Rossi Sees ‘Pico-Chemistry’ As New Field of Science to Explore E-Cat Reactions

It is unusual these days for Andrea Rossi to engage in discussion about his theoretical understanding of what is going on inside the E-Cat. Normally when questioned about theory on the Journal of Nuclear Physics he will cite his most recent paper and tell people to refer to it for answers.
But there has been an exception to this pattern in the following exchange with JONP reader Mattias Andersson who asks some specific questions about topics in his recent papers. I have included Rossi’s responses to each question below:

Dear Andrea,

Some questions related to two of your papers:

1. In [2] you investigated possible transmutation paths of Li and Ni in the E-cat as a source of energy. Was this line of research abandoned in favor of the theories presented in [1]?

AR: 1 Even if I am not currently following this line of research, as you have seen on [1], I consider the pico-metric neutral aggregates described in
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
as the best candidates to support the hypothesis of a transmutation paths of Li and Ni: see equation 49 of “Electron Structure, Ultra-Dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” in JCMNS Vol 29

2. What are the benefits of the lattice-IPM model when reasoning about long range particle interactions (if any)?

AR: 2 Norman Cook’s lattice nuclear models, based on a pure electromagnetic interpretation of nuclear force, have inspired the hypothesis of a possible balancing of Coulomb repulsion between electrons in dense clusters by a Lorenz force generated by the Zitterbewegung currents

3. What is the significance of nucleon excitation states when reasoning about long range interactions?

AR: 3 The idea of interactions at picometric scale between electrons and nucleons open the door to an entirely new field of science ( pico-chemistry ) where the possible formation of new nuclear isomeric states cannot be excluded.

4. What is the significance of short range binding energies in long range interactions?

AR: 4 Accepting the ZBW model for the elementary particles, the range of the electro-magnetic binding energies is inversely proportional to the size of the ZBW current loops. For this reason, the short range nuclear binding energy should be at least three orders of magnitude stronger than in pico-metric aggregates. The orders of magnitude are:
1 eV chemistry, 1 keV pico-chemistry, 1 MeV nuclear chemistry

Thank in advance,
Mattias

[1] Andrea Rossi. E-Cat SK and long range particle interactions, 2019.
[2] Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi. On the nuclear mechanisms underlying the heat production by the E-Cat, 2015.

There is a lot of complex terminology in this exchange, and one would need a lot of background in the subjects to make sense of it all, but if Rossi has what he claims, there’s going to be a lot for scientists to explore to explain how the E-Cat does what it does. Rossi seems to be partial to the Cook hypothesis of the lattice structure of the nucleus which is apparently not a commonly held position in the scientific community. Maybe the E-Cat, if finally demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, will spur a new way of looking at nature.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

E-Cat Demand Could Rise to 3000GWe/year as the SKL Electrifies Everything (Aljobo)

The following post has been submitted by ECW reader aljobo 

Details about the E-cat SKL have emerged that allow us to build a better picture. With some added assumptions it would be interesting to look at all applications for the device and the likely final market size. Before the official unveiling of the SKL this may be getting ahead of ourselves and all predictions are at best highly approximate but it is nevertheless useful to get a sense of magnitudes and how a transition could play out.

The E-cat SKL is a 10cm x 10cm x 10 cm, i.e. 1l device of unknown weight, without the control unit. Some comments seem to suggest that the output of the device is in the 1-3kW range. 70% of output is electric. With this information let’s assume that each 1l cube outputs 2kW total energy or 1.4kW electric.

Weight information is missing but a first guess could be the density of a laptop, another device with metal casing, some dense components (metals 7-9 kg/l) and some empty space. The latest Macbook is approximately 1.4kg/l, i.e. just a little denser than water (it will sink) so for simplicity let’s assume 1.4kg/l or 1kW/kg.

This does not include any cooling or control units. For simplicity let’s assume that we need to add 50% for cooling and controls in both weight and size. This easily fits all mobile applications, including airplanes.

Let’s look at the end markets. They break down into static and mobile.

Static markets are easiest to transform. Central electricity generation capacity is 7TWe globally. A 10 year transition would result in 700GWe annual demand. Decentralized electricity generation in homes and businesses will happen but only towards the end of that transition when prices are lower and no engineers are needed to supervise.

For heat (industrial and space heating) looking at the US energy balance rejected heat accounts for almost 2/3 of the total energy production. With decentralized installation of E-cats that waste heat could be put to far more use, at the same time we’re only looking at 30% waste heat from the E-cat SKL. Even so, there will be significant extra demand for heating, perhaps less annual production than electricity but more concentrated in time (in cold seasons) so for simplicity let’s assume global electric capacity at 7TWe again. Some may be in the form of highly efficient heat pumps so that could reduce demand. Air conditioning is electric so doesn’t come into this equation, evaporative a/c is quite a lot more expensive and not worth it if electricity is cheap. To transition this, let’s assume 10 years as well for another 700GWe annual demand.

Moving on to mobile applications, the first to transition could actually be marine. Engines are already diesel/electric so the combustion engine doesn’t drive the ship but a generator instead. The global fleet is 2bn dead weight tons and a reasonable estimate of the required power is 0.15kW/dwt, yielding 300GW of installed power. As combustion is only 50% efficient we need only 150GWe to electrify global shipping, over 5 years this is 30Gwe. I’m assuming a faster transition as there’s much greater urgency here to get costs down, increase ship speed at no extra cost and comply with tough emission standards.

Next, cars are in the middle of two transitions. First, electrification and second, autonomy. For more detail on robo-taxis see rethinkx’ study but given a $0.20/mile plausible cost in the long term private ownership will disappear fast. Currently 100m cars are sold per year and many studies predict that 1 (robo-)taxi will replace 5 cars, cutting the new car demand to 20m – existing ICE cars will still run for the rest of their average 15 year life but will not be replaced. The robotaxi roll-out will be even easier as no charging infrastructure would be necessary and operations could run 24/7. Using a Tesla Model 3 as the the state-of-the-art example we can see that the car consumes roughly 40kW at 80mph. This is the lower bound for continuous power which needs to be provided by the E-cat units. These units amount to 10s of kg and liters and would replace most batteries that are in the hundreds of kg and liters. To provide peak power of 100kW+ we still need some batteries (and potentially supercapacitors for “ludicrous” human-driven luxury versions). Given that the battery packs are much smaller now (5-10kWh) these need to provide more cycles and higher C rates of 10 or more when compared to 50-100kWh designs. A positive side effect would be that this would enable a switch away from cobalt to less dense but more performant, longer-lasting and cheaper LTO or LFP chemistries – battery raw material constraints always made full electrification doubtful, with only a fraction needed for each car and no Cobalt this issue disappears. 20m cars/year * 40kW = 800GWe.

Moving on to trucks we don’t have good data on electrification yet but comparing mileage between large trucks and current ICE cars we see a 4-5x drop. Applying this to 3m trucks sold per year and adjusting the blend to include medium size trucks we get 150kW * 3m units or 600GWe.

Diesel trains are not a large feature in the energy balance outside the US (where they transport 40% of tonnage) so the likely requirement there is in the 10s of GWe, let’s add 20GWe here.

Finally, airplanes are the toughest to transition. According to a 2017 NASA study a 300 seat plane requires around 60MW of electric power. There is some concern about weight but research indicates that 10kW/kg is a medium term minimum so the turbines would only weigh in at 6t, compared to a max take-off weight of over 200t for a Boeing 787. More research into large MW sized turbines, not just small propellers is urgently needed as safety testing must be extremely rigorous. Currently this is not happening fast enough as batteries are seen as the only electrification route and have nowhere near the capacity to power large planes. Reliability of the SKL units would also have to be proven over many years, though the fact that tens of thousands of units generate power independently should enhance safety greatly (chance of power<90% for 50000 units at 99% reliability is very small) – note the word independent though, any run-away reaction affecting neighboring units could be catastrophic. Airbus and Boeing are currently not working on any major new designs, waiting instead to see how electrification is playing out (hence the lazy 737MAX upgrade that proved fatal). E-cats to power 60MW engines would fit space and weight-wise into an existing 787 frame (90t or less weight with cooling is less than fuel capacity). A 10+ year design timeline is common, so any new planes would only show up in the mid-2030s at the earliest. Demand in 2040 is forecast to be around 3200 planes/year, assuming an average 200 seat configuration at 40MW demand could be at 128GWe.

As an aside, there is still a large fossil fuel base of planes, cars and trucks continuing to operate for 1-2 further decades. Synfuels based on carbon could potentially be very competitive at electricity prices of 0.01c/kW. There is no reason to switch to NH3 or hydrogen as we’re just looking to extend the lives of the existing fleet a bit. YCombinator backed start-up Prometheus is indicating a possible price of $3/gal for gasoline, which could drop a bit further with lower electricity costs and could undercut drilled oil (outside the Middle East). If the technology is proven to work, applying this to total remaining fuel /petrochemical demand this could add many GWe in demand.

Putting this all together we get roughly roughly 3000GWe of demand for E-Cat SKLs. At 1.4kWe per device this would mean 2.1bn devices/year. For an order of magnitude this is in the range of global cell phone production. Contract manufacturing should be scalable within a few years to rise to this challenge.

Checking on any potential commodity constraints, 2.3m tons of Nickel are mined every year. If 10% were allocated to E-cat production 230000 tons / 2.1bn devices would yield around 100g/device. The true number is likely to be far less so there should not be a problem. The only caveat would be that if it needed to be enriched and reliant on specific isotopes this would become less viable, I seem to remember though that this was no longer necessary in the latest versions.

Prices for prototype E-cats have previously been set at $1000-$1500/kW. While this early pricing would already be attractive to utilities, marine and trucking applications where utilisation is high, mass production and economies of scale have almost always resulted in cost improvements of 10x or more. Similar to cell phones, contract manufacturers could be the low value-added end of the process, with a licence fee paid for the control software owned by the owner of the E-cat patents. $10-$20 per unit (or less for an annual subscription including recharge) could open up a pure profit stream comparable in size to annual Windows sales (I’m aware this is not agenda now but could be in future). It would also allow for different prices to be charged according to application and to the development level of the country where it is used, a potentially large benefit to poor countries.

At $100/kWe the total expense for 3000GWe would amount to just $300bn/year, a small fraction of the estimated $6+tn/almost 10% of world GDP currently allocated to energy.

With this scale of production we could transition almost all energy production to this new device within 10+ years, with some laggards in transportation. If we start in the mid-2020s we could be largely done by 2040. Thanks to superior economics of this dense, always available, portable energy source the environmental and health benefits of this revolution will be just a very welcome by-product rather than a difficult trade-off with terrible politics. Meanwhile the whole world will enjoy much more widely available and far cheaper energy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

More Data Showing Excess Heat from Mizuno Reactor Experiment

Jed Rothwell and Tadihiko Mizuno have updated their paper “Supplemental Information on Increased
Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel” to include new data and a schematic.

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf

The paper includes calibration and excess heat production data from experiments done with Mizuno’s own reactor at Hokkaido University of Science in Sapporo, Japan.

They did test runs at 72 W, 345 W and 750 W. Below are the calibration and excess heat graphs from the paper from each of the experimental runs.






Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

MFMP Video: “Looking back – looking forward – Let’s make 2020 the year of LENR”

Bob Greenyer did a livestream video yesterday and here is the recording of it. Sorry I missed the live broadcasting of it.

Here is his description from YouTube

ERRATA: Around 30 mins Bob says “Saltpeter” when he meant “Potash”, at the end of the video he correctly calls K2CO3 – potash.

NOTE: The best kind of Potash for these experiments would be made from burnt wood as it would have 14C baring carbon. This was the kind as used by the Alchemists.

Here is the English translation of Parkhomov paper – there will be an update with links to videos of many of the tests.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zK3dzv-boDsAjtUEozJlixOKe2maicfN/view

Silicon is synthesised from fusion and 2:2 of 16O
Ca from fission of Mo

http://www.nanosoft.co.nz/

Logic – most common isotopes in reagents that produce most energy (solution to putting into small box), evidence in nature of abundance of products matches prediction and outcome.

The E-Cat as a Charger for EVs

I found this comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics interesting:

Artur Klepacz
December 26, 2019 at 7:39 PM
Mr. Rossi, would it be possible to use electricity-producing E-Cat as mobile charger for currently available on the market electric cars?

Would it be easy to create sufficiently powerful E-Cat generator that could fit into Tesla/Nissan Leaf/whatever trunk? This could mean end of the electric car range anxiety and offer possibility to charge car battery from the e-cat everywhere, and no new cars would be needed but something that exists on the market already (to design a new car many years are needed).

Andrea Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi
December 27, 2019 at 3:09 AM
Artur Klepacz:
Yes, that is an important lead of R&D on course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

This idea would mean that the E-Cat SKL could be incorporated into existing EV technology. If it could be made to work well, batteries would be charged continuously, eliminating the need for charging stations long charge times, and avoid putting extra strain on the grid as more people transition to EVs.

Still, it would probably be only a stop-gap measure if the SKL really is the real deal, as one would expect before too long, electric motors driven directly by E-Cats would be developed and the need for heavy and expensive batteries would be eliminated.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Video: How the Electric Universe Model Can Help LENR Overcome Problems (Edwin Kaal)

Thanks to Jas for pointing out a video published last month by Electric Universe UK in which Edwin Kaal, gives as a talk titled ‘The Structured Atom Model and Transmutations’.

Of particular interest to me is a section of the talk in which he discusses LENR in a slide titled ‘
Issues in LENR preventing a breakthrough’. He lists three issues that have been problematic to LENR researchers:

– Lack of controllability – control of the electrodes proves difficult
– Repeatability is not always assured
– No theoretical model – reactions are not understood

The original experiment by Pons an Fleischmann (1989) has been recreated by Melvin Miles (1991) in such a way that it is. or should be indisputable. Excess Heat and He4 production from D2 is precisely correlated.

The LENR community is in need of new physics. An accurate model for the atom that explains these reactions, which have shown to be true, and it has been proved that these transmutations are occurring. Excess energy, heat is proven. The reliability of these results is poor, and therefore real life application are not really forthcoming, let alone investments.

He states there is no hard radiation in LENR, yet nuclear reactions are happening — how can that be? He says he believes that the reason is that the inner electron does not change.

He says that the electric aspects are not well understood in LENR, and that the Electric Universe model can shed light on LENR pheonomena

Eric Kaas argues for a structured/static model for the nucleus which he says is seen in traditional physics as a ‘heresy’ and refers to how Norman Cook pointed out that the European Physical Society have accepted that the nucleus might actually be structured.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Christmas Greetings to All!

I just would like to wish all my E-Cat World friends a very Happy Christmas and a great 2020. It’s been almost 9 years since this website started and it has been my daily pleasure to maintain the site and keep up with the comments and messages from readers. I really do appreciate the warm feelings, interesting comments and sometimes good fun from you all.

I think we all know why we are here and keep interested in this field. For me it’s too compelling of a story to stop paying attention, so here I am, here for the duration, I hope. Ultimately, like most of the readers here, I’m hoping that at some point a technology will break out that will contribute to making our world a better place to live.

Whether 2020 will be the year of the E-Cat breakout remains to be seen. I’ve been in a state of expectation for years now and have learned to temper my enthusiasm and just wait and see what happens. Personally, I think Andrea Rossi has the most advanced of all the technologies in the LENR universe, but it’s not clear to me whether he a market-ready product yet. He seem to still be R&D mode. I asked him yesterday which of the following descriptions most closely represented the current state of the E-Cat SKL:

1. Not working at all
2. Not working well
3. Satisfactory but needs improvement
4. Superior, with minor flaws
5. Flawless

His answer was: 3. So we’ll have to see what 2020 brings. Meanwhile thanks again for all the interested and supportive readers of ECW. I sure enjoy my time with you all! I hope you enjoy a happy holiday season with loved ones and good friends, and celebrate the season in meaningful ways.

NASA LRC Chief Scientist Bushnell on LENR’s Potential for Mars Exploration

Thanks to Lion for sharing a link to an interview with Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center, who is discussing the challenges involved with human exploration of Mars.

The article is titled “NASA LRC Chief Scientist on AI, Mars Colonization & Spaceflight”, the interviewer is Tim Ventura and is published on Medium.com here:

https://medium.com/predict/nasa-lrc-chief-scientist-on-ai-mars-colonization-spaceflight-315210742679?https://medium.com/predict/nasa-lrc-chief-scientist-on-ai-mars-colonization-spaceflight-315210742679?https://medium.com/predict/nasa-lrc-chief-scientist-on-ai-mars-colonization-spaceflight-315210742679?

He discusses issues of health and safety and the costs that would be involved putting people on the red planet, and in connection with the energy sources required he brings up LENR.

Some quotes:

Additionally, there’s also low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which we’re working on here. We’ve got 22 years and hundreds of experiments now on low-energy nuclear reactions which indicate that this is real.

Plus, we now have a theory that indicates that it’s condensed-matter nuclear physics.
So LENR appears to be collective effects, not particle physics. It seems that you can get around Coloumb barrier by forming ultra weak neutrons using heavy electrons. This not only enables you to form the neutrons, but also convert the gamma radiation from beta-decay into thermal energy so that you don’t need as much radiation protection. LENR is expected to be anywhere from 20,000 to 3 million times chemical efficiency, and if we can get that in place it will truly revolutionize space.

When asked how heavily NASA is invested in LENR, he replies:

Well, it’s not heavily, I mean we have a $200,000 to $300,000 a year effort. We’re also cooperating with people on this, but I can’t divulge details under cooperative agreements.

Dennis Bushnell has been interested in LENR for quite a long time and apparently still sees it as being a possible contributor to advanced space travel.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

PrimerField Ion Thruster (Primerfield.org)

The following has been submitted by an ECW reader.

“The revolutionary PrimerField Ion Thruster and Energy Generator core technology. This technology is patent-pending, but is being shared with the world to ensure that it can never be suppressed. See more information at www.primercube.org”

PrimerField Ion Thruster Information

Our licensing approach to this new technology.

“Although still in the early development stages, this new application of PrimerField Technology is destined to change the future. All rights to this technology have been granted to the PrimerField Foundation by the inventor David LaPoint. This technology is patent pending and our intention is to license this technology to companies with the resources to properly develop it in a way that will best benefit all mankind. Mr. LaPoint considered making this technology open source as he did with the PrimerCube, but he decided that using a controlled licensing approach would be the best for everyone. He believes that this approach will allow the companies licensing the technology to invest the substantial capital required to get this technology in mass production knowing that they will be able to recoup their initial investment. Mr. LaPoint obviously believes in open source for some things but not with this aspect of PrimerField technology. For some products there has to be huge initial investment to get the cost per unit down and the open source approach simply will not allow for this huge initial investment to be recouped.

Take the iPhone 11 Pro as an example. If Apple was not allowed to patent and protect their concepts then the iPhone 11 Pro would not be in existence for Mr. LaPoint to use to provide you with the videos that brought you here. So sometimes the capitalistic approach is the best way to get new technology to the people the fastest and at an affordable price point. An interesting fact is that Apple has 700 engineers who work just on the camera aspect of the iPhone. How would this possibly have happened in an open source approach and who would pay their salaries?

As for the licensing fees collected by the PrimerField Foundation, they will be used to help the poor and needy of this world. Our mission is to improve the health and happiness of all people and we intend to do just that. We are here to tell you that there is hope for our world and we intend to make this world a better place as fast as possible.

The PrimerField Foundation intends to protect its patent rights for the Ion Thruster for propulsion and energy generation. But those who are investigating this technology for educational purposes are allowed to use this technology free of charge. Additionally this technology may also be used for health and medical applications as long as those doing so do not develop technology from it that they then patent in order to keep others from benefiting from it. We would expect them to share this development with the world at a fair price, just as we are.

The Ion Thruster and Energy Generation

Mr. LaPoint has developed some very interesting approaches to generating energy using the core concepts in the Ion Thruster. He hopes to publish those concepts by the end of 2019 both on this website and in videos on his YouTube channel. If Mr. LaPoint is correct about these concepts it will mean the ability to produce low cost solid state energy generators for use in the home, in your automobile, in space, or small portable generators for camping etc. This of course will radically change the future and end the need for fossil fuels for energy production. The rights to this technology is being granted to the PrimerField Foundation as outlined above. Our plan is to license this technology as outlined above and use the monies collected to improve the lives of the poor of this world who cannot help themselves.”

https://primercube.org/ionthruster

APS Paper: “Nuclear Fusion Reactions in Deuterated Metals” (Physical Review C)

Thanks to Jed Rothwell for posting this link on the vortex-l mailing list:

This is a paper which has been accepted for publication on December 10th by Physical Review C, a journal covering nuclear physics published by the American Physical Society.

The title is: “Nuclear fusion reactions in deuterated metals”

Authors are: Vladimir Pines, Marianna Pines, Arnon Chait, Bruce M. Steinetz, Lawrence Forsley, Robert C. Hendricks, Theresa L. Benyo, Gustave C. Fralick, Bayarbadrakh Baramsai, Philip B. Ugorowski, Michael D. Becks, Richard E. Martin, Nicholas Penney, and Carl E. Sandifer II

The abstract can be read here:

https://journals.aps.org/prc/accepted/ff073P1eKf41950715597a86203c464d727b8de5b

Excerpt from the abstract (only the abstract is available so far):

“Nuclear fusion reactions were examined in high-density hydrogen isotope (fuel) nuclei embedded in metal lattices, in which a small fraction of the fuel nuclei is heated by energetic photoneutrons. Such a setting supports enhanced screening of the Coulomb barrier between f”uel ions by conduction and shell electrons of the metal lattice and Compton electrons from photo-irradiation. Electron screening increases by several orders of magnitude the probability of large- versus small-angle Coulomb scattering of the reacting nuclei to enable subsequent nuclear fusion reactions via tunneling.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged