanding. Is correct what you thought.
3- Ni 59 doesn’t exist. It is a typo. We buy regular Ni powder, then we make a treatment of it which changes the isotopical composition. In that paper I referred to the powder as we buy it, not to the composition of the powder after the treatment we make. In any case, the composition of Ni, as we buy it, is well known: 58 (67,88%), 60 (26,23%), 61 (1,19%), 62 (3,66%), 64 (1,08%).
After that, we change it.
I do not think you misunderstood, I think some typo is in the translation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Herald Patterson

May 30th, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Thank you for refuting those two metropolitan legends. Unfortunately, there are other legends and unfounded rumors circulating around the internet as well. I will list a few of them here in case you would like to comment on them, and put an end to some ridiculous speculation that is taking place on the internet.

1) Other than the catalysts, hydrogen pressure, the special processing of the nickel powder, and the heat added to the system by the resistors there is some “other” factor that is critical to making the system work. For example, a source of radio frequency radiation to stimulate the processes inside the reactor vessel.

2) No gamma radiation is actually produced inside of the reactor vessel. They claim you will not let independent scientists measure the gamma radiation inside the reactor *not* because the signatures detected could reveal the patent pending catalysts, but because no gamma radiation would be found.

3) No nickel is actually transmuted into copper. They try to connect this to the lack of gamma radiation, to support their idea that some extraordinary but totally *non-fusion* process is taking place.

4) That you no longer think any form of fusion is taking place. They claim because you use the term Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, you non longer think a fusion reaction is taking place between the nickel and hydrogen.

5) Others claim there is no radiation being produced, except from beta-decay. Some push this idea to support a pet theory they religiously proclaim all over the net called, “Widom Larsen” theory.

I wish people would just take you at your word, instead of trying to twist the truth to support their own pet theories and ideas.

If you wish to comment on any of the above, I will do my best to spread your answers on the net to counter act the rumor-mongering taking place.

Thank you for all your work and willingness to interact with us.

I’m looking forward to October!

Herald

Andrea Rossi

May 30th, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Dear Mr Herald Patterson:
Thank you for your questions, here are the answers:
1- Yes: like Flash Gordon! Seriously: what happens inside the reactor is influenced only by what is inside; outside there is only cooling and thermalization
2- Gamma have been regularly measured by us
3- Analysis of powders are the evidence of the transmutation
4- Wrong
5-Beta decay has nothing to do with my process, Widom Larsen theory has nothing to do with my process
6- I am looking for October too, my friend.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 30th, 2011 at 9:15 AM

ART:
Talking of ART, there are two metropolitan legends which are walking around:
1- We do not know the theory behind the operation of our apparatus: false, I know the theory , and will release it after the international patent will be granted. We could not arrive to produce our E-Cats, with their constant operation, without knowing the theory. One year ago I was not sure, now I’m pretty confident.

2- There will be a new public test somewhere (Greece, or Italy, or USA, or Sweden, etc): again, no more public tests will be made, the sole tests we make are the tests of the modules of the 1 MW plant which will go in operation in October in Greece, and obviously such tests are made with closed doors.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 28th, 2011 at 7:44 AM

Dear Mr Daniel De Francia MTd2:
Absolutely not: catalyzers are inside the reactor, water is outside.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 27th, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Dear Mr Gilbert Schmidt:
I want not to comment the article to which you refer, which has not been written by me, and the Author will answer you. Just, to avoid ambiguities, I want to point out that when my reactors are not in operation there is not gamma emission. Besides, when it is in operation gamma rays are turned into heat and the gamma radiation measured ouside the reactor respects the limits imposed by the law (0.2 microSievert/h). We do not use radioactive material and we do not produce radioactive materials, as evidenced in years now of repeated tests with our reactors.
Just to avoid misunderstandings.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 23rd, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Dear Mr Pietro F.
We do not need somebody else make a research of what happens in the reactors, because we know now exactly what happens.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 21st, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Mr “Anonimous” ( why anonimous? )
I never supposed fission inside the E-Cats. I never found evidence of fission.
I cannot give information of what happens inside the reactor, also if at this point I have understood what happens. With 300 reactors in operation I am learning.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 19th, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Dear Mr Markku Poysti:
If Ni melts the E-Cat stops. It works only with powders. This makes it intrinsically safe. And do not forget that we do not leave radioactive material, we do not use radioactive material .
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 17th, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Dear Mr Russell Robles-Thome:
Deuterium doesn’t work.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 6th, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Dear Mr Pietro Giacomini:
The stainless steel reactor never gave, so far, evidence of alterations.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 3rd, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Dear Mr Enrico Maria Podestà:
The external pipe, within which runs the water, is made by copper. The reactor is made by stainless steel.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

May 1st, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Dear Mr Mauro Rossi:
1- we consume about 1 gram of hydrogen in 24 hours
2- I never saw neutrons and neutrinos, with exception of few times, when I saw neutrons, captured in bubble columns, but for a very particular experiment I made by myself, being very dangerous.
3- No, I didn’t.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 29th, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Dear John Davison:
The only and sole guy, so far, that knows what happens inside the reactor is me. We do not use electrolysis.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Luke Mortensen

April 28th, 2011 at 1:09 PM

AR,
Some good E-Cat trivia for the fans:

1. How many e-cats are in continuous operation today?
2. How many geographic locations are e-cats running today?
3. Are there any e-cats running in the US with businesses you own or individuals you trust?
4. Any estimate on how much fuel has been spent over the life of your research?
5. Is there anything confidential about how you use electrolysis for the reactor is is that industry standard technology?

Thanks,
~Luke Mortensen

Andrea Rossi

April 28th, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
1- 97
2- 4
3- yes
4- less than if I was taxist
5- I do not use electrolysis
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Charles Richer

April 24th, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Thank You for the answer.

Inside the lead shielding is different.
4kW on 25 grams of nickel may melt it destroying the substrate. So energy transfer is thermal and high energy radiation captured by the lead shield. If I may reiterate the question under such constraint would we have a discussion.

Andrea Rossi

April 24th, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Dear Mr Charles Richer:
Ni melts normally, in part, inside the E-Cat. It is designed for this effect.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Charles Richer

April 24th, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Salutations to Andrea Rossi,

Without stating the average gamma wavelength (or the standard deviation of the wavelength) can you comment on any observed shift in the gamma wavelength that seem to be influenced by external conditions.

Thank you in advance for the consideration.

Andrea Rossi

April 24th, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Dear Mr Charles Richer:
Outside the E-Cat we have no variations in the external conditions, max 0.2 microSv x h^-1.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 24th, 2011 at 2:43 AM

CATWORLD:
Of course we talk of explosions under control, to stress the modules: the so called “destructive proofs”.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Luke Mortensen

April 22nd, 2011 at 4:06 PM

AR,
You’ve been working on these reactors for some time. Instead of asking about technical details which you cannot provide, perhaps you could tell us some of the *fun* parts of being an inventor.

1. What were a few of the most exciting moments as you invented these reactors over the last few years? (moments of discovery!)

2. Another fun question: How many reactors have you blown up?
(You have experimented to determine the safest size/pressures/temperatures. Stress testing is important!)

Thanks,
~Luke Mortensen

Andrea Rossi

April 23rd, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Dear Mr Luke Mortensen:
1- when for the first time I got substantial gain of energy, that kind of gain which is beyond any reasonable doubt
2- 37 (all recorded, with the supposed reasons of the event)
Warm Regards
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 21st, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Caro Sig. Random:
No, il piombo è necessario, per motivi di sicurezza.
Lead shielding is necessary, for safety issues.
Cordiali saluti,
A.R.

  1. Dr. Johannes Hagel

April 20th, 2011 at 3:35 PM

What happens if by some defect the E-Cat during operation is not longer cooled by the water surrounding it? How much would the temperature of the metal rise? Will the nuclear reaction stop due to high temperatures or will it be enhanced? In this case the E-Cat could melt. Is there a potential danger?

Andrea Rossi

April 20th, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Dear Dr Johannes Hagel:
1- we have a secondary emergency cooling system
2- Confidential
3- With temperature above the set the reactor is automatically stopped
4- We melt many times , for testing reasons, the E-Cats. No danger at all, we do not use radioactive materials and we do not leave radioactive waste. During the melting hydrogen intrinsically burns, without hydrogen no reaction occurs.
Warmest regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 17th, 2011 at 7:29 AM

Dear Mr Davide:
In the case of electrolysis the energy gain is of some watt, therefore it is possible that it depends from electrodes thermal generation independent from nuclear effects. In my case, first of all we do not make electrolysis, so we have not electrodes, but , which is more important, we are producing 4 kWh/h of energy, for 24 hours per day per module, consuming from the plug a small fraction of this energy: you cannot produce this energy with the effect Prof. Capiteri has talked of. Is a totally different situation. Besides, we have no electrodes, and if the electric components of our system heat up, this is at expense of the energy that we get from the plug, so that the heating of the electric and electronic components should have to be considered as a parasitic consume of energy by the system, which is the contrary of an energy source. We did not consider it at all, because is irrelevant ( some tenth of watts), but this amount of energy should have to be subtracted from the consume of energy of my reactor from the plug, not added to it, because it is dispersed in the room, not accumulated inside the water heating volume.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Ing. Albert Ellul

April 16th, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Dear Ing. Rossi, I have been following this blog from it’s day one. The more I follow the questions raised by the commentors here and your esteemed technical/scientific/intelligent answers, the more I am convinced of your invention. (In fact I had been waiting for such an achievement for some years, although from somewhere else.)
I have learned a lot from your answers, but I still got one curiosity inside my brain, waiting to be satisfied: What holds the nano-sized nickel powder from escaping with the flow of the hot water or steam? Such tiny, nano-sized particles would easily get into a suspension state with the heated water and would flow with the hot water? Is the e-Cat constructed with two sections, one where the reaction takes place and the secondary chamber that picks up energy by heat transfer through the material walls separating the two?

Of course, if this is part of the patent design I would not expect an answer.

Andrea Rossi

April 16th, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Dear Ing. Albert Ellul:
1- water does not go in contact with the nanoparticles
2-yes
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 15th, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Dear Mr Andy Hoffman:
1- 50 grams of Ni are consumed in 180 days, 0.11 g of H are consumed in 24 hours.
2- Fe is an impurity, not a product of transmutation
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 14th, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Derar Mr “HRG”:
Yes, we got melting of Ni in experiments where we made exactly what you say. To stop the mechanism is enough auxiliary cooling and cut of hydrogen feed. In few minutes the Cat falls asleep.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Jed Rothwell

April 11th, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Mattias Carlsson asked “Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?” and you replied:

“Yes, we do.”

Elsewhere you said that processing the Ni adds only about 10% to the cost. Yet monoisotopic elements are very expensive. To enrich the sample even 1% would make it cost far more than normal Ni.

How do you explain this? Perhaps there is some confusion.

(Incidentally, Piantelli says in his patent that his Ni is enriched. See patent WO 2010/058288)

Andrea Rossi

April 11th, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Dear Jed Rothwell:
I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. To elaborate Ni powders along classic processes is the invention of the hot water. It is as invent and patent the sputtering in 2010…
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 10th, 2011 at 7:26 AM

Dear Mr Goran Crafte:
All the independent Researchers that have tested our reactors had the possibility to check that inside the reactor there is no other gas but hydrogen.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 9th, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Dear Mr William:
1- I wanted to say that to treat the powders is confidential because difficult
2- the Ni processing system increases 10% the cost of Ni
3- Cu cannot enter the reactor: Cu is what the water tube is made of, inside the water tube there is the reactor, which is tightly sealed.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 9th, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
The stainless steel I use is AISI 316 L, which is an alloy of Ni,Cr,Fe: no Cu, so I do not think the wall of the reactor has been “sputtered”. The reason of the slight delta of the isotopes of Ni depends on the treatment we make to the Ni before the reactions, so that at the end of the work substantially 62 and 64 Ni have reacted and the final composition returns close to the normal, not exactly of course.
The treatment of the powders is part of the invention and is confidential so far: the difficult part of it stays in the low operational cost.

Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Ivan Moho

April 6th, 2011 at 2:59 AM

New article from Ny Teknik:

Swedish physicists on the E-cat:
“It’s a nuclear reaction”

In a detailed report, two Swedish physicists exclude chemical reactions as the energy source in the Italian ‘energy catalyzer’. The two physicists recently supervised a new test of the device in Bologna, Italy.

The used powder contains
ten percent copper

Analyses of the nickel powder used in Rossi’s energy catalyzer show that a large amount of copper is formed. Sven Kullander considers this to be evidence of a nuclear reaction.

Ny Teknik detailed technical report: here

  1. Ed Pell

April 3rd, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Do we have a reason to believe that the nickel is being converted to Cu? Could the reaction be the hydrogen alone (though facilitated by the nickel lattice)?

Andrea Rossi

April 4th, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Dear Mr Ed Pell:
I have experimented that we have 62 and 65 Ni reaction. H alone doesn’t react.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

April 3rd, 2011 at 4:16 AM

Dear Mr Rèmi Andrè:
We call it LENR (low energy nuclear reactions). I think it is fit.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 28th, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Dear Mr Daniel G. Zavela:
No waste is left, nickel and copper are recycled.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 25th, 2011 at 3:19 AM

Dear Prof. Kowalski:
After the experience we made at the beginning, we worked on the powders, so that only Ni 62 and 64 react. As a matter of fact, after a couple of hours we do not find radioactivity inside the powders; of course, for safety reasons, in the manuals we demand that the powders are discharged the day after, but during our experiments that’s what we found. Nevertheless, Ni + p is not the sole source of energy, in this you are perfectly right. When we will present our 1MW plant in October we will also disclose the theory that at this point we have understood.
Warm regards,
A.R.

Ludwik Kowalski

March 24th, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Dear Andrea,

Your spent fuel, after producing heat at the rate of 12 KW (in a prolonged steady state operation) was removed from the container, one hour after the reactor was shot down. You reported that the fuel was not at all radioactive.

That puzzles me. This experimental fact is not consistent with what I would expect from the p+Ni fusion. Here is my reasoning:

The dominant isotopes in your fuel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (23%). By absorbing protons they produce radioactive Cu-59 and Cu-61, as you explained clearly in one of the articles. I can understand why radioactivity from Cu-59 is negligible after one hour of waiting–its half life is only 1.3 min. But the half life of Cu-61 is 3.3 hours; it should still be very radioactive, after only one hour of waiting. Doesn’t this indicate that the p+Ni fusion is not a mechanism by which thermal energy is produced in your reactor?

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 24th, 2011 at 3:56 AM

Dear Mr. Alan Silverman:
The radiations are not detected OUTSIDE the apparatus. Inside the apparatus we have the radiations which are thermalized.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Ludwik Kowalski

March 23rd, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

1) Thank you for information about the mass of the powder. Your power density 120 W/gram is probably higher (?) than in a fission reactor element.

2) Ludwik wrote: ” HRG asked for the data on the isotopic composition of Ni and Cu in spent fuel. I am also waiting for the answer.”

Andrea responded Cu is 63 and 65. Ni is…( he,he,he…)”

a) Are you saying, in the first half of the answer, that you had 69% of Cu-63 and 31% of Cu-65, as in natural copper?

b) What were the isotopic percentages of nickel in spent fuel?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA

Andrea Rossi

March 24th, 2011 at 4:36 AM

Dear Prof. Kowalski:
1: I do not know the power density of a fission reactor, I am not able to answer
2- a: a slight higher percentage of 63-Cu, but numbers are not constant
2-b: Sorry, this datum is confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi

March 23rd, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Dear Prof. Ludwik Kowalski:
1- Very good question, Professor: from my side, I cannot give information about the treatment we make with the Ni powders, but from your side, if you analyze carefully your question, it contains the answer.
2- Cu is 63 and 65. Ni is…( he,he,he…)
3- The average charge is around 100 g
Thank you very much, Prof. Kowalski, for the great job you made in your life as a professor and as a fighter for freedom. And thank you for your very kind attention,
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Andrea Rossi

March 19th, 2011 at 3:47 AM

Dear Mr. Gillis:
As a matter of fact we never found radioactive waste left after the operation, when we take out the used powders. This is due to the fact that the isotopes which are turned into copper are the 62 and 64 Ni. In thousands of tests we never found radioactive residuals. We take off the powders the day after the turn off.
Good question.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 27th, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Dear “HRG”:
In the chemical processes you are talking of there are absolutely not the conditions we put in the reactor: I mean conditions of Nickel powder treatment, pressure, temperature, presence of catalyzers, and many other issues. Luckily, it is impossible to have any kind of nuclear events in all the processes of hydrogenation in presence of Ni, either with function of catalyzer or not.
Thank you anyway for your useful question,
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 23rd, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Dear Dr Fine:
Thank you for the information. Our process is totally different, and I think I have understood why we produce mainly low energy gamma rays. I will publish it probably at the time of the start up of our 1 MW plant.
Warm Regards,
Andrea

  1. Andrea Rossi

February 3rd, 2011 at 4:20 PM

DEAR MR. SVEIN UTNE (swein_utne@hotmail.com):
UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR COMMENT, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT, FOR SOME REASON WHEN HAS BEEN APPROVED TO BE PUBLISHED IS DISAPPEARED, INSTEAD OF BEING PUBLISHED HERE. SORRY, BUT I WANT ANYWAY TO ANSWER, BECAUSE THE ISSUE YOU RAISED IS QUITE IMPORTANT.
I RESUME BRIEFLY WHAT YOU WROTE: YOU WROTE THAT IT IS HAPPENED TO OTHER RESEARCHERS WORKING WITH LENR THAT RADIATIONS EMITTED FROM THE REACTORS HAVE CAUSED PROBLEMS, AND YOU ARE AFRAID THAT SCALING UP THE REACTOR WE ARE WORKING WITH WE COULD HAVE RADIATIONS PROBLEMS, OR WORSE.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO OBSERVE THAT:
1- WE ARE NOT GOING TO SCALE UP THE REACTORS. TO GET HIGHER POWER WE JUST CONNECT MORE REACTORS OF 10 KW (WHICH IS THE MODULE WE TESTED THOUSANDS OF TIMES, WITHOUT EMITTING SIGNIFICANT RADIATIONS OUTSIDE THE REACTOR).
2- WE PERFORMED AND LESS SERIES OF MEASUREMENTS ON THE RADIATION EMITTED OUTSIDE THE REACTOR WITH EXPERTS SPECIALISTS OF THE FIELD, AND NEVER WE GOT PROBLEMS WITH THE 10 KW MODULES.
WARM REGARDS,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 28th, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Dear Mr. Luca:
The volume of the black box is not enough to contain a source of chemical derived energy equal to the energy produced, by orders of magnitude.
Anyway, you will be more convinced when we will put in operation 24 hours per day a 1 MW plant, in the factory of our Customer.
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi
p.s.
Please also consider that the test has been made by three very high level professors of Physics of the University of Bologna, not connected with us, used to work for CERN, INFN. Do you think they have not checked the absence of batteries? By the way: do you know the volume and weight of a battery able to deliver 10 kWh in 45 minutes?
Anyway: our tests are over. My next release will be from a 1 MW operative plant in the factory of a Customer. Within October. I promise. On my dead body.
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 25th, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Dear Mr. Herbert:
1- I am not professor
2- I totally share with you that to make a solid theory we have to work, work, work on good and safe reactors who produce working every day, safe and sound. I already have a theory, but I will expose it only after the presentation of the 1 MW plant. I assume that by that time we will have a granted patent, so we will be able to clarify what now is an industrial confidentiality
3-we already have those data, since we have reactors which worked for 6 months 24 hours per day. We are writing a paper on this issue.
In this article we will give the data regarding the isotopical mutations

4- you are right, but I think that more than that the result of a working plant cuts all the chatterings.
Warm regards,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 25th, 2011 at 2:40 PM

TODAY I RECEIVED A POST I LOST CLICKING ERRONEOUSLY, BUT I REMEMBER IT BECAUSE IMPORTANT AND I ANSWER ANYWAY. I APOLOGIZE WITH THE AUTHOR, WHOSE NAME I LOST.
HE SAID, SUBSTANTIALLY, THAT MAYBE THE COPPER WE FIND IN THE POWDERS WE ANALYZE AFTER THE OPERATION OF THE REACTOR CAN BE THE COPPER IMPURITIES CONTAINED IN THE NICKEL POWDERS WE UTILIZE.
THE ANSWER IS: THE AMOUNT OF COPPER WE FIND AFTER 6 MONTHS OF OPERATION IS OF ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE THAT THE IMPURITIES IN THE 99.9999 Ni WE USE.
WARM REGARDS,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 15th, 2011 at 6:32 AM

Dear Mr. William Collis:
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 comparisons of the 2 methods, is a good idea: so far we didn’t make neutron activation analysis.
If you will organize a conference and will invite me, I will be there.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  1. Andrea Rossi

January 15th, 2011 at 3:36 AM

Dear Mr. William Collis:
Thank you very much for your participating to this conference: I particularly appreciate your presence here.
1- the evidence of copper production in past has been found using an atomic microscope in the University of Bologna. The same we will make now: we will bring the sample of the Ni we used to the lab of UNIBO and detect Cu
2- in past we found them by means of the secondary ions mass spectrometer of the University of Padua. We will do the same now
3- just as you turn on and off your television set
4- yes, by an analysis. To measure the difference of mass you have to use the charge for months, because what you consume in a day is in the order of picograms
Thank you very much,
A.R.

  1. Andrea Rossi

November 8th, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Dear Dr Fine,
I reply to your email of November 8th: actually, I didn’t write that in our process there are no radiations, since radiations are the source of the energy we produce, I said we do not have residual radiations outside the reactor, in the surrounding environment.
Warm regards,
A.R.
p.s. Yes, today is the X Rays day…Thanks to Roentgen.

  1. Andrea Rossi

September 11th, 2010 at 1:30 PM

And again, Dr Jacques Dufour, a question for you pops up from the strong interest raised by your paper.
By the way, looking at my working modules in these days, that we are testing for our Customers, I am cropping a theory about the reason why they are working the way they are working. The study of these papers and of the Cook’s book are convincing me of a theory of nuclear reactions models. I think I will expose the theory at the presentation of the first plant, before the end of the year.
Anyway, I feel what’s going on in this blog is extremely important. The Journal Of Nuclear Physics is much more important than my friend Sergio Focardi and me thought it was going to be when we started it. Thanks to you all.
Andrea Rossi

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.