On 2011-04-16 00:37, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This was either a misunderstanding or he has retracted it. It is not
important. The purpose of the list is to present an up-to-date
description of what Rossi now thinks, not to hold him to previous
statements or find out how often he has changed his mind.
Fair enough.
I'm not sure if I will be able to send them, but what follows is a
series of text files containing raw question/answers I found relevant
from Rossi's blog up to the "JANUARY 15th FOCARDI AND ROSSI PRESS
CONFERENCE" post, which will take alone some dedicated work to process
entirely (you used part of that for the list in the opening post).
By the way, what caught my attention in particular is that it appears
that the reactor shielding is made of lead and boron, not lead only, but
that might be outdated information.
Cheers,
S.A.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=53
Andrea Rossi
April 16th, 2010 at 8:27 AM
Gent. Sig. Luca:
Se non ci fossero radiazioni gamma, non potrebbe funzionare il reattore:
lfenergia si ottiene proprio in virtuf della generazione di raggi gamma e di
altre reazioni descritte nel mio brevetto. Quello che ha detto il Prof.
Focardi, che in base ad un contratto che abbiamo con lfUniversitaf di Bologna
ha controllato le radiazione residue nellfambiente, ef, appunto, che non ci
sono radiazioni residue fuori dal reattore. Tali misurazioni, ovviamente, sono
state necessarie al fine di certificare la sicurezza dellf reattore sia sotto
il profilo della protezione individuale, sia della protezione ambientale. Il
grosso vantaggio di questo apparato ef che non usa materiale radioattivo e non
lascia residui radioattivi, ne come rifiuti solidi, ne come emissioni
ambientali.
La ringrazio per la Sua apprezzata attenzione e Le porgo cordiali saluti,
Andrea Rossi
***************************************
Giancarlo Rossi
June 19th, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Gentile Prof. Andrea Rossi
Sono un semplice appassionato, vorrei porre qualche domandac
1) State usando qualche isotopo particolarmente pesante del Nichel (Nichel-64
che dicono costi 100.000 dollari per 5 grammi?)
2) State usando DEUTERIO oppure se ho ben capito IDROGENO ?
3) Utilizzate forse il LITIO come gcatalizzatoreh della reazione.
4) ATTENZIONE ALLE LOBBY DEL PETROLIO E DEL CARBONE:
http://pesn.com/2010/06/18/9501662_water-fuel-research_Explosion_kills_inventor/
Giancarlo Rossi
(Ma non era meglio se svolgeva queste ricerche in Giappone o in Cina, paesi
assolutamente privi di risorse e di lobby assassine?)
Andrea Rossi
June 20th, 2010 at 2:52 AM
Gent. Sig. Giancarlo Rossi,
Grazie per la Sua attenzione; ecco le risposte:
1-No, usiamo Ni nella sua composizione isotopica naturale
2-Idrogeno
3-Non posso dare informazioni in merito ai catalizzatori
4- Nella mia vita ne ho passate di tali, che ormai non mi impressiono piu di
niente
5- Ho la fortuna di potere lavorare negli USA, e Le assicuro che, almeno dal
mio punto di vista, non esiste Paese migliore al mondo
Cordiali saluti,
Andrea Rossi
******************************************
Andrea Rossi
April 6th, 2011 at 5:43 AM
Dear Mr M:
We have contacts in the whole world, but our commercial operations will begin
in November, after the start up of our 1 MW plant in Greece.
Thank you for your kind considerations,
Warm regards,
A.R.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*******************************
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=58
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=59
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=62
John Fisher
March 16th, 2010 at 12:29 PM
As I understand it you can control the rate of energy production in the nickel
by adjusting the hydrogen pressure, and this method was used to maintain
constant output power during the periods of energy measurement. Is this correct?
Andrea Rossi
March 16th, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Actually, is more complex. You are asking confidential issues. Sorry.
A.R.
*******************************************************
Andrea Rossi
March 26th, 2010 at 9:28 AM
A module with a power of 20 kw has a volume of 20 liters and weights 30 kg.
Bigger powers are made with more modules, because for safety reasons I prefer
to add up series and parallels with the cooling fluids , not with the reactors,
to maintain small energy reactors.
Andrea Rossi
***********************************************
Andrea Rossi
March 26th, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Yes, we are making a 1 MW power reactor constituted by 50 modules of 20 kw
each: I prefer for safety reasons to add series and parallels with the cooling
fluids, not making bigger reactors, to maintain small and well tested reactors
which we learnt perfectly to control. Soon wefll put in operation the first
section of the 1MW plant, in the USA and when we will have everything well in
operation we will communicate the data. We want not to make press conferences
if we have not an industrial plant operated not by us, as it has been up to
now, but by the very high level Institution which is going to test and use it
in the USA. This to avoid the usual logosturbations which affected the
scientists who worked in this field.
Andrea Rossi
**************************************************
John Fisher
March 26th, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Your answers to questions have improved my understanding of the reactor. You
are achieving remarkable results. I have another question: What is the amount
of start-up energy employed to initiate nuclear reaction in the methods A, B, C
of Table 1?
Andrea Rossi
March 26th, 2010 at 1:59 PM
From 100 w through 1000 w of power.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
*****************************************************
Ludwik Kowalski
March 28th, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Reading the answer to the Jeanfs question, I see that the 1 MW plant will
consist of 50 modules, 20 kW each. The volume of each module will be 20 liters
(this is only 5 gallons). In other words 1 watt of power per cubic centimeter.
Andrea Rossi
March 28th, 2010 at 4:26 PM
Thank you for the attention. Yes, the power density is 1w/cc
******************************************************
Jean de Lagarde
March 29th, 2010 at 6:14 AM
Is your one megawatt unit supposed to work continuously or will it be necessary
to stop it from time to time to restore it before restarting ?
Andrea Rossi
March 29th, 2010 at 7:59 AM
Itfs supposed to work continuously, until the charge is consumed, and this
takes about 6 months.
In a modular array there is always one module more than necessary, so when a
recharge or a reparation is made therefs no decrease of production.
*******************************************************
Andrea Rossi
March 31st, 2010 at 6:07 AM
It is not mandatory, but for many reasons I canft explain, for the safety of
the operation is better that the electric flow goes on.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
********************************************************
Andrea Rossi
April 26th, 2010 at 5:43 PM
Dear Mr. Rolando,
Thank you for your appreciated attention.
I donft think the reaction is possible under the earthfs crust by spontaneous
reactions, because the odds of the presence of the right catalyzers are one out
of some billion. To get the reaction is not enough put together Ni and H at
high temperature and/or pressure, you need also a proper control upon T and P
and, mainly, a complex system of catalyzers.
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi
************************************************************
Andrea Rossi
April 28th, 2010 at 6:59 PM
Dear Mr. Brown, about the difference between H2 and H: in your post you
asked:f why donft you use H2 atmosphere?f. Your question is obviously
referred to the initial iniection of gas in the reactor. Eventually H2 breaks
up and we get atomic hydrogen. This is why I answered you that we use H2 and
why in the paper you read that the reaction is between Ni and H.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi
Andrea Rossi
April 29th, 2010 at 9:46 AM
I said eeventuallyf because it is exactly what happens. Of course you know
that in English eeventuallyf means eafter some timef.We know exactly why
and how to make H after the injection of H2 and know exactly how difficult is
to use this radical before H2 recombination. This is one of the most important
parts of our know how. When we use terms, in this field, we know exactly what
we say. We not just made models and calculations, but we made apparatuses which
are working from 2 years now. What we are working on is no more an
eexperimental setf, as you wrongly wrote,it is an apparatus which heats up a
factory and of which we are organizing the industrialization. I understand you
get fun, we donft: we work on this in a factory totally dedicated to this, and
we are pretty good at, as you soon will see. In our team there are Nuclear
Physics University professors, with experience from CERN of Geneva, INFN, etc.,
etc.
Your lecturing and sarcastic tone does not qualify you a lot, but we know, you
get func
About the second question, yes, the paper has been peer-reviewed.
Get fun, eMR BROWNf, and let your sun smile for ever.
A.R.
*************************************************************
Jean de Lagarde
May 10th, 2010 at 4:50 AM
Is your one megawatt unit near completion ? will it be working in the coming
summer ?
Andrea Rossi
May 10th, 2010 at 8:35 AM
Yes, we are working well and fast. As I said in past, we hope to be in
operation by the end of the year. We already are working with the modules
already made and they confirm the reliability of the former ones.
Thank you very much for your kind interest,
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi
**************************************************************
Andrea Rossi
July 2nd, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Dear Pierre,
Thank you for your important questions, here are the answers:
1- the Ni powder I utilized were pure Ni, no copper . At the end of the
operations in the reactor the percentage of copper was integrally bound to the
amount of energy produced. A charge which has worked for 6 monthes, 24 hours
per day, at the end had a percentage of Cu superior to 30%
2- About the Ni isotopes: the isotopes after the operations were substantially
changed in percentage. We are preparing a campaign of analysys with a Secondary
Ions Mass Spectrometer at the University of Padua (Italy), at the end of which
the data will be published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.
Warm Regards,
Andrea
***********************************************************
Ivor Paech
August 30th, 2010 at 6:26 AM
Dear Andrea,
Would you regard the (nuclear) reaction as being primarily a surface reaction,
after all Ni is noted for its aDsorbing properties as distinct from palladium?
If this is a surface effect, can you advise how the surface is prepared and
maintained to allow continued operation ?
Andrea Rossi
August 30th, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Dera Ivor:
Your questions regard issues which at the moment are covered with industrial
secret. I am sorry, I cannot answer.
I want anyway to thank you for your interest in our work.
Warmest regards,
Andrea
**********************************************************
Andrea Rossi
February 7th, 2011 at 9:06 AM
Dear Mr Rolando:
For sure in October we will make the start up of the 1 MW plant we are
manufacturing for our Customer of Athens. This also will cut off all the
chattering which is coming from persons financed by who wants not this
technology take place, and envy. Should envy be turned into energy it could
move at maximum power all the high speed trains of the world. This is why I am
not answering to the lot of superficial things I am reading in some blog. To
too many words only facts can give answers.
Warm Regards
Andrea Rossi
***********************************************************
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=64
Ake Ostlund
March 30th, 2011 at 2:36 PM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I am, just like many others, very fascinated by your invention. Personally,
because of my profession, Ifm particularly interested in safety issues, and
out of what Ifve read, Ifve a few considerations concerning issues that might
be of relevance in the case of the E-cat ? in particular applicable on the
household version:
1. In Sweden there are, as in the whole EU I think, rules for how to handle gas
tubes ? especially those which contains explosive material. As Ifve
understood, the consumption of hydrogen is very small, and this machine has to
be served twice a year with new Ni-powder. Is it possible to remove the
hydrogen tube from the machine and restore the pressure only when serving it?
Itfd be an advantage if one can have the hydrogen tube removed from the
household during the periods when service isnft required.
2. Ifve read that you once had to stop the machine by insufflating nitrogen
and that the E-cat has to be steered or controlled by electricity. What would
happen if therefs a break in the supply of electricity ? would it then be
necessary to stop the machine, and if so, how? Is there a need for an
alternative supply of electricity to step in, in form of a (rechargeable)
backup battery, in such situations? And would it be a safety step to replace
the hydrogen tube with a nitrogen ditto in order to stop the process by an
automatic valve which opens up when needed ? for ex if the machine becomes
overheated?
Best wishes,
Ake Ostlund
Andrea Rossi
March 30th, 2011 at 7:00 PM
Dear Mr Ake Ostlund:
1- when the powder has to be changed, as you correctly suggest, the hydrogen
tube has to be disconnected
2-I neve insufflated Nytrogen. That info was wrong. If there is a black out,
the E-Cat automatically stops, for lack of current: it is intrinsecally safe
Warm Regards,
A.R.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=66
Joseph Catania
June 13th, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Are there any ionizing radiotions detected while the experiment is running?
What types? Is the density of the nickel the same before and after the
experiment?
Andrea Rossi
June 13th, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Dear Mr Joseph Catania:
During the operations of our reactors no radiations have been detected outside
the reactor. The shielding system has been designed by Prof. Sergio Focardi, of
the Physics Inst. of the University of Bologna. He made a great job with us.
The Ni isotopes are different between before and after the operation, as has
been seen with the Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometer of the University Of Padua
and as we are seeing in the USA in this period.
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi
**********************************************
Edward Jobson
January 29th, 2011 at 5:08 PM
Very good new,
I see that the Patent was dated August 2008.
Do you need to isolate he Ni (62) to get the reaction stable?
You write about a catalyst that is not required for the reaction but supposedly
increase the reaction rate.
Can you say anything about the properties or composition of the catalyst?
/Edward
Andrea Rossi
January 30th, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Dear Mr Edward Jobson:
1- no
2- no.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
*********************************************
Charles Richer
February 8th, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Salutations,
Now more then ever, I am interested in knowing the history for resolving the
stability issues.
It is my sincere hope that the reactors can be integrated in large power plant.
We await with anticipation.
For myself, I will try to promote this product to local governments.
Charles Richer
February 8th, 2011 at 1:13 PM
Dear Mr Charles Richer:
First of all, thank you for your attention. The scale up is safe, since we just
combine the 10 kW modules. Is very interesting what you say, about the
possibility of integrating our reactors in existing power plants. We already
have designed this solution, and we have great expectances upon it. You got it.
Warm regards,
A.R.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=96
Andrea Rossi
February 5th, 2011 at 10:36 AM
Dear Mr Lucio Martini:
I have no idea about the marketing, for which I invite you to contact
[email protected]
1 g of Ni gives about 2 MWh. Of course, theoretically should be much more, but
this is the real production we got, because of course only a minimal part of
mass is turned into energy in the real battlefield.
Thank you very much for your kind attention,
Warm regards,
A.R.
****************************************
Vasile Dorobantu
February 10th, 2011 at 7:19 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I have made some calculations regarding your invention. From the date I have
accessed , it is no doubt that such an energy cannot be gained without taking
into account the cold fusion. It is true that from 0.1 g of Ni, fused with the
same number of protons, you can get 3.83~?10?^7 J, or 10.634 kW. So, there are
some things, besides the missing information, which do not match:
The energy of the protons are not big enough to surpasses the Coulomb barrier,
so ,the only accessible phenomenon is tunneling. Calculating the tunneling
probability, you have to use more than 20 times hydrogen, as you declared (0.01
g).
The temperature, inside the cell, you said, is in the range: 150-5000 0 C,
which is much, much smaller than one resulting from calculations. What was the
temperature you have measured at a certain input electric power?
Declaring that you have got more energy than the input energy violates the
Thermodynamic principles. It has to be taken into account the energy used to
make nanoparticles of Ni, preparing H, the efficiency of transforming water
vapors into electric energy, etc.
I would be content if you, Mr. Rossi, would submit some answers, or to say
where I have to find the gilluminatingh article, one which not violates known
( and verified) Physics.
All the best,
V.Dorobantu
Andrea Rossi
February 10th, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Dear Dr Vasile Dorobantu,
You are right, your questions are correct.
Actually, the dynamic of the tunnelling effect is not based only upon the
statistics, but there are other factors that make possible to overcome the
Coulombian barriers. Pressure plays a key factor, but I cannot give you
information regarding how the reactor works internally. You correctly observe
the limitations put by the first principle of thermodynamics. Perfectly right.
As for the efficiency limitations put by the carnot Cycle, you obviously refer
to, we have the same efficiency limitations, once the steam is produced.
Warm regards,
A.R.
**************************************************************
Andrea Rossi
April 14th, 2011 at 4:20 PM
Dear Mr Giorgio Filosto:
The Ni powders must be made in a very presice way. Nothing is casual.
Warm regards,
A.R.
****************************************************
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=168
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=179
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=185
Andrea Rossi
May 14th, 2010 at 7:36 AM
Dear Mr. Enrico Billi:
Thank you very much for your appreciated interest to the work we made. I think
that in this phase of your education it is better if you follow the suggestions
of your trusted Teacher. This is, for you, time to learn, not to invent, and
our field is a field of inventions, so I think, sincerely, that it is premature
for you to enter our field. For now you get education, the maximum level of
education you can, then you will decide what to do. Prof. Giovanni Bonsignori
is an outstanding teacher, you can trust him. Nevertheless, Focardi and me, we
are grateful to you for the attention you gave to our work. A very, very hard
work. About the 1 MW generator: yes, I am in the USA , I am the chief scientist
of Leonardo Corporation and we are building a 1 MW generator, which has been
commissioned to us from a Major Customer. The first modules are already working
and I assume before the end of the year wefll have completed the job.
Conclusion: follow your Professor and put in your education all your best
efforts, for now.
Again, thank you and gin bocca al lupoh!
Warmest Regards,
Andrea Rossi
**********************************
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=211
What is the level of activity you observe 2 hours after shut down?
Andrea Rossi
May 7th, 2010 at 6:52 AM
Very interesting. After 2 hours we still have thermal emission, but still we
donft have radiations out of the reactor. Of course, the lasting of thermal
emission means that readiation (gamma) continues to be thermalized. We (
Focardi and me) are convinced that neutrons donft reach the energy to exit the
nuclea, with some exception, which is thermalized in 20',also because our
shielding od boron and lead is much lower that you calculated.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
*************************************************
Andrea Rossi
May 25th, 2010 at 6:42 PM
Dear Dr Billi:
We never found gamma rays out of the reactor, being thermalyzed. Nevertheless,
what you are doing is intersting. Be careful manipulating Ni powders ( are very
dangerous) and Hydrogen, for obvious reasons.
Warmest regards,
Andrea Rossi
**************************************
Andrea Rossi
July 13th, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Dear Prof. Celani,
I am really pleased from the fact that you looked at our work. I know who you
are and I thank you really for your attention.
Our standard module consumes 500 watts and yields constantly and with absolute
reliability, with no risks that radiations exit the reactor and with no risks
of explosion, 4 kW. We obtained much higher efficiencies, as you can read on
the Focardi-Rossi paper published on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics, but now I
had to find a compromise to manufacture power plants with absolute reliability
under the point of view of safety. The excess of energy follows a K= 8 at the
moment. We reached a K 400, but we got explosions. I can get risks when I amk
alone, but to sell a reliable product I have to go down to 8, right now. We are
manufacturing a 1 MW plant made with 125 modules.
With 1 g of Ni I got 750 kW.
Again thank you for your attention.
*******************************************************
Francesco Celani
July 14th, 2010 at 8:33 AM
Dear Eng. Andrea Rossi,
I would like to thank You for your kind consideration about our experimental
activity.
* BTW, in respect to my question about excess power density using one gram of
Nickel, You answered that it is 750kW (so 750kW/g) but, always if there are no
problems to share your results, how much is your energy density? In other
words, how many J or kWh you ggainh from 1g of Nickel?
* Moreover, your fuels are both Hydrogen and Nickel if have well understood,
but can we suppose that all the Nickel participate the Ni+H reaction or only a
particular isotope of Nickel make the reaction and other isotopes are useless?
Do you think are there also H+H reaction?
Thanks for all your answers and the help that you are giving to this important
field of Science.
Warmest Regards,
Francesco CELANI
Andrea Rossi
July 14th, 2010 at 2:37 PM
Dear Prof. Celani:
1- with a charge of 1 g of Ni we consume 94 kWh of energy, considering the
consume of Hydrogen and of power, and produce 750 kWh.
Margin of variance: 10% moreless. This gain is the limit above which dangerous
situations begin.
2- We think that all the Ni participates to the reactions, even if some
isotopes should be more efficient. Anyway, we use regular Ni, because the
isotopes separation is too expensive, at least right now, and the answer 1
relates to regular Ni with the natural isotopical composition
3- I do not think we have H+H reactions: much higher energies would be
necessary to produce He. We use low energies, high energies make the nucleons
too energetic to build something useful. This, at least, is my opinion, which,
as everything in theoretic physics, can be wrong.
Thank you for your questions,
Warmest Regards,
Andrea Rossi
**********************************************
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=254
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=275
Nick Tininenko
January 18th, 2011 at 3:03 AM
>From what Ifve read so far, it seems as though this process is indeed very
>similar, if not identical, to the process being developed by Dr. Millsian and
>Blacklight PowercHave you had any discussions with them? Perhaps this could
>be further validation of both your processesc
Andrea Rossi
January 18th, 2011 at 9:45 AM
Dear Mr Nick:Probably you did not read one of the two methods o ryou didnft
read both. My process is substantially different.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
****************************************
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=305
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=316
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=331
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=338
HRG
March 9th, 2011 at 9:45 PM
Dr. Rossi:
Do you think that your process could be generalized to work with elements
beyond nickel?
Andrea Rossi
March 10th, 2011 at 3:45 AM
Dear gHRGh:
We have tested many compositions, but with Ni we got, so far, the results. We
are continuing anyway the research, and also we have made many patent
applications refarding the possible variations, disclosing the results obtained.
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi
******************************
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.
*****************************************
Ludwik Kowalski
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Andrea Rossi wrote (see above, that gthe isotopes which are turned into copper
are the 62 and 64 Ni.h
1) Yes, the 63Cu and 65Cu, if produced from fusion of protons with 62Ni and
64Ni, would be stable. But natural abundancies of these isotopes of nickel,
3.7% and 1.8%, respectively, are too low to be consistent with the claimed
accumulation of 30% of copper. Do you agree, Andrea Rossi?
2) HRG asked for the data on the isotopic composition of Ni and Cu in spent
fuel. I am also waiting for the answer.
3) I also would like to know the approximate mass of nickel powder in the 12 kW
reactor demonstrated in January.
Thank you in advance. And good luck. The world is waiting for clean, and less
expensive, nuclear energy.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
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 isc( he,he,hec)
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
**************************************
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: h HRG asked for the data on the isotopic composition of Ni
and Cu in spent fuel. I am also waiting for the answer.h
Andrea responded Cu is 63 and 65. Ni isc( he,he,hec)h
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 24th, 2011 at 3:56 AM
Dear Mr Alan Silverman:
Tha radiations are not detected OUTSIDE the apparatus. Inside the apparatus we
have the radiations which are thermalized.
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. Doesnft this indicate that the p+Ni fusion is not a
mechanism by which thermal energy is produced in your reactor?
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 thatfs 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.
**********************************
HRG
March 25th, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Dr. Rossi
What do you think is unique about Ni62 and/or Ni64 which makes it (them) more
highly reactive with protons than the other (major) natural isotopes?
Andrea Rossi
March 25th, 2011 at 5:27 PM
Dear Prof. Gillis HRG,
I think that it is caused from the major number of nuclear links on the surface
of the 62 and 64 isotopes, which also could be the reason why 63 and 65 Cu
isotopes are stable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
**********************************
Andrea Rossi
April 4th, 2011 at 9:25 PM
Dear gHRGh:
My process has nothing to do with Widom Larsen Theory. Nothing at all, as you
will see when we will publish our theory together with the presentation of our
1 MW plant in Greece in October.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
****************************
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 doesnft react.
Warm regards,
A.R.
*****************************************
Mattias Carlsson
April 8th, 2011 at 9:08 AM
Dear Rossi,
As I understand from your answers you confirm or suspect that only Ni 62 and Ni
64 react to produce Cu 63 and Cu 65 respectively.
The Swedish professor Kullander says in the magazine gNy teknikh that in the
espentf fuel there is 10% copper 63 and 65 (70:30) and 11% iron.
Since nickel 62 and 64 is present in the proportions of 3.6% and 0.9% totaling
4.5% in normal natural nickel. Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to
make the nickel fuel?
Best regards
Mattias Uppsala Sweden
Andrea Rossi
April 8th, 2011 at 9:33 AM
Dear Mr Mattias Carlsson:
Yes, we do.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
******************************************
HRG
April 9th, 2011 at 8:51 PM
Dr. Rossi:
Thank you for taking so much of your time to answer questions.
Are you reasonably certain that both Ni62 and Ni64 are indeed reacting? If so;
which one reacts fastest?
Andrea Rossi
April 9th, 2011 at 10:00 PM
Dear Dr Gillis HRG:
I do not know which one reacts fastest.
Interesting the other suggestions.
Warm Rgards,
A.R.
*****************************
Carlo Ombello
April 11th, 2011 at 8:27 AM
Dear Ing. Rossi,
I have been reading a lot of documentation relevant to your recent involvement
with Focardi, as well as the previous studies conducted on Ni-H by Focardi and
Piantelli, which managed to produce a working cell with an output of 40 W
(thermal). I have also thoroughly listened to all the recent interviews from
you and Focardi. As far as I understand, the breakthrough acceleration you gave
in the development of a usable device based on their original experiments can
be summed up (at least) by the following:
1) use of nickel powder instead of nickel rods, to increase available surface
2) use of genrichedh nickel (62 Ni and 64 Ni) instead of gnatural mixh
nickel, to maximise reaction rate with H and fusion into stable 63 and 65 Cu
3) use of high pressure H2 gas instead of low pressure (below 1 bar as in
original experiments) to maximise interaction Ni-H
4) use of undisclosed catalyst compounds to maximise rate and stability of the
Ni-H reaction process
Are the above points 1 to 4 correct?
Thank you
Ing. Carlo Ombello
Andrea Rossi
April 11th, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Dear Ing. Carlo Ombello:
I cannot add further information.
Warm regards,
A.R.
***************************************
William
April 11th, 2011 at 8:34 PM
Hello Mr. Rossi,
Thank you for revealing that your nickel fuel is enriched to include more Ni 62
and Ni 64. To many of us, your technology is like an addictive and exciting
puzzle just waiting to be put together! It holds the potential to change the
world and our entire civilization for the better!
Your revelation also brings a few questions to mind.
1) If the enrichment process removes some isotopes from a certain quantity of
nickel powder, the final quantity of refined fuel would be less than the
quantity of nickel powder you started with. Can you tell us what percentage of
nickel powder remains (from lets say one kilogram of ordinary nickel powder)
after the enrichment processing takes place?
2) You once stated that the nickel powder you utilize costs approximately $20
dollars per kilogram. If we add a 10% processing cost to this (probably to pay
for the chemicals you use) the cost goes up to $22 dollars. However, if lets
say only a small percentage of the original powder remains after processing,
the cost per kilogram of enriched fuel would be higher than the cost of the raw
nickel powder. Can you give us an idea of how much a kilogram of enriched fuel
costs?
3) Are the catalysts added during the processing of the nickel powder?
Thanks for being willing to continue communicating with us! You have made the
past few months very exciting for me and have personally given me a great deal
of hope for the future.
Sincerely,
William
Andrea Rossi
April 11th, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Dear William:
1- I cannot give more information about this issue
2- I can say that the cost for enrichment is not substantial for the global
economy of the process
3- I cannot gove this information
Warm regards,
A.R.
**************************
