How does Andrea Rossi achieve a claimed self-sustaining 5 kW of power (4 kW electricity and 1 kW of heat) from a cube 20 x 20 x 20 cm (most of which he says comprises a passive cooling system) from a miniscule amount of fuel when almost all physicists would say it is impossible?
In previous comments regarding the mechanism behind the E-Cat, Rossi has talked about zero point gravity, Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Casimir effect and zitterbewegung (German for “jittery motion”). In the commment below, posted yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, he proposes a possible theoretical explanation:
August 5, 2020 at 3:34 AM
In the cited reference 14 is proposed a “fundamental connection” between Aharonov-Bohm equations and an electron, based on a geomatric interpretation of the electron wave-function phase.
This approach suggests me that it is possible to create electron condensates exploiting the Aharonov-Bohm effect, caused by the dependence of the electron wave-function phase from electromagnrtic potentials, so that a voltage pulse with a due rise time may generate a variation of the Zitterbewegung of the electrons, an increase of the Aharonov-Bohm effect and the formation of clusters of electrons in coherence of phase, generating lower entropy and a consequent decrease of thermal capacity and freedom degrees, with energy transfer to electrons not in phase.
This is my opinion. It may be wrong, but the Ecat experiment may suggest it could be correct. This also could explain the absence of ionizing radiations and the energy gain.
See carefully the references 14, 7,9,2 on http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-CatSK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
Today he added this comment in response to a question about whether the environment allows for the production of resonances.
August 6, 2020 at 2:39 AM
Those electrons configurations can generate, in presence of protons, compact neutral aggregates at a scale of 10^-12 m, between the atomic size and the nuclear size, made by a coherent chain of bosonic electrons with protons located in the center of the ZBV orbits. A criticalthreshold of the density of electrons is important for such a phenomenon and depends on the temperature of the cathod.
In this kind of environment the creation-annihilation of virtual particles is possible.
Andrea Rossi posted this comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:
July 31, 2020 at 12:49 PM
Aleksei Savchenko and All Readres of the JoNP:
Just finished now my job of today, started early this morning at 5.30 A.M.
The work of today has been important, but it is important also this introduction to the information: THE TEST OF TODAY HAS BEEN IMPORTANT, BECAUSE I USED A REVOLUTIONARY CONFIGURATION OF THE ECAT SKL, BUT FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO MAKE THIS DISCLAIMER: THE TEST OF TODAY HAS BEEN MADE BY ME ALONE, NOBODY ELSE WAS PRESENT, NOT EVEN BY SKYPE, THEREFORE THESE DATA MUST BE READ WITH RESERVE ( IN ITALIAN WE SAY ” CON BENEFICIO D’INVENTARIO” ).
In September, Covid 19 permitting, we will have an important third party nominated by a Partner that will control the measurements remaking them. Therefore for now you are just taking my word, right or wrong as it might be, albeit I think I am right. The new Ecat SKL is the masterpiece of my life. It works in closed loop and generates the electric energy to fuel itself, plus generates 4 kWh/h of electric energy. I consumed only 130 Wh/h to flow away the thermal energy that is irradiated from the Ecat ( about 1 kWh/h of thermal energy is in total emitted ).
The volume of the Ecat reactor is in total 100 cubic cm, while the whole is contained in a heat dissipator box whose dimensions are cm 20 x 20 x 20, plus we have outside it the control box, which is extremely complex and does not dissipate heat thanks to passive cooling systems that are very efficient. More work has to be done, but now for a couple of weeks I will take my holidays, because I am very tired. A big step forward has been done. We should possibly have an electric engine with infinite autonomy, it seems. We’ll see.
If you want to know what Andrea Rossi believes is the core of his effect, he has provided a short statement today about it on the Journal of Nuclear Physics in response to a question regarding his theory:
July 26, 2020 at 2:46 AM
in your paper
you cite: “In paragraph ‘Nuclear Reactions in Distant Collisions’, E.P. Wigner hilights their importance in nuclear transfer reactions: ‘The fact that nuclear reactionsof the type 197Au+14N -> 198Au+113N take place at energies at which colliding nuclei do not come in contact is an interesting though little -advertised discovery”: can you explain where is the link of this discovery with the theoretical bases of the Ecat SK operation ?
July 26, 2020 at 3:55 AM
The core of my paper is that at a distance intermediate between the atomic and the nuclear scale, in the order of magnitude of the electron Compton wavelength, the effects of magnetic force, Casimir force and quantum vacuum/virtual particles play a fundamental role.
It’s not very detailed, and of course it needs to be verified experimentally, but maybe this statement can be useful for those trying to figure out what Rossi believes makes the E-Cat work.
Regarding the difference between the atomic and nuclear scale, I found this explanation on the PhysLink website useful:
What is the difference between atomic and nuclear physics? Really short and non-informative answer would be that one deals with atoms, while the other deals with nuclei.
Of course, nucleus is a part of the atom. So what is it that separates these two branches of physics? Atomic physics deals with the properties of atoms, which are mainly due to their electron configuration. The nucleus is also involved, but only with its overall properties. As far as atomic physics is concerned, the nucleus is a single massive particle, with spin, mass, and charge. The internal workings of the nucleus are irrelevant.
Nuclear physics, on the other hand, deals only with nuclei. It studies the structure of nuclei, and their reactions and interactions.
The distance scales involved are inherently different – atomic physics deals with distances of the order of nanometers – (10-9 m) while nuclear physics deals with distances of the order of femtometers (10-15 m).
Andrea Rossi has stated that he has been working on developing a higher density version of the E-Cat SKL, and from the following Q&A, it seems that it is not far away from being put into action:
July 23, 2020 at 7:03 AM
Can you make a comparision between the complexity of the Ecat SKL first module and the new one you are making with a much higher power density ?
July 23, 2020 at 8:10 AM
The new Ecat SKL has a much more complex structure, albeit it has the same dimensions. I’d say that the last one has a technology exponentially superior.
We are still mounting it and it should be ready for the first tests within the end of this week.
We don’t know what the initial power output of the the SKL version 1 is, so it makes it hard to guess what the new one will be. Rossi has stated interest in having an SKL powerful enough to be used in electric vehicles, so perhaps he is trying to reach levels similar to those of the current EV batteries on the market.
He continues to talk about a public presentation, and recently stated that he expects it to be this year, but only when Covid-19 problems are improved. So we are still in the dark about many things surrounding the E-Cat SKL, and may be for some time to come.
Here’s an interesting Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:
July 16, 2020 at 1:47 AM
Does have your effect in the Ecat SKL its primary source in the point zero energy ?
July 16, 2020 at 2:46 AM
I think so,
A summary about zero-point energy (ZPE) from Wikipedia:
Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state as described by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. As well as atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e., leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g., photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy. These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics, since some systems can detect the existence of this energy; however, this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein’s theory of special relativity.
Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy; in particular, the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention. Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the world’s oceans
ZPE is one of those fields that has been discussed and theorized in the world of science (and science fication) and has fascinating possibilities, but to this point, no technology has come to market that harnesses ZPE, but maybe if Rossi is correct, the E-Cat can change all that.
Here is an interesting Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics regarding the connection between the Aharonov-Bohm and Casimir effects and the E-Cat, in light of two papers that readers had posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics for Andrea Rossi’s attention:
Gerard McEk posted this question regarding these papers:
July 11, 2020 at 9:41 AM
Recent comments of Tonio and Pekka Janhunen referring to papers of the Aharonov-Bohm and Casimir effects seem confirming your ResearchGate publication. Apparently you weren’t aware of these, otherwise you would have referred them in your paper. Do these papers just confirm of what you have found or do they give you and your team a better understanding of everything you are seeing? It all looks very promising now.
I’m sure you will win this time the tennis game with your wife!
Kind regards, Gerard
July 11, 2020 at 10:20 AM
You are right, I was not aware of these papers, otherwise I would put them in the references. These publications surely corroborate what I wrote on Researchgate. The main difference is that the the authors did not use the Clifford algebra, using instead the normal algebra: this wraps up their theoretical intuition in the fog of a complicated mathematical formalism that makes them lose the view of the actual electrons matter. Where we see the spiral movement of the electron, they see a space tortion. Closest to what I wrote is the Nobel lecture of Dirac, wherein he had the intuition of the zitterbewegung and of the fact that an electron, although a Fermion, can have vibrations at the speed of light, while his trajectory has a slower speed.
The sole thing your comment is wrong about is the point related to my tennis familiar confrontations.
So it seems that Rossi believes that using Clifford algebra is very important in order to understand the real mechanism behind the ‘Rossi effect’.
A reader of the Journal of Nuclear Physics posted a link to a paper published in 2002 by in Foundations of Physics Letters by Anastasovsky, et. al. titled “Aharonov-bohm effect as the basis of electromagnetic energy inherent in the vacuum”
Andrea Rossi states on the JONP that he finds this article very encouraging to him because in his 2019 paper “E-Cat SK and long-range particle interactions”, he cites the Ahranov-Bohm effect as playing a possible role in the formation of dense electron clusters. Rossi states that he theorized that “along the theory of Aharonov-Bohm it is possible to get energy from a decrease of entropy.”
The Aharonov-Bohm effect shows that the vacuum is structured, and that there can exist a finite vector potentialA in the vacuum when the electric field strengthE and magnetic flux densityB are zero. It is shown on this basis that gauge theory produces energy inherent in the vacuum. The latter is considered as the internal space of the gauge theory, containing a field made up of components ofA, to which a local gauge transformation is applied to produce the electromagnetic field tensor, a vacuum charge/current density, and a topological charge g. Local gauge transformation is the result of special relativity and introduces spacetime curvature, which gives rise to an electromagnetic field whose source is a vacuum charge current density made up ofA and g. The field carries energy to a device which can in principle extract energy from the vacuum. The development is given forU(1) andO(3) invariant gauge theory applied to electrodynamics.”
Yesterday I noticed an interesting question posed to Andrea Rossi about the E-Cat SKL from user Burt, who asked – “I understood that to get all the possible electricity you have to extract it from many parts of the plasma with independent lines: am I correct?”
Andrea Rossi responded, “yes.”
This got me thinking about how one might maximize the production of electricity from the SKL’s plasma, and I conceptualized it in terms of a mine from which energy can be extracted . So I asked Rossi the following questions:
July 6, 2020 at 8:36 AM
Your answer to Burt is interesting, let me see if I understand correctly. I am using the analogy of a coalmine, into which mine shafts are tunneled, from which coal can be extracted.
1. Can we consider the plasma to be a kind of ‘mine’ that has electricity within it that can be mined for practical purposes?
2. Can we think of ‘independent lines’ within the plasma as mine shafts from which electricity can be extracted.
3. If so, the more mineshafts you can have within the plasma, the greater the total amount of electricity that can be extracted?
4. Is it therefore advantageous to have a larger total volume of plasma so that more mine shafts can fit?
Here are his responses:
July 6, 2020 at 10:41 AM
1- figuratively, yes
2- as in 1
4- this is a more complex issue. We are working through it.
I suppose that the larger the volume of plasma, the greater the input power required, so there may not be greater efficiency if the plasma is large. Overall, however, I find Rossi’s responses interesting. He has stated that they are working to increase the energy density of the E-Cat SKL, and that the way to increase energy density is to find ways to increase the number of ‘independent lines’ inside the plasma through which electricity can be extracted.
Yesterday I asked Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics what was taking up most of his time and attention these days. Here is his response:
June 26, 2020 at 12:15 PM
We are increasing the energy density: an invention of yesterday has opened a new path in this sense. We are accumulating information continuing to use the Ecat SKL.
Rossi never stops the R&D process, and this has proven to be frustrating to some observers who just want him to demonstrate something, even though it may not be the optimum configuration. Rossi’s nature seems to be that if it can be improved, it should be improved, and he shows no inclination to stop his work on developing the E-Cat. In the long term, that is probably a good thing, otherwise he would have been satisfied with a heater a long time ago, and never have moved into the realm of direct electricity production where he is now.
The terms energy density and power density are related, but different. Personally I have sometimes been confused by the differences in the terms. One simple distinction between the two that I have found helpful is that energy density in say an EV battery would refer to how far a vehicle can travel, while power density refers to how fast it can travel.
Another comment that I found interesting was in response to a question about whether the E-Cat SKL could be shrunk to the the size of a smartphone battery. Rossi’s response:
June 26, 2020 at 4:12 PM
Just enough to say that theoretically it should not be impossible, but our focus now is not there.
Thanks to ECW reader Desireless for the comments and image that make up this post.
According measurement I was successfull to replicate Mizuno. COP is only around 1.2 – 1.5 but I am working on a new reactor with more similar design.
Results can be reproduced for over 5 months. I will share more details if anyone want.
Here you can see power on procedure. Note that input power is constant – 50W from the beginning.
Here you have plot that shows excess heat with COP over 1.3. I had no time to calculate it precisely in terms of power, but here you have a plot from one run. The plot is displaying a moment when Deuterium was introduced. As you can see the maxium excess is reached after around 10 minutes. Then the temperature is decreasing. But even then the temperature is higher by a few degrees for seemingly unlimited time.
Setup is power analyser for input power measurement and IR gun for optical measurement and thermocouple for internal measurement.
The best COP can be optained with internal temperature of around 350°C (external at the plot). But also with 800°C excess heat is apparent. Probably this is caused by a diffrent loading.
Another important fact is when there are impurities at the mesh or gas I am able to reach over 5x background gamma ray readings.