The use of the E-Cat on electric vehicles is very far in time, as the development and authorization process of a technology for “on board” use takes about 10 years, as revealed to Andrea Rossi a few years ago by the CEO of Volvo himself, if I remember correctly. Therefore, in the meantime electric vehicles will have to be recharged from an external energy source.

The design of the next generation refueling stations – that is, capable of managing vehicles using electric traction – poses a significant problem as regards the energy part. I know it well because two years ago I was contacted by a leading company in this sector for advice on how to deal with this evaluating all the known energy technologies.

The refueling stations of the latest generation will refuel cars and electric vehicles (EV), cars and hydrogen vehicles (H2) and will have to be able to replace car batteries in a very short time (about 90 seconds). The goal is that these stations are as self-sufficient as possible for the energy required to recharge the batteries in the stack and for operations.

The future is represented by electric vehicles and hydrogen vehicles but, also with traditional renewable energies, energy cannot be produced on site except in a small part.

The real problem is that of the energy supply chain. A typical single charging column, in fact, has a power of 350 kW from each socket, so if it has to recharge several battery packs and / or vehicles per day it consumes a huge amount of energy, which naturally increases as it is saturated with its use, due to the growing diffusion of these vehicles.

The daily, monthly and annual consumption of a column of this type is really relevant and, to date, there are no pure renewable energy systems – such as for example, solar photovoltaic – which can compensate for this consumption. And I’m not talking about an entire national network, but also about a single group of columns, which alone would consume energy like a small town.

Therefore, when we talk about “Mobility of the future”, we must have the strength and the technical ability to guarantee a complete and integrated supply chain of energy with minimal environmental impact, a distribution network that has a logic of real use, and above all a design vision and a planning that optimizes everything in the cheapest way that is possible.

Charging at home or at work poses no problems: it is already possible today via a standard power supply point (240 volt AC / 15 A power supply). The charge rate will depend on the on-board charger of the electric vehicle: from 2.5 kilowatts (kW) to 7 kW is normal. So at 2.5 kW, a Nissan Leaf will be fully charged overnight.

EV recharge at home requires at least 2.5 kW for many hours.

Of course, it is also possible to recharge the battery pack at public charging points. The publicly accessible “fast charger” or “super charger” sockets provide battery power at a faster speed. The charging speed is generally between 25 kW and 135 kW and can recharge an electric vehicle battery in about 30 minutes.

For electric vehicles, the problem of charging arises, in fact, in “long” trips and certainly not in use in the city, where home (and / or condominium and / or office) charging is already in itself more than sufficient for the daily requirement of kilometers. Therefore, in particular along motorways and state roads, Electric Charging Stations are needed, possibly self-powered.

EV recharge along motorways is a major problem with a huge number of vehicles to recharge. Traditional recharging stations and electric recharging lanes seem not to be the best options.

In practice, it is necessary to guarantee a battery recharging system that is well located in a capillary way only and exclusively on the motorway network and high-traffic roads, such as ring roads or junctions. This allows you to position a series of specific refueling stations, possibly 80/90% self-powered for their energy needs.

In this way, it would be possible to perform in situ: the on-demand production of hydrogen produced through new and efficient electrolysis processes; charging stacks of electric batteries. There would be no storage of oversized hydrogen, therefore, much less no transport, neither of hydrogen nor of electric batteries recharged elsewhere, where energy is more available.

Therefore, hydrogen would be used for a partial storage of energy, in particular if this comes from a renewable source, e.g. daytime (photovoltaic) or intermittent (wind). Hydrogen is therefore produced when needed and in the minimum quantities necessary for the purpose. The energy is managed through storage Fuel Cells and then sent to the vehicle charging sockets.

The same Hydrogen thus produced could, in the future, also supply pure propulsion cars with developing hydrogen. The energy balance between the production of hydrogen, the generation of energy and its storage are significantly in favor of this system, which does not completely eliminate the need for energy from the network, but reduces it in a consistent and tangible way.

But which energy source can actually be used for these self-powered recharge stations? And what is the relative environmental impact? As an order of magnitude, we consider that such a recharging station must be able to guarantee the rapid replacement (swap) of about 50 35 kW battery packs every hour in as many electric vehicles.

The fast battery swap system being developed for Tesla cars.

Therefore, the recharging station must be able to recharge each of these battery packs in half an hour at 80%. Therefore, as in the case of charging at home or in the office, it is necessary to be able to supply about 25 kW for half an hour (equal to 12.5 kWh), all multiplied by 50 vehicles per hour, which means having a available power of 25 kW x 25 battery packs = 625 kW!

Estimated power requirements for a recharging station of Electric Vehicles (EV).

It is clear that, since in the early years at least 15,000 of these recharging stations are needed along or near the Italian motorway network, their supply with renewable sources – at least in our country – is far from trivial. In fact, not even a 1 MW photovoltaic system would really be able to guarantee the daily energy requirement.

Not to mention the environmental impact: the photovoltaic subtracts large portions of land or otherwise of territory from other uses; the large wind farm has a significant landscape and sound impact for those who live near the blades; even the power supply from the national electricity grid would require more capable power lines, with an increase in the level of electrosmog.

The traditional way to perform the recharge of battery packs for battery swap. Only the E-Cat technology would allow in next years to recharge battery pack directly on site.

At present, therefore, the only solution that promises to be reasonable for the construction of self-powered recharging stations is the use of E-Cat technology, which is capable of constantly supplying large quantities of energy in situ over time, with a zero environmental impact, since a 1 MW generator would occupy no more than 1 cubic meter of space.

The E-Cat is a reactor developed in three different generations by Andrea Rossi, now with the help of a team of specialists. It is able to produce, in addition to thermal energy, electricity directly, thus allowing self-sustenance. Among the many competing technologies that promise to do the same in a few years, it is the most interesting and closest to commercialization.

Mario Menichella

(physicist, formerly National Institute of Nuclear Physics)

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Scientific knowledge progresses continuously, through observations, experiments and theories. Many physical theories, in particular, have established themselves over the last few centuries and have helped us in our understanding of matter and of the universe, but at the same time many other theories have been superseded and replaced by new ones that have proven to be better.

An example in this sense that I like to remember is the model of the Thomson atom, also called the “plum-cake” atomic model, proposed by Joseph Thomson in 1904, before the discovery of the atomic nucleus. In this model, the atom is made up of a diffused positive charge distribution inside which the negative charges – that is the electrons – are inserted, a bit like the raisins in a plum-cake. In this way, the atom was electrically neutral.

Although based on the experimental evidence of the time, Thomson’s atomic model was not able to justify many things, including radioactivity. In 1908, the model was refuted by the experiment of Geiger and Marsden, later interpreted by Ernest Rutherford in 1911, which suggested an alternative atomic model, in which the positive charge was concentrated in a very small nucleus at the center of the atom. It was a remarkable progress.

The atomic model of Thomson and that of Rutherford in comparison.

A physical theory, in fact, is something that is presented to explain one or more empirical laws that are already known. Physical theories are traditionally accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and no (or few) erroneous predictions: this is the case, for example, of the Einstein’s theories of Restricted Relativity and General Relativity. Moreover, physical theories are more likely to be accepted if they link a wide range of phenomena.

A physical theory should also have – at least as a secondary objective – a certain “economy” and elegance (comparable to mathematical beauty): a notion sometimes called “Occam’s razor” by the 13th century English philosopher William of Occam, according to which between two theories the simplest one that describes the same subject adequately is to be preferred (but sometimes conceptual simplicity can mean mathematical complexity).

Physical theories can be grouped into three categories: traditional theories (mainstream), proposed theories and marginal theories. As for the electron model – we are therefore talking about one of the most important particles in physics! – the traditional theory is that of Quantum Mechanics, which provides that the electron is point-like and without a structure. However, it is a model that has no real physical meaning.

The “timeline” of the history of the atom theory.

Moreover, a “point-like” model of the electron (which carries an electric charge unit), in reality, by its very nature, would predict that the mass of this particle and its energy are infinite, and that the spin and the magnetic moment of the electron are zero. But the latter are obvious absurdities, given that many measurements of these fundamental properties show that the relative quantities are, on the contrary, different from zero and finite as value.

Both spin and magnetic moment are quantities that require an extension in space and the definition of a radius. In fact, the spin has the dimensions of an angular momentum, which is defined as the vector product of a momentum for a radius, while the magnetic moment is defined as the product of an area for a current. Thus, self-contradiction in the common electron theory is evident: on the one hand, this particle is said to be similar to a point; on the other hand, the experiments show that the electron has a finite dimension with a spin, a magnetic moment and a finite density of the charge.

The consolidated equations of mechanics and electricity provide the relationship between the size of an object and its rotation (spin) and magnetic moment. The same equations foresee, without discontinuity, that the spin and the moment of the object become zero when its size approaches a point. But the measured non-zero values ​​of spin and momentum provide convincing evidence that the electron is not point-like!

Furthermore, the concentration of the electronic charge at one point would require an infinite amount of energy and an infinite force to balance the Coulomb force directed towards the outside. If the energy of the rest mass is infinite, therefore, the equivalent mass m = E / c^2 must (according to the traditional theory) also be infinite. But the rest mass of an electron was measured and it is not infinite. Therefore, the electron is not point-like.

The model of the Schrodinger atom (theory of Quantum Mechanics).

The so-called “Mach criterion” for scientific theories requires the invalidation of any theory contrary to the observed facts. The true scientific objective is a description of truth and the legitimate method to validate a postulate is, at a minimum, an application of the “Law of non-contradiction”. The traditional model of the electron is therefore clearly invalidated by the Mach criterion and the “Law of non-contradiction”.

Of course, mathematics has an important function in science. But mathematical models – such as the quantum electron model – which ignore or make significant approximations of the real physical structure are inferior to the physical models that imitate physical reality. The traditional point-like model of the electron is therefore today used only for convenience. In reality, there is no theory that naturally leads to a physically realistic model of the electron.

Many electron models that attempt to solve the obvious limitations of the point-like model of the electron have been presented in the past. In none of these, as far as we know, the fundamental role of the vector potential and the simple equation that inextricably and directly links electromagnetism and mechanics is highlighted:

p = eA = mc

In this equation e is the elementary charge, A the potential vector generated by the motion at the speed of light of the charge itself and p is its mechanical moment.

An exception is a model of Italian researchers presented in a previous post of this blog, which naturally refers to the original articles (1 and 2) of the authors for further study. A new work by the same authors – “Electron Structure, Ultra-Dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions“, related to the model presented in the previous two articles – was recently published in the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (JCMNS).

The 2 articles describing the new model of the electron.

But how many people have read and, above all, understood that theory? Probably very few, certainly not because the theory is not valid, but because it is not easy to communicate these issues.

In this sense, the excellent explanatory video (which you can find here; it is in Italian, but you can activate subtitles in your language) of this theory and of the related model of the electron, made by Francesco Ferrara should be appreciated very much and “advertised” among the community of Italian physicists. Ferrara is an electronic engineer and lecturer of physics with extraordinary informative abilities, as the published books also demonstrate (we limit ourselves here to mention the textbook “Verso la fisica”, Arianna Edizioni).

In his video, the superiority of the new model of the electron is so evident that the old model used by mainstream physics comes out, in comparison, completely “ridiculed”.

In the new model developed by Italian physicists, the electron has the following fundamental characteristics: it has no mass, has a radius equal to the classic radius of the electron (r ≅ 2,82⋅10−15 ), has an electric charge equal to the classical charge of the electron and, finally, it rotates – at a speed equal to that of light – along a circumference, whose radius is equal to the reduced Compton wavelength (Re ≅ 0.386 ⋅10−12 ), describing , therefore, a current loop.

A screenshot from the video by eng. Ferrara.

The video explains, first of all, how it is possible for a massless ball to have momentum. Then it gives an immediate physical meaning also to the mass (which can be deduced from the model itself, it is not established a priori), to the spin, to the angular momentum, etc. In “natural” units of measurement, the mass of the electron in this model represents precisely the angular pulsation of the rotating sphere and, at the same time, the inverse of its curvature radius.

Moreover, the video shows how, with this new model of the electron, we obtain in an absolutely natural and almost “astonishing” way: (1) the second fundamental law of dynamics; (2) the relativistic relation for the mass and for the radius of the circumference; (3) an indeterminacy principle similar to that of Heisenberg; (4) the plausibility of the point-like charge approximation in the atom; (5) the so-called “fine structure constant” (1/137)

Therefore, I invite you to watch the entire video very carefully …

Mario Menichella

(physicist, formerly National Institute of Nuclear Physics)

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”.
Mahatma Gandhi


One of the most interesting interventions – in my opinion – of the last conference of the 22nd International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF-22), held in Assisi on September 8-13, 2019, was that of Lutz Jaitner, a LENR researcher who lives in Germany.

He presented his theory and model about a strange physical phenomenon – previously observed under different forms by many notable scientists –  where electrons and matter form a very special state which is predicted to produce extreme internal forces that lead to non-standard behavior. Here, I want to present to a non-technical reader Lutz’s work and its importance in the more general context of many “strange discoveries” made in the last century, including the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).

The research in cold nuclear fusion was divided into development of power generation plants and the research works on transmutation of chemical elements. Most of the researchers are focused on development of energy generation devices, especially ever since the Andrea Rossi’s success with his E-Cat. An efficient method in the field of transmutation, until recently, had yet to be found. But if it is found, then the interest for the possibility to synthesize valuable materials is quite natural.

Many teams in the world are carrying out a very significant research work in one (or both) of these directions. But is there a common observational and theoretical basis on which this work can rest? Today we are probably able to give the first answers to this very intriguing question.


Some strange phenomena observed in the last century

In 1909, the distinguished physicist Irving Langmuir noted an excess of heat production in work he was doing on atomic hydrogen plasmas created between tungsten electrodes. A dozen of scientific papers were published between 1905 and 1927 concerning the mysterious appearance of hydrogen, helium and neon in vacuum tubes and gas discharges (Nelson, 2000). In 1922, Gerald L. Wendt & Clarence E. Irion discovered that decomposition of tungsten via high-current discharges produces helium and fast neutrons, indicating tungsten-tungsten fusion with subsequent fission.

A complete history of plasmoids and LENR is in Jaitner’s “Condensed Plasmoids” web site. 

The unusual strength of explosions caused by a pulsed current flowing through water plasma was first noticed in 1907 by Trowbridge: when he passed an arc through a spray of water, the resulting explosion was louder than in ordinary laboratory air. In 1948, Prof. F. Früngel measured the strength of water arc explosions and concluded that the observed anomalous force occurring in abrupt electric arcs in water was not caused by heat or steam, but was not able to explain the phenomenon.

In 1957, Ivan Stepanovich Filimonenko et al. discovered large excess heat during high-temperature electrolysis of heavy water with ceramic electrolytes and palladium cathode (he found nuclear byproducts such as tritium, helium 3 and 4, and isotopes of oxygen). In the 1960s and 1970s, Georges Ohsawa observed transmutation of sodium and oxygen to potassiumby plasma discharge and also transmutation of carbon and oxygen into silicon and iron by arching carbon in air.

In mid-1980s, Peter Graneau et al. showed that abrupt underwater discharge of 3.6 kJ of stored capacitor energy created pressures in excess of 20,000 bar in 7 ml of water, and demonstrated over-unity energy gain by analyzing the kinetic energy of the exploding water (at 1000 m/s). In 1980s and 1990s, Stanley Meyer, best known for his dune buggy that he claimed would run solely on water, achieved over-unity efficiencies at high-voltage pulsed-DC electrolysis of pure water.

Replication of the Graneau experiments by D.M. Marett (2007). See here

In 1986, Paulo & Alexandra Correa created a device which generates electricity based on Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharges in air between aluminum electrodes at low pressure and discharge voltage of 600 V. Mean outputs were 200-600 W, with mean power inputs of 50-100 W. Replicators in Russia and Germany found a gain of electrical energy by a factor 1.5 to 2. This device proves that LENR does neither require hydrogen nor transition metals, and that the resulting energy can be extracted electrically.


The experimental evidences for plasmoids

In the 1950s, Winston Bostick examined fast photographs of electrical discharges from an electrode in a near vacuum. The discharge converted the electrode to small clumpy objects that he called “plasmoids.” He described and photographed these little objects that were created by vaporizing electrodes by electrical discharge in a container. The objects he discovered were shaped like the various kinds of galaxies, and he also photographed plasma vortexes. His work of plasmoid modeling was influential.

On the left, evolution of a miniature galaxy formed by the simultaneous discharge of 8 plasma gases in an experiment performed by W. Bostick. On the right, coaxial structure from the impact of a plasmoid bundle on a plastic target, obtained with a plasma focus device by Bostick.

Since then, Ken Shoulders (sometimes called the “Father of Microelectronics” for his work in this field) in the 1980s and 1990s, but also Takaaki Matsumoto, Edward Lewis and a group of “cold fusion” or “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)” researchers studied micrometer-sized objects produced during electrolysis (low current between electrodes in a fluid or ionic solution) or discharge (high current between electrodes in a fluid, gas, plasmoid, plasma, or solid).

Shoulders performed extensive experimental investigation on the anomalous properties of plasmoids. He received a number of patents for devices that utilize these anomalous properties of plasmoids. He found that a “High Density Charge Cluster” – named “exotic vacuum objects” or “EVOs” – arise in gross electrical discharges (lightning, sparks, etc.). An EVO is relatively small (about 0.1 micrometer) and has a high (-) electron charge (typically about 10^11 electrons, minimally 10^8 electrons).

EVOs can be created in an electromagnetic container with a potential well with a depth of about 2 kV. The EVO is formed and propagates to the anode whenever the DC or pulse voltage rises to the point at which field emission begins a runaway switching process aided by metallic vapor from the cathode emission site. EVOs tend to form closed “chains” quasi-stable, ring-like structures as large as 20 micrometers in diameter. Such rings can form chains of rings that are free to rotate and twist around each other.

Craters (on the lef) and rings (on the right) made by EVO observed by Shoulders.

In early 1992, Takaaki Matsumoto discovered ring traces during his attempts at the P&F electrolysis effect replication. He observed ball-lightning-like phenomena via DC discharge between thin wires in potassium carbonate dissolved in water. The voltage was above 50V, creating micro-sparks at the electrodes. The micro-sparks sometimes formed ring clusters of 20 micrometer diameter at the electrode surface. The ring clusters decayed to a regularly hexagonal plate within a few days.

The observations provided early indication about the stability and life time of condensed plasmoids trapped at an iron surface. Nuclear emulsions exposed by Matsumoto close to the cell showed rail-like traces on the surface, as if some objects of 10 micrometer diameter were walking around on the surface. This suggested, that the ring clusters could penetrate the glass wall of the cell and the water region. Radio frequency emissions and transmutations were also observed in the same experiments.

Dr. Irina Savvatimova, one of the giants of Russian LENR research, is a pioneer of the high-current glow discharge method to generate LENR and her group was one of the first to report transmutation elements from this type of experiment. In 2000, she exposed x-ray films inside and outside of the reaction chamber during such LENR experiments, and the films showed very peculiar tracks (some rectilinear, some curvilinear, some spiral tracks, some comet-like), probably caused by condensed plasmoids.

Ball lighting markings of different forms left on the emulsions (Rodionov & Savvativoma, 2006).

The applied glow discharge voltage during these experiments was 200-700 V, the current was 5-25 mA/cm, and the gas pressure was 2-5 torr. After films (Kodak BioMax MR-2 films 13×18 cm) development, the unusual tracks shapes were observed on films, which had been exposed to deuterium ion plasma, but no tracks were found on films exposed to hydrogen ion plasma. These results were obtained using either tungsten or uranium cathodes with cold cathode (< 100 °C).

In 2002, a research group directed by Leonid I. Urutskoev studied the electric explosion of titanium foil in water. By pure accident, in mass-spectrometric analysis of the titanium powder formed after the electric explosion, they noted a pronounced distortion of the natural isotope composition of titanium. Experimental searches for the monopole as a possible catalyst of the transmutation started immediately after the transformation phenomenon had been found.

Radiation traces were registered by nuclear emulsions located at some distance (up to two meters) from the plasma structure. They photographed a ball-lightning-like plasma showing up outside of the reactor. Further observations revealed a wide variety of track forms, including continuous straight lines, dumbbell-like tracks, and long tracks with a complex form similar to spirals and gratings. A hypothesis has been put forward that particles of the “strange” radiation have magnetic charge.


A possible unifying explanation: “plasmoids”

In 1996, Edward Lewis published his theory that plasmoids are responsible for LENR and transmutations, built upon the previously described works of Matsumoto, Shoulders, Urutskoev, Savvatimova and others. According to him, ball lightning are kinds of plasmoid phenomena. Their behavior is shown to be similar to the behavior of plasmoid phenomena produced by electrolysis and discharge apparatus as evidenced by certain micrometer-sized markings in nuclear emulsions and marks in materials.

Plasmoids with quasi-periodic pattern (on the top) and with aperiodic shapes (on the bottom). See, for more information, Jaitner’s overview here.

Lewis conceived the idea of miniature micrometer ball lightning being present when anomalous activity happens during electrolysis and discharge as was being reported then. He believed that perhaps the ring marks Matsumoto found were caused by very small microscopic-sized ball lightning generated in his experiments. The evidence of transmutation between the grains of a palladium electrode made it clear that the atoms themselves were converted by the ball lightning.

It was clear that the traces and markings that Matsumoto started to publish starting around the late Spring of 1992 were similar to those previously published by Bostick and his co-workers. Shoulder’s writings showed some of the anomalous effects of plasmoids, such as the plasmoids’ ability to bore through materials, their tendency to form rings or strings, and excess energy effects. These were the same characteristics that Matsumoto described about the ball lightning.

Single ring mark (on the left). Ring marks + trail marks on nuclear emulsion. (from Matsumoto)

These anomalous plasmoid characteristics are analogous to known anomalous natural ball lightning characteristics as has been described and documented by people such as Egon Bach and Egely. Lewis was struck by reports describing ball lightning in tornadoes, or whirlwind and tornado-like ball lightning. It was clear that plasmoid phenomena covers a whole range of objects from microscopic scale to macroscopic universal scale (including galaxies, as suggested by Bostick’s results).

Bostick ended up on the newspapers in the 1950s because he photographed plasmoids that had the shapes of different kinds of galaxies in space. It was clear to many people then that the Universe itself is a big plasmoid. However, what Bostick didn’t know was the various anomalous and strange characteristics of plasmoids. This is what Shoulders and some other researchers focused on in the following 3 decades, as a key to understanding fundamental universal processes.

Both observational reports and experimental effects show that not only is there a lot of similarity between experimentally produced plasmoids, natural ball lightning, and also tornadoes (about one-half of the natural tornadoes are either furrowed by lightning, or the bottom of the tornado “vomits” balls of fire, or in short the tornado is luminescent at one place or another), but that there is enough evidence to identify the phenomena as kinds or sizes of the same general thing called plasmoids.

Similarity between a small scale experimentally produced plasmoid and a natural tornado.

Microscopic ball lightning (1 mm in size or smaller) leave microscopic markings (i.e. in the size range of 400 μm to 1 μm) and residual effects similar to those caused by natural ball lightning, tornadoes and experimentally produced plasmoids. In the last 30 years, the cited researchers have published pictures of microscopic ball lightning markings and effects, and the photographs show patterns of behavior. The evidence is that these microscopic ball lightning behave like the larger natural ones.

Plasmoids such as ball lightning and tornadoes may move along a surface such as the ground and leave trails, holes, or furrows. The plasmoids Ken Shoulders produced did so, and Matsumoto has shown pictures of interesting micrometer size trail marks that meander and even backtrack on nuclear emulsions in his articles. There are rare reports of tornadoes leaving furrows in the ground a few inches or several feet deep that may sometimes be more than a mile long.


A coherent LENR theory: “Condensed Plasmoids” (CP)

In 2015-2019, Lutz Jaitner has developed a quantum-mechanical theory of “condensed plasmoids” (CP). It is a new theory of LENR based on the experimental findings previously described. “After decades of research on high-density charge clusters, ball lightning and LENR”, Luts says, “it turns out that Edward H. Lewis was right with his hypothesis: atoms can enter a previously unknown state of matter, in which they behave like ball lightning, and which is an intermediate state of the LENR reaction”.

The shape of a Condensed Plasmoid (from Jaitner’s slides for ICCF-22). See here

Jaitner associated condensed plasmoids with the strange objects found by Shoulders, Savvatimova, Urutskoev, Lewis, Matsumoto and others. He also derived most of the exotic properties of condensed plasmoids from their quantum-mechanical state. Finally, he provided an explanation for the most fundamental questions of LENR research, i.e. how the Coulomb barrier is overcome and how the nuclear excitation energy is converted to heat without gamma radiation.

In contrast to the quantum-mechanical model of the atom – which is based on the spherically symmetric electrostatic potential of the nucleus – his quantum-mechanical model of condensed plasmoids (CP) is based on the cylindrical symmetry of a very thin and dense plasma “wire”. In CP, both the nuclei and the electrons are moving rapidly in opposite directions along the plasma wire. This results in a strong electric current through the wire, pinching the plasma thin via its strong magnetic field.

As explained by Jaitner in his website on this topic (, “modeling of CP is based on the following basic assumptions: (1) CP contain ensembles of atomic nuclei densely lined up in a very narrow channel. (2) The distances between the nuclei are so small, that all electrons bound to these nuclei are delocalized along the channel. In other words: Even in their electronic ground state CP don’t consist of individual atoms. CP rather form a quasi-one-dimensional plasma”.

Basic model of Jaitner’s Condensed Plasmoid (from ICCF-20 Proceedings). See here

The intrinsic magnetic field of CP leads to self-organization of their shape in complicated ways, minimizing their energy: CP are extremely dense (much more than ordinary matter) along one spatial dimension. CP enable nuclear reactions between the ions via strong electronic screening of the Coulomb barrier. The gamma radiation of nuclear reactions inside the plasma wire is suppressed, because the dense electron current in the plasma wire provides high dampening of the dipole oscillation of excited nuclei.

The form of nuclear energy production that you can obtain with condensed plasmoids is in alignment with that discussed recently in the literature by Andrea Rossi (2019), as embodied in his E-Cat SK configuration. It is a nuclear process but one without harmful radiation. It embodies neither conventional nuclear fusion nor fission and the process is harmless to humans. The energy obtained from the process is largely due to an induced change in the atomic mass of participating materials.

Condensed plasmoids (on the left) in the Plasma Vortex Reactor of A. Climov (2017). See here

As Shoulders wrote (2012), his change in mass, hence energy, is probably brought about through the use of EVOs striking the parent atoms. Many such fundamental changes to atoms by EVOs have been published by Shoulders. This process can be artificially divided into 3 apparatus parts or units: the bombarding EVO, the EVO source, and the EVO target. In Rossi (2019), Shoulders’ dense electron clusters are instead considered a probable precursor for the formation of proton-electron aggregates at pico-metric scale.

Mario Menichella

(physicist and science writer)



If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

As the most discerning readers know, on January 24 a 10-pages long paper by Andrea Rossi came out on ResearchGate, which advances some interesting explanations on the physics behind the operation of an E-Cat reactor. You can find it here.

The paper underlines that the realm of physics involved in the E-Cat function is most likely that of condensed matter on picometer scales (a picometre corresponds to a billionth of a millimetre), roughly halfway between atomic and nuclear ones, a domain in which interesting – probably even collective – phenomena can emerge that can be exploited to produce large amounts of (essentially free!) energy. But the most interesting aspect of the theory mentioned in the article is that it has an experimental confirmation – a sort of “signature” – in the spectrum produced by the plasma reactor during its operation.

As you can read in the section “Experimental Setup” of the cited paper,

The E-cat SK has been put in a position to allow the eye of a spectrometer view exactly the plasma in a dark room: an ohm-meter has measured the resistance across the circuit that gives energy to the E-Cat; the control panel has been connected with an outlet with 220V, while from the control panel departed the two cables connected with the plasma electrodes; a frequency meter, a laser and a tesla-meter have been connected with the plasma for auxiliary measurements; a Van der Graaf electron accelerator (200 kV) has been used for the examination of the plasma electric charge. Other instruments used in the experimental setup: a voltage generator/modulator; two oscilloscopes, one for the power source and one for monitoring the energy consumed by the E-Cat; Omega thermocouples to measure the delta T of the cooling air; IR thermometer; a frequency generator“.

Here below you can see a schematic picture of the experimental setup used for the kind of experiments performed to shed new light on physics behind an E-Cat. It was sent to me by one of the scientists involved in this venture and who prefers to remain anonymous. However, please note that it is an official setup approved by Leonardo Corporation (see last image).

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

I am pleased to announce the imminent public presentation of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat SK reactor, which will take place on January 31st, and in which it will be possible to see this apparatus in operation. It is a plasma reactor derived from the E-Cat QuarkX, which in turn represented a third-generation E-Cat prototype.

An ad hoc Internet domain was created for the streaming of the event: which will start at 9:00 AM on the East Coast of the USA (in Italy it will be 15:00), and will last 2 hours. The resulting video will be published on the Rossi’s company website, Leonardo Corporation (, where it will remain available to those who want to view it. During the live streaming, Rossi will be ready to respond, in person or through a collaborator who will support him, to the questions of the listeners.

In the official presentation of the E-Cat SK, the functioning reactor will be shown in a pre-recorded video and the measurements of the energy produced will also be shown. It was shot in an industry that uses heat for winter heating.

Rossi and collaborators have positioned seven cameras in as many crucial points, making visible the plasma that is created inside the reactor. So, given these conditions, I would say that it is definitely worth watching the 2 hours of live streaming.

The purpose of the presentation of January 31 is not to obtain a scientific validation of a prototype: the objective of the event is merely commercial. During the presentation of the reactor, Rossi in fact will indicate to potential customers the methods of purchase and the cost of the heat produced by the reactor. It will be up to them to decide on their economic convenience and how to make the most of it.

The E-Cat weighs 1 kg and the control panel 10 kg. Regarding the physical dimensions of the E-Cat SK, Rossi said that the latter is about twice the QuarkX model that he had shown for the first time in public in Stockholm, in November 2017.

The evolution of the E-Cat over the last 12 years. Practically every 4 years a new generation reactor has been produced that can be used for practical applications.

In some more recent comments published on JONP, Rossi wrote that the client owner of the industry currently hosting the E-Cat SK has already ordered heat for a total power of 40 MW, which will not however be a single plant, but many distributed over several geographical locations. Naturally, the fact of not selling the reactor, but only the thermal energy produced by it – and with a 20% discount compared to its market value – is, in my opinion, a winning choice in this first phase.

In fact, this not only intrinsically demonstrates the goodness of the technology (the contracted customer pays only after receiving what is promised, therefore does not run any financial risk), but Leonardo Corporation, remaining owner of the plant and having developed a system that allows remote control, can more easily defend the intellectual property of what might one day be remembered – as I wrote in my book – as “one of the most important inventions of the last 100 years in the energy field”.

So, now it is almost smiling to reread the countless articles written over the years to denigrate the work of Rossi. On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that in many fields of science the power of the lobbies is so great today that they are able to put in place a whole series of initiatives that break every ethical limit: from paying people to constantly manipulate the pages of Wikipedia to writing fake scientific articles (and not) to “balance” unwelcome results.

Not to mention the huge interests involved even within the same world of science, where we prefer to spend (and some would say “throw out the window”) billions and billions of euros to finance research that we will probably never see the practical results – how those on “hot” nuclear fusion – rather than investing one thousandth of such sums to probe new fields and little explored by so-called “mainstream” science.

Among other things, it is quite significant that the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) – which is the largest professional technical organization in the world – has organized, as befits a “potentially historic” event, just for January 31st a Meeting to follow live the streaming of the presentation of the E-Cat SK, and that even their magazine IEEE Spectrum has published an excellent article on LENR.

A screenshot of the beginning of the quoted article published on IEEE Spectrum.

We therefore have only to wait a little longer and see how this story will evolve over the medium and long term, given the implications that such an invention can have in the academic, scientific and economic-financial world. In the meantime, someone could have the desire to read this document. This is the complete deposition, in the suit between Leonardo Corporation and Industrial Heat, by Craig Cassarino, vice-president of AmpEnergo, former (and current?) licensee for the United States for the marketing of the E-Cat.

In conclusion, I feel obliged to point out that the presentation of January 31 could be an opportunity to admire one of the most extraordinary inventions of the history of Man. A dream realized.

UPDATE Jan 22: Leonardo Corp. has issued a press release introducing the upcoming event, titled “Leonardo Corporation to Introduce Revolutionary New E-Cat SK Heating Technology in Worldwide Broadcast”, that you can find here.

UPDATE Jan 24: New Andrea Rossi’s paper on ResearchGate: E-Cat SK and long range particle interactions

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Dear Andrea,

I received some questions from some skeptics: are you willing to answer?

That’s how I contacted Andrea in a work break for a rather “uncomfortable” and unusual interview and, to my surprise… he accepted!

Here are the answers:

Which excuse will you tell us if there will be no product presentation by the end of December?

A.: First I had to comb the dolls, then I had to dry the rocks of the peer, then I sharpened the tip to all the Egyptian pyramids, what could I do more?

Why do not you put your technology open source and retire?

A.: Because my wife told me that if I stay home all day she asks for a divorce.

Why nobody has managed to replicate the so-called “Rossi Effect”?

A.: I suggest you go to, Check the REPLICATIONS paragraph, avoiding to chew on a cigarette while reading.

Will the E-Cat end the same way of oil from waste?

A.: Are you asking whether ENI will copy also this technology? It may be, but it will have to wait until the patent expires, as it did for waste oil, whose US patent has just expired: damn it, it’s already  20 years ago, I’m getting old…

How did you get your degree: with MiraLanza points?

(MiraLanza was a famous Italian company which in the Seventies offered points to the buyers of its products, mainly detergents)

A.: I graduated at the State University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono.

How did you get all your hair back? Thanks to your Faith in God?

A.: I have to wear an anti-radiation wig after a head cancer. The wig is made with special materials that protect against radiations.

Hundreds of scientists from all over the world, financed with billions of euros and dollars, have not been able to obtain nuclear fusion, that is the goal for which they were financed, but you alone, and with a few million, succeeded: another miracle like hair re-growth?

A.: Do not be modest: the hot fusion has achieved the goal it wanted to achieve: billions of euros and dollars!

Someone says that you’re a wimp at tennis, even if you play for a lifetime: is it true?

A.: Yes.

Your collaborators say that working with you is impossible: is it true?

A.: If working with me is impossible, how can they be collaborators?

Are you happy to have done this interview?

A.: I couldn’t wait!

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Dear readers, after a long pause, due mainly to my work commitments and to lack of important news, waiting for the demo, announced by Andrea Rossi and scheduled in November, I decided to write this post taking as a starting point the preprint of two works that will be published in Volume 25 of the JCMNS (Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), having an unusual title: “Maxwell’s Equations and Occam’s Razor” and “The Electron and Occam’s Razor”. Some of the arguments presented in these two papers were briefly introduced by the same authors at the ICCF20 Conference (held in Sendai, Japan), in a poster titled “The Zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum mechanics as theoretical framework for Ultra Dense Deuterium and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”. Not having the scientific knowledge needed to make a judgment on these theoretical physics works, I decided to ask for the collaboration of a physicist and science writer, Mario Menichella, during his summer holidays in the city where I live, Viareggio. Following his suggestion, we publish, with the help of the authors, some intriguing hypotheses presented in the above cited publications. We put it in the form of an interview, to make all more interesting and easy. I hope that what you will read could be stimulating for those who want to deepen these fascinating themes with an open mind.

Enjoy the reading!

Vessela Nikolova

“It is now easier to smash an atom than to break a prejudice”

Ronald Lippitt


A Zitterbewegung Model for Ultra-Dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

In the two papers, the Authors suggest a “purely electromagnetic model of the electron”. What is the fundamental feature of the proposed model?

It’s the attempt to respect, as much as possible, Occam’s razor, a principle proposed by the English philosopher William of Occam, which suggests to not introduce information and concepts that are not strictly necessary in solving problems. This principle can be considered as an excellent epistemological tool for the creation and evaluation of models. If we want to formalize the concept, we can say that the quality of a model is defined by two fundamental parameters: the first one is related to the achievement of the desired goals, such as the adherence of the model predictions to the data and concepts that we want to encode or interpret, while the other one is the simplicity of the model, a parameter that is inversely proportional to the number of informations, concepts, exceptions, postulates and parameters needed by the model itself.

Which mathematical formalism was used?

Scientific knowledge is based on mathematical language, but the importance of choosing the right tools is often underestimated, as the Authors point out. The formalism used is based on space-time algebra, one of the Clifford algebras introduced by the mathematician William K. Clifford in 1878. The advantages of such formalism in physics have been described in detail by prof. David Orlin Hestenes in the work “Oersted Medal Lecture 2002: Reforming the Mathematical Language of Physics”. Space-time algebra respects the Occam’s razor criteria in terms of simplicity and universality, and allows a precise geometric interpretation of concepts often hidden by the formalism of complex matrix algebra traditionally used in modern physics.

Prof. David Orlin Hestenes (on the left)

Can you briefly describe the currently widespread and accepted model of the electron and the differences with the model proposed by the Authors?

Simplifying, we could say that in Quantum Mechanics the electron is a point-like particle having an “intrinsic” mass, a charge, a magnetic moment, an angular momentum and “spin”. The particle behavior is described by a complex function of space and time. The “square” of this function represents the “probability density” of finding the particle in a particular point of space-time. According to classical physics, the point-like particle concept is incompatible with the observed electron properties. In order to justify such incompatibility, some exceptions are introduced, thus seriously violating the Occam razor’s principle. According to the laws of mechanics and electromagnetism, a point-like particle cannot have an “intrinsic angular momentum”, and a magnetic moment must necessarily be generated by a current, that cannot exist in a point-like particle. Moreover, the electric field generated by a point-like charged particle should have an infinite energy! Moreover, Quantum Mechanics does not even try to derive the concepts of charge and mass, which are simply considered as “intrinsic properties” of the particle. Simplifying, the model proposed by the Authors consists in a current ring generated by a massless charge that rotates at speed of light along a circumference whose length is equal to the Compton wavelength of the electron: about 2.4 \cdot 10^{-12} meters. The charge is not point-like but distributed on the surface of a sphere, whose radius is equal to the classic radius of the electron: about 2.8 \cdot 10^{-15} meters. Similar models, based on the concept of “current ring”, have been proposed by many authors but have often been ignored for their incompatibility with the most widely accepted interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. It is interesting to note how, already in his “Nobel lecture” of 1933, P.A.M. Dirac made reference to a high-frequency internal oscillation of the electron: “It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As result of this oscillatory the velocity of the electron at any time equals the velocity of light”.

In scientific literature the German term Zitterbewegung is often used to indicate this very fast swing / rotation.

Zitterbewegung trajectory radius rE ~ 0.386e-12 m [1.957e-6 1/eV]. Charge [in red] radius ~ rE/137.04.

How can you reconcile the concept of massless charge with the experimental value of 511 keV for the electron mass ?

In this model the mass is not an “intrinsic property” of the particle, but it is a value that can be derived from other parameters of the model itself. A key point of the model consist in assigning to the rotating charge a purely electromagnetic momentum qA = mc, whose value is equal to the product between the charge q and the vector potential A associated with the current generated by the charge itself. In natural units both the light speed and the Planck constant are adimensional scalars with value c = \hbar = 1 and the physical quantities dimensions are integer (positive, negative, or zero) powers of one electron-volt (eV). The rotating charge momentum has – when expressed in natural units – the dimension of an energy and a value equal to electron mass. Using natural units, the electron mass is also equal to the angular frequency of the charge rotation, and is equal to the inverse of the ring radius. But the mass value can also be obtained by integrating the square of the electric and magnetic field or by integrating the product of the current density for the vector potential. Starting from such model, it is thus possible to obtain the electron rest mass in six different ways.

There is a point which needs to be cleared up: how is it possible that a charge having a momentum is subject to a circular motion without a positive charge at the center of the orbit, as in Bohr atomic model ?

A magnetic flux equal to the ratio h/q –where h is the Planck constant and q is the elementary charge- is associated to the current ring: \Phi_M = h/q. The centripetal force, at the origin of the rotating movement, is the Lorentz Force due to the magnetic field.

I observe that, multiplying the amount of momentum of the rotating charge by the radius, we obtain a value of the angular momentum of the free electron equal to a single quantum of action \hbar. I would expect a value equal to half of this value, the commonly accepted value of the electron spin…

The hypothesis proposed by the Authors distinguishes spin and “intrinsic” angular momentum. Spin is interpreted as the component of the intrinsic angular momentum vector along the direction of an external magnetic field. This component can have only the two values \pm \hbar/2 when the electron is subject to the well-known Larmor precession.

Spin as a component of intrinsic angular momentum

Interesting hypothesis, but the concept of light-speed moving charges, fundamental for the proposed model, does not seem widespread discussed and studied in the mainstream scientific literature. What theoretical foundations suggest the existence of such charges ?

The conceptual foundation is the application of Occam’s razor to Maxwell’s equations. In the mainstream scientific literature, the so-called “Lorenz gauge” is often applied. It is a particular operation consisting essentially of zeroing an expression that appears in Maxwell’s equations. This expression represents a “scalar field”, a function that associates a single real value with the space-time coordinates. In the paper Maxwell’s equations and Occam’s razor, Lorenz’s gauge is considered as a normal “boundary condition”, that cannot be always applied. The hypothesis of the existence of a scalar field is not new: many authors, often quoting Nicola Tesla’s works, dealt with this subject. In particular, it is interesting to mention a recent project of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) entitled “Electrodynamic Scalar Wave Transmission and Reception” evaluating the possibility of an innovative communication system based on the concept of transmission and reception of scalar waves. The acceptance of the existence of a scalar field allows an interesting interpretation of the concept of “charge density” as the time derivative of the scalar field, as suggested by Giuliano Bettini in the work “Manuscripts of the late century”, published in the viXra archives. In this case, Maxwell’s equations describe only light-speed moving charges. It is interesting to note that Richard Feynman’s intriguing hypothesis that positron can be interpreted as an “electron traveling back in time” emerges immediately from this particular charge definition. Positron, differs from the electron only for the charge sign. Obviously, if you consider the charge density as the time derivative of the scalar field, the sign change of the time variable automatically flip the sign of the charge.

Nicola Tesla

In natural units, the electron rest mass-energy is equal to the Zitterbewegung angular frequency and is equal to the momentum of the rotating charge. Starting from these observations, is it possible to formulate a purely electromagnetic interpretation of both Newton’s laws and Special Relativity?

Yes. An example particularly easy to study describes an electron moving at constant speed vz along a direction orthogonal to the xy plane of charge rotation, which, consequently, will follow an helicoidal path at light speed. In this case the charge momentum vector qA = mc will have a component along the z axis. Calling m_e the rest mass of the electron we observe that the angular frequency \omega_e and the module of the component of momentum qA_\perp = m_ec = \hbar \omega_e/c  in the plane xy is a value that does not depend from v_z. It is thus possible to derive directly the value of the electron relativistic mass m by applying the Pythagorean theorem, considering that the component of the momentum m_ec  is orthogonal to the component mv_z = qA_z:

m_e^2c^2 + m^2v_z^2 = m^2c^2

A variation in speed will therefore result in an electric force f_z

f_z = \frac{d(mv_z)}{dt} = \frac{qdA_z}{dt} = qE_z

or, for non-relativistic speeds:

f_z =\frac{qdA_z}{dt} = qE_z \simeq m_e\frac{dv_z}{dt}  = m_ea

Zitterbewegung trajectories for different electron speeds: v/c = 0, 0.43, 0.86, 0.98

Can you describe the proposed relativistic model using a simple, easy to understand metaphor?

Considering the invariance of light speed c of the electric charge, it is possible to visualize the charge helicoidal trajectory of an electron moving at velocity v_z within a fixed time interval \Delta t, as a spring of length v_z \Delta t  formed by a thin elastic wire of constant length c\Delta t. The electron mass m = \hbar/rc is exactly equal to the inverse of the radius r of the spring when expressed in natural units: m = 1/r. An increase of v_z, will be represented by a spring elongation and a spring radius reduction. The radius reduction is inversely proportional to the relativistic mass increase. If we call r_e the spring rest radius \left(v_z = 0\right), it is possible to write the value of the radius r and mass m as a function of v_z:

r = r_e \sqrt{1-\frac{v_z^2}{c^2}}

m = \frac {m_e} {\sqrt{1-\frac{v_z^2}{c^2}}}

Of course, if the electron is observed at a spatial scale far greater than its Compton wavelength and at a timescale far greater than the very short period (\approx 8.1 \cdot 10^{-21} sec ) of the Zitterbewegung rotation, the electron can be approximated by a point-like particle that moves along the helix axis.

How can we describe shortly, by using simple concepts, the relation between Maxwell’s equations and the proposed model?

Space-time algebra uses an orthogonal basis of four unit vectors that obey the following simple rules:

\gamma_x^2 = \gamma_y^2 = \gamma_z^2 = -\gamma_t^2 = 1

\gamma_i\gamma_j = - \gamma_j\gamma_i \quad \forall \:\{i, j\}\: \in\: \{x, y, z, t\}\quad and \quad i \neq j

The algebra thus defined is isomorphic to the algebra of Majorana matrices. Now we define a generic function

A = A\left(x,y,z,t\right)=\left(\gamma_xA_x, \gamma_yA_y, \gamma_zA_z, \gamma_tA_t \right)

that associates each point of space-time with a four values vector. We define also a special vector \partial

\partial = \left(\gamma_x\partial_x, \gamma_y\partial_y, \gamma_z\partial_z, \gamma_t\partial_t\right)

whose components represent the derivative operators along the four directions of space-time.

Applying the derivative operators of \partial to the vector field A, a “spinorial field” is obtained, a function that associates a spinor to each point of space-time. The spinor, in space-time algebra, is a particular mathematical structure identified by seven values: a scalar field S, characterized by a single value and a “bivectorial” field F with six distinct values. The number six corresponds to the number of possible orthogonal planes (bivectors) of space-time: xy, xz, yz, xt, yt, zt.

\partial A = \gimel = S + F

If A is the electromagnetic four potential, the six F values are related to the three values (Ex, Ey, Ez) of the electric field and to the three magnetic field values (Bx, By, Bz). The S field, defined by a single value, is generally ignored in mainstream literature, where the “Lorenz gauge” is often applied, an operation that, as already mentioned, consists in assuming S = 0.

Applying the operator \partial to the field \gimel and setting the result to zero,

\partial\gimel = \partial^2A = \partial S + \partial F = 0

we obtain the Maxwell equations rewritten in a compact form, if we identify the four partial derivatives \partial S of the scalar field S, along the four space-time coordinates, as the electromagnetic field sources, i.e. the three values of the current density J and the charge density ρ. According to Occam’s razor principle, therefore, charge and current concepts are not introduced ad hoc in the model, but are derived from a single core entity, the electromagnetic four potential. The equation \partial \gimel = 0, if expanded, leads to a system of eight equations that link together the six values of the electromagnetic field F and the sources.

Beyond the formalism, what are the substantial consequences of this particular interpretation of Maxwell’s equations?

This rewriting of Maxwell equations implies the existence of scalar waves and the existence of light speed moving charges. Their equations are very simple:

\partial^2 S = 0

\partial^2 \rho = 0

How this proposed model relates with Dirac’s equation ?

For m = 0, the Dirac equation

\left(i\partial - m\right)\psi = 0

becomes the Weyl equation

\partial\psi = 0

an expression similar to equation \partial \gimel = 0, if rewritten using the formalism of space-time algebra.

The solution of these equations is a field of spinors. A spinor is a mathematical structure that has some analogies with complex numbers. As it is well known, a complex number z=\exp(i\theta) with module 1 and argument \theta encodes a generic rotation of \theta radians. In space-time algebra, the product \gamma_x\gamma_y has, like imaginary unit i, a negative square:

\left(\gamma_x\gamma_y\right)^2 = \gamma_x\gamma_y\gamma_x\gamma_y = -\gamma_x\gamma_y\gamma_y\gamma_x = -1

and the expression R_{xy} = \exp(\gamma_x\gamma_y\theta) represents a spinor that encodes a rotation in the xy plane. The product γzγt has a positive square (we remember that \gamma_t^2 = -1):

\left(\gamma_z\gamma_t\right)^2 = \gamma_z\gamma_t\gamma_z\gamma_t = -\gamma_z\gamma_t\gamma_t\gamma_z = 1

in this case the spinor R_{zt} = \exp(\gamma_z\gamma_t\phi) implements a hyperbolic rotation in the zt plane. Simplifying, the (non-commutative) product of the two spinors encodes the helicoidal trajectory of the electron charge if we set \theta = \omega_et and \phi = \tanh^{-1}(v_z/c).

What are the main differences with Hestenes model?

In the Hestenes model the charge is point-like shaped. In his more recent works, the Zitterbewegung radius is equal to half the value of the reduced electron Compton wavelength. Moreover, in the Hestenes model, the Zitterbewegung angular speed decreases as a result of the relativistic time dilation when the electron is accelerated. This point, in particular, is not compatible with the model proposed in the two papers of Vol. 25 of the JCMNS, where the value of the mass, the ZBW radius, the Zitterbewegung angular frequency, the current and the vector potential associated with the charge motion are strictly interdependent parameters. The correlation between these parameters demands a relativistic contraction of the radius, an increase in the instantaneous angular speed \omega=c/r and the invariance of angular frequency \omega_e in the xy plane orthogonal to the direction of motion.

Are there any experimental results that could be interpreted using this particular electron model?

A series of experiments conducted over the last ten years by prof. Leif Holmlid (University of Gothenburg) have proved the existence of a very compact form of deuterium. Starting from the kinetic energy value (about 630 eV) of the nuclei emitted in some experiments where this particular form of ultra-dense deuterium is irradiated by a small laser, he calculates a distance between deuterium nuclei of about 2.3 \cdot 10^{-12} m, a much smaller value than the distance of about 74 \cdot 10^{-12} between the nuclei of a normal deuterium molecule. A preliminary hypothesis about the structure of the ultra-dense hydrogen (or deuterium) structure can be proposed starting from the electron and proton Zitterbewegung models. The proton can be seen as a current ring generated by a positive elementary charge that moves at the velocity of light along a circumference whose length is equal to the Compton proton wavelength \left(\lambda_p \approx 1.3 \cdot 10^{-15} m\right). According to this hypothesis, the proton would be much smaller than the electron, being the ratio between the radii of the two current rings equal to the inverse of masses ratio: r_e/r_p = m_p/m_e \approx 1836. An hypothetical structure (Z-Hydrino or Zitterbewegung Hydrino) formed by an electron with a proton (or a deuteron) in its center would have a potential energy of -q^2/r_e \approx -3.7 keV, a value equal to the energy of an X-ray photon with a wavelength of about 3.3 \cdot 10^{-10} m. The distance between the deuterium nuclei in the Holmlid experiment could be explained by an aggregate of these structures. In these hypothetical aggregates, the Zitterbewegung phase difference of two neighboring electrons is \pi radians and the distance d_c between the charges of the two electrons is equal to electron Compton wavelength d_c = \lambda_c \approx 2.42 \cdot 10^{-12} m. In this case the distance between the nuclei can be obtained by applying the Pythagorean theorem:

d_i = \sqrt{\lambda_c^2 - \lambda_c^2/\pi^2} \approx 2.3 \cdot 10^{-12} m

Ultra Dense Hydrogen model. Proton distance ~ 2.3e-12 m [1.16e-5 1/eV]

at this point, it is important to briefly mention the interesting work of Jan Naudts, “On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom“, where the author, applying the Klein-Gordon equation to hydrogen atom, finds an energy level E_0 \approx m_ec^2\alpha \approx 3.7 keV.

Prof. Leif Holmlid

In the Iwamura experiment, a low energy nuclear transmutation of deposited elements was observed on a system consisting of alternate thin layers of palladium (Pd) and calcium oxide (CaO). A transmutation occurs when the system is crossed by a deuterium flow. The CaO layer, essential for the transmutation, is hundreds of atomic layers away from the area, near the surface, where the atoms to be transmuted have been implanted. It is therefore interesting to find an hypothesis that explains the action at distance and the role of CaO and the deuterium nuclei overcoming of the coulomb barrier.

Prof. Yasuhiro Iwamura

A possible hypothesis may arise from considering essential the ultra-dense deuterium (UDD) formation at interface between calcium oxide and palladium, an area where the high work function difference between Pd and CaO favors the formation of a layer with an High Electron Density (SEL, Swimming Electron Layer). The ultra-dense deuterium could later migrate to the area where the atoms to be transmuted have been implanted. This hypothesis seems more realistic than the hypothesis of di-neutrons (couples of neutrons) formations, consequence of an hypothetical nuclear capture of the electron, considering the very high energy required to balance this process (~ 0.78 MeV). A more realistic hypothesis sees the Ultra-dense deuterium aggregates, having no charge, as the be probable cause of the transmutation of Cs into Pr and Sr into Mo. Using the Holmlid’s notation “D(0)” to indicate the “mini-atoms” of ultra-dense deuterium, the hypothesized reaction for Cesium transmutation into Praseodymium in the Iwamura experiments would be very simple:

^{133}_{55}Cs + 4D(0)\:\rightarrow \:^{141}_{59}Pr + 4e

In this context, the electrons would have the role of carrier of deuterons towards the nuclei to be transmuted.

Andrea Rossi in his Miami office with one of his favorite paintings

Seems that a possible role of electrons in low-energy nuclear reactions has also been proposed by Gullström and Rossi in the their last theoretical work “Nucleon polarizability and long range strong force from σI = 2 meson exchange potential”:

A less probable alternative to the long range potential is if the e-N coupling in the special EM field environment would create a strong enough binding to compare an electron with a full nuclide. In this hypothesis, no constraints on the target nuclide are set, and nucleon transition to excited states in the target nuclide should be possible. In other words these two views deals with the electrons role, one is as a carrier of the nucleon and the other is as a trigger for a long range potential of the nucleon”.

Ultra-dense hydrogen or deuterium aggregates could be the cause of “many-body” nuclear reactions ? These reactions are currently considered impossible or highly unlikely.

We do not know, but if confirmed it would be difficult to find an alternative explanations for such reactions. Interestingly to note that, already in the 1990s, Brian Ahern’s patent US5411654 refers to “many-body” nuclear reactions:

“Condensed matter systems in which the deuteron nuclei motions are synchronized to such a high degree are expected to generally tend toward conditions that favor 3- and 4-body strong force interactions. Such many-bodied, cooperative oscillations permit 3 nuclei to be confined in, or close, to, the strong force envelope simultaneously, providing a corresponding increase in interaction potential. Prediction of reaction by-products of 3- and 4-body strong force interactions are beyond current understanding. High energy scattering experiments are of no predictive use, owing to the immeasurably low probability of even a 3-body interaction.”.

Incidentally, the cited patent also addresses other key issues such as, for example, the phenomena of energy localization in nano-structured materials.

What are the main differences with Randell L. Mills’ hydrino?
In Mills’ theory, the charge density equation ρ involves the existence of charges moving at speed v < c:

\left(\partial_x^2 + \partial_y^2 + \partial_z^2 - \frac{1}{v^2}\partial_t^2\right)\rho = 0

while the equation of the model proposed by the Authors

\partial^2\rho =\left(\partial_x^2 + \partial_y^2 + \partial_z^2 - \frac{1}{c^2}\partial_t^2\right)\rho = 0

demands, as already mentioned, the existence of light-speed moving charges. Moreover Mills’ theory contemplates the possibility of many energy levels for the hydrogen atom below the commonly accepted fundamental level.

Other experimental results that suggest the hypothesis of compact forms of hydrogen?

In the 1960s, in an attempt to demonstrate the hypothesis that a neutron is a compressed form of hydrogen, Don Carlo Borghi has conducted an experiment in which partially ionized hydrogen was crossed by a 10 GHz microwaves beam generated by a Klystron. The experiment aimed to test the possibility of synthesizing neutrons from protons and electrons. The neutron synthesis should not be a considered a realistic hypothesis, taking into account the energy necessary to balance the nuclear electron capture p + e \rightarrow n. More likely, though not yet proven, is the possibility of ultra-dense hydrogen formation: p + e \rightarrow H (0).


In conclusion, I would like to point out the possibility of asking questions and commenting on my blog for those who want to deepen the topics discussed or want clarifications about them. A sincere thank to Mario Menichella and to those who have collaborated for the realization of this post.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

On December 19th I participated in Rome, at the ENEA Headquarters, the seminar organized by the Commission Research and Innovative Reactors in the Nuclear Area on the subject of LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions).

It was a technical meeting which saw a considerable success and the presence of some active researchers in this field that, as shown by the E-CAT of Andrea Rossi, could have interesting developments from the industrial point of view, contributing to the advent of a real “energy revolution”.

The main report was presented by Eng. Vittorio Violante, who explained (showing charts and diagrams) that, from his point of view, the LENR are a reality, however referring to the Deuterium – Palladium reactions. To a specific question asked by an audience member – whether he knew the work of Andrea Rossi – Eng. Violante replied, I believe so surprising, that he knew nothing!

The event was broadcast live by streaming, and participated as a guest the Honorable and environmental engineer Davide Crippa (next to me in the photo at right), belonging to the Parliamentary Group of Five Stars, demonstrating how he and the movement of which he is part are very attentive to the problems regarding the development of sustainable energy technologies.

During the lunch break (which preceded the talk of Prof. Alberto Carpinteri) I had with him an exchange of views and enjoyed the “healthy skepticism” of those who approach the areas of research that have not yet had the backing of the mainstream scientific community.

Unfortunately there are those who, in the spirit of contrarian or worse for personal interests, continues today – despite the events – to feel the LENR junk science and Andrea Rossi not credible, as evidenced by certain statements that may be found on the web.

However, I find significant that a research institution with a glorious past as ENEA has made available the premises of its headquarters, which organizes congresses, conferences and national and international workshops.

A slide presentation by Eng. Alberto Taglioni (President of Commission Nuclear Engineering by the Order of Engineers of the Province of Rome).

Maybe something is really moving in Italy and maybe, even if the general public has almost not yet received information, that “signals” to be taken seriously begin to flow to the Institutional organs.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

sigma5While in the United States continues the lawsuit brought by Andrea Rossi (Leonardo Corporation) against Industrial Heat – accused of breach of contract for not having paid the sum of 89 million $ at the end of the 1-year test of a 1 MW E-Cat – and the development tests of the new reactor “Quark X” travel towards “5 sigma”, in Italy continues to grow an interest in LENR, the nuclear reactions at low energy capable of generating, in the case of Rossi’s reactor, thermal energy clean and free of harmful radiation.

Not surprisingly, on December 19 the Commission Research and Innovative Reactors in the Nuclear Area, established by the Order of Engineers of the Province of Rome, in collaboration with ENEA (former National Agency fimage28or Alternative Energies), offers to its subscribers a free informational seminar on the topic of Nuclear reactions at Low Energy as part of the technical-scientific and cultural series of lectures “Magistra Vitae”. See here.

I hope that during this conference the organizers will also speak of the fundamental role played by Andrea Rossi in this area, since the invention of his reactor with potential commercial applications has reignited again, in recent years, the media interest for this kind of research that, after the famous announcement of cold fusion made in 1989 by Fleischmann and Pons, the scientific community has deliberately denigrated and marginalized.

I also find really interesting that the Manager of Energy Services (GSE) – a major company of the Italian Stock Exchange, controlled by the Italian Ministry of Finance as it provides the incentives for renewable energy – has published in the issue 38 (August-November 2016) of its magazine “Elements” an article entitled “The Cold fusion. From fiction to reality?“, in which Andrea Rossi provides interesting answers during an interview about the E-Cat: the ingredients used, the products of the reactions, and so on. Get it here (pp. 68-70).


Rossi interviewed by the magazine of GSE, a big company controlled by the Italian State.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

I decided to publish an interesting document of which I have come into possession a bit of time ago, and commissioned by the management of an important Italian company quoted at the Stock Exchange, very active in the field of renewable energies, which – although two years “old” and then not updated with the latest and more promising developments – attests the growing interest in LENR by those who see in this new way of producing energy a great business opportunity.

cover_docSignificant in this regard are the cover page and the title of the document, of which you can see below and in detail the index and some significant excerpts.

So, while someone still believes Andrea Rossi a visionary – or worse, a clever con man – some people however, often behind the scenes, are working hard and without much “publicity” trying to replicate the E-Cat and the results achieved by the Italian inventor.

I think, as I said in a previous post published on the Italian version of my blog, that in the coming months (also because of the ongoing developments in the US legal dispute between the Leonardo Corporation and Industrial Heat), we will see more interesting news. And I also have a surprise which, if everything goes in the right way, I will put you soon aware.

To conclude this post, the first after the summer break, I take this opportunity to greet all the kind readers of my blog. Stay tuned!




If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

FOTO TORRE DI PISA ritIn psychology “prejudice” is defined as a preconceived opinion, not drawing on any precise or well-defined conception of the matter or the person in question, but based instead in rumors or clichés.

The meaning of the word prejudice has changed in time: we have gone from defining it as a preceding judgment to something closer to a premature judgment, and, lastly, to a nuance more similar to an unmotivated judgment, creating a positive or negative idea of others without backing it up with any sufficient reason (in such cases a prejudice is generally negative).

An ‘idea’ becomes a ‘prejudice’ only when it becomes persistently irreversible – even in the light of new information.

Is it possible to eliminate prejudices?

Encouraging contacts between groups whose ideas are different improves our knowledge of those people who, for one reason or another, are seen as ‘diverse’, and this can be useful in reducing ‘prejudice, but it is, naturally, vital for each one of us to be effectively disposed towards revising our convictions.

This is one of the reasons that has driven me to writing this book, my first literary effort.

Dear Readers, it gives me great pleasure to announce the publication of the extended version of my book, ‘E-Cat The New Fire – The Biography of Andrea Rossi’, which you will find for sale on Amazon, both in digital and paper format, for the moment in Italian, but very soon also in English.


This edition has been updated in content and you will find included a number of as yet unreleased documents which I hope will help to clarify the figure of this Italian inventor, who (and this is something that is all too common as regards our country) has had to move abroad in order to make his dream come true.

Those who, for example, have labeled him with contempt as a crook or a swindler will now, I am sure, have to change their tune, unless, of course, they wish to continue to discredit the words written about him and his invention by a Public Prosecutor of the Italian Republic in the document, the contents of which you will find (though of course I have omitted sensitive data out of respect to privacy laws) in the pages of my book.

Besides which, there can be no doubt that we have to recognize the merit in Andrea Rossi’s work of having brought the so-called ‘Cold Fusion’ to the limelight once again in the mass media and in the scientific world after years of discredit and oblivion. Above all, for the first time ever, he has created a 1MW plant for the production of process heat – which works on the basis of a principle of physics whose theory is still under scientific scrutiny: the Rossi Effect – reliable and ready for the market: the E-Cat … a “New Fire” for humanity!

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

After one year of uninterrupted operation, the 12-months test on the world’s first 1 MW power plant – for the production of steam for industrial process and powered by four 250 kW E-Cat modules – was concluded on February 17, 2016 at 12 a.m.

Andrea Rossi said that, for the results, we should wait the report that will be delivered by the third party entity which performed the measurements on the system during the period of operation. But, if the results will be positive, this date will be remembered, because it will put the bases to the use of a new form of low-cost, clean and safe energy: a kind of “New Fire” for humanity.

photo 5 c

Andrea Rossi while flying on a private jet during one of his many business trips.

Thanks Andrea for your tenacity and for being able to show the world a new direction!

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Accorn2Dear readers,
we are now close to the end of the 1-year long test regarding the Andrea Rossi’s 1 MW E-Cat reactor. So, there is a growing interest for those following this story from the beginning on what the final result will be, and especially on the data that will be released by the involved parties.

Although many people (including me) have tried to inform all those who would have interest in a so big scientific discovery and technological revolution – including scientific and/or political institutions – the news has been shamefully ignored on mainstream media.

I ask you to spread the video below, created by Prof. Neri Accornero (University “La Sapienza”, Italy, see his CV in Italian here), to as many people as possible in order to break the wall of silence interposed by those who have a vested interest because it does not happen.


If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

AfFullSizeRender2bridter about 3 years since the first request of explanation presented in the “Question time” to the Italian Chamber of Deputies by the member of the Italian Parliament Domenico Scilipoti (see here), the “E-Cat affair” gains ground, and become protagonist in a workshop on “Frontier Researches”, held in Rome on November 24, 2015, organized by Scilipoti himself.

I was really pleased to participate as a speaker in this conference, where I could intervene with a presentation titled  LENR and the E-Cat: Energy oIMG_0159b2f the future?.

My intent was to illustrate the huge potential of this invention and describe the most interesting facts related to its development in their real succession.

For the occasion, Andrea Rossi kindly granted a new brief interview that I projected at the end of my talk. I decided to share its content with all the people who follow my blog.

A new short interview with Andrea Rossi about the current status of the E-Cat.

Finally, I would take tasr3his opportunity to thank Senator Scilipoti (next to me in the photo shown here) for the invitation and Mr. Rossi for his willingness.

I wish you a good vision!


P.S. The interview has been translated and subtitled in English by a professional service.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Dear friends and readers of this blog, good morning!

Last night, I had the opportunity to participate in a live web TV broadcast, conducted by Eng. Salvo Mandarà, on the theme “E-Cat The New Fire – A look to the energy of the future”.

I would like to share with you this addictive and constructive experience. You can find the interview at this link:


I also take this opportunity to thank again Salvo Mandarà and congratulate him for his courageous choice of life that makes accessible and undisclosed information and news that otherwise would be left out from the mass media mainstream.

Greetings to all of you,


If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Analy2Many of you have suspected that Andrea Rossi could have a high-level protection that would allow him to work at his best. Surely you are in the right, but perhaps you didn’t think exactly what you’re going to read. 🙂

A photo was recently released by Andrea Rossi with him while proudly shows the US patent for his invention, the E-Cat. On the left you see a my elaboration of such image.

After a few days, I received by a reader an e-mail whose content is reported below, apart from the private conclusion:

Good morning Dr. Nikolova,

I follow the story of the E-Cat since it became public in 2011 and, to stay updated, I read several blogs that talk about this affair. On one of them I saw the attached image, seeming to be a Madonna placed between the pages of Rossi’s agenda. You are the author of his biography, so do you know something about it? Hoping for a your kind response, I thank you in advance, complimenting also for your book which I thoroughly enjoyed. […]

Best regards

I am a psychologist and then, by nature and profession, an inquisitive person. The detail visible in the image shown below, probably prepared by an expert in photography, struck me too.


Detail of the Rossi’s personal agenda on his desk.

It is the agenda of Rossi, visible on the desktop, where you can see, on its right hand page, an image that seems a Madonna or something like that. So, I asked Andrea what it was…Madonna delle Grazie   (MI)

“Dear Vessy, here is the story of the image you asked about,” Andrea begins the unexpected story. “That is the image of the ‘Madonna delle Grazie‘ “, he explains.

So, I immediately searched on the web, where I found a beautiful picture of the Madonna, Santa Maria delle Grazie or, in English, ‘St. Mary of the Graces’, which coincides with the silhouette of the image analyzed above.

Andrea told me in detail the story:

“When I have been made free and exited from the prison of Milan, Italy, after being cleared, I went immediately to prey in the church of ‘Santa Maria delle Grazie’ (the prison is not far from there)”.

Rossi, in fact, was arrested several years ago in Italy for a long story, as an unpredictable consequence of a previous and important discovery, as described in detail in my book “E-CAT THE NEW FIRE – A biography of Andrea Rossi,” which you can find here.

Andrea continues the story underlining that this is an important church: “It is, by the way, the church with inside the famous fresco ‘The Last Supper’ by Leonardo Da Vinci”.

Indeed, on the end wall of the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie, there is one of the world’s most famous religious paintings, a masterpiece of the Italian Renaissance.


Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” (1495-97).

Then he explained how the events took place:
“I prayed in that church for my future life and prayed to make useful for something all the studies made in prison on the LENR. I have taken that day, in the same church, an image of St. Mary of the Graces, which is exactly the one that you can see inside my agenda”.

Finally, he reveals why the image of Our Lady is so faded:
“From the day I have taken it, many years ago, I prey everyday looking at it, to make useful my work on LENR, so that now it is very worn and barely visible”.


The church of Santa Maria delle Grazie, in Milan.

That’s it. If, from now on, you wonder how Rossi was able to discover the effect that carries his name, you should consider that, in addition to the “material” things, an important role – in my opinion – may have been played by the more ethereal spiritual component.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Good morning Dear Readers,
this post is, definitely, one of the most significant ever written on this blog.

Since a while, it was felt in the air that something was going to happen: something special and important; or something that you know or you hope, but cannot be said until the right time comes. Because, as we use to say in Italy: the Gods could be jealous…

But now it is possible. The moment has come!

andrey fillipov_2

So, with great pleasure, I am publishing the cover of a “historical” document: the first patent for the E-Cat issued to Andrea Rossi from the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO). [Full Pdf]

I join to all those who believe in the work of Andrea Rossi’s to make our most authentic compliments reminding him that winning the single battles you finally win even the War.

foto brevetto_3

I also take this opportunity to inform you that, on next October 3, a Conference on Renewables and LENR will hold in Terni (Italy). I was invited to the event as author of the book “E-Cat – The New Fire” – Biography of Andrea Rossi. For the occasion, I prepared a surprise.


If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

atoOur collaborator Alessandro Cavalieri sent me, on my request, an original review post about the last developments in research labs related to the E-Cat and some desirable future strategies:

In the last weeks, some news have indirectly revolutionized the field of research connected to the E-Cat, as the more attentive readers know. In practice, two new lines of research completely “pure” have emerged: Hydrogen-Lithium (Li-H) and Nickel-Hydrogen (H-Ni), both with positive results (excess heat and not only) at high temperature and, therefore, surprising.

I thought it would be useful, for the readers and also for the specialists, to summarize in a very simplified table made with Excel the framework of the various lines of current research, directly or indirectly related to the E-Cat. Since the table was too wide, I had to divide it into two parts. Clearly, the two tables should be read as if they were part of a single larger table with the two parts aligned horizontally on the same line. Click on the pictures to enlarge them.



A simplified review of the lines of research connected, directly or indirectly, to the E-Cat.

In both the tables, I highlighted with a different color all the cells with the most relevant data. They are in fact a useful basis for more extensive evaluations or for future research strategies by professional researchers. However, here are a number of my preliminary comments:

1) First, we note that there are 5 different lines of research: two by Andrea Rossi/IH (Low Temperature E-Cat and Hot-Cat, respectively), and three by other independent groups, among which the China Institute of Atomic Energy and the Unified Gravity LLC (USA). Two lines of the three are the “pure” lines previously mentioned, while the third is the “classical” H-Ni + Li followed by Alexander Parkhomov, the MFMP and others.

2) The lines followed by independent researchers are all at high temperature, while those developed by Rossi are at low and medium temperature, respectively. This is not surprising, given that Rossi has some “secret” still not revealed: probably, but not necessarily, a chemical catalyst (in alternative, a special treatment of the fuel, or other).

3) We note that the line of research H-Li has shown the existence of nuclear reactions Hydrogen-Lithium in the presence of a plasma proton-Lithium (p-Li), that according to the researchers you can have only at temperatures higher than 750 °C, when Lithium vaporizes.


The Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device used by Unified Gravity LLC, including a proton-Lithium plasma generator (from their international patent application).

4) The line of pure research H-Ni is particularly interesting because, with a reactor consisting of a wire of Nickel in an atmosphere of Hydrogen, the aforementioned Chinese group has shown that it produces excess heat – but also clear hot-spots, as we can see from the SEM photos below – without the use of catalysts, and this seems a very important result probably obtained for the first time, at least with a so simple device.


Clear hot-spots obtained in a “pure” Ni-H experiment by the China Institute of Atomic Energy.

5) Regarding the correlation of the reaction products effectively detected with the expectations from theory, only the line H-Li gave fully satisfactory results. In fact, the cited reactor allowed to detect the production of alpha particles, i.e. Helium nuclei, of high-energy (some MeV), which is exactly what it is expected from fusion reactions of Hydrogen-Lithium.


The expected reactions Li-H for standard metallic Lithium: a very good agreement with the experimental data by Unified Gravity LLC, a rare occurrence in LENR!

6) The situation begins to be apparently quite clear also with regard to the line of research H-Ni + Li, where the Chinese group has detected, analyzing the ashes of the fuel used, a depletion around 1% of only two isotopes, Ni- 64 and Li-6, with no material changes in the other isotopes. It should be noted that these are the first public data on this type of analysis.

7) On the contrary, the public data provided in the Third Party Report (TPR-2) by Lugano Team are very contradictory with those of the H-Ni + Li line of research. In fact, they show that, apart from the Ni-62 and Li-6, all remaining isotopes are depleted. The authors of the TPR-2 explain in a plausible manner the possible depletion of Li-7, but not that of the various Nickel isotopes, which thus remains a mystery.

8) We believe, however, that probably Rossi uses one or more unknown chemical catalysts, which could be a plausible explanation for these anomalous and contradictory results. In addition, we know that the E-Cat produces energy mainly through gamma rays in the range 50-100 keV, as revealed by the same Rossi in Zurich and anticipated by the physicist Hanno Essen in a private communication to some Swedish colleagues (30-150 keV).

9) It is unclear whether the E-Cat produced gamma rays at 511 keV, the absence of which would exclude reactions of the type p + Ni(x) -> Cu(x+1) because some of the unstable (and radioactive) copper atoms should undergo a beta decay and the produced positron an electron-positron annihilation at 511 keV, as noted by the nuclear physicist Sergio Focardi in 2008. The gamma rays at 511 keV were confirmed by Hanno Essen to his Swedish colleagues but they have never been detected in public tests, perhaps for not good measurements. An official statement from Rossi in this regard would be highly desirable.

Even from a simple analysis such as the just presented, it is clear the need to carry out, in the future, investigations in several directions, not limiting to explore only the “classical” line a-la-Parkhomov, or H-Ni + Li. The research institutions and state universities could (and should!) provide the largest contribution to this study, given the necessity of isotopic analyses of reagents and products taken from the hot-spots.


The isotopic analysis of fuels and ashes should be a “must” in LENR research. Here we see a Ionization Mass Spectrometer (IMS), which can measure isotopic ratios.

This historical period reminds one that revolutionized Physics in the first half of the last century, and it is embarrassing to see, in this century, the silence of the mainstream science. Some free and enterprising men are literally rewriting Physics under our eyes and Academia seems literally “to sleep”, although each of the lines of research illustrated may generate, sooner or later, one or more Nobel Prizes for Physics and/or Chemistry.

I recommend, finally, to read the patent application WO 2014/189799 A9 (Hydrogen-Lithium Fusion Device) by Unified Gravity LLC and the Power Point presentation titled Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Occurring in Hydrogen-Loaded Nickel Wire written by the Ni-H Research Group operating at the China Institute of Atomic Energy. You can find them easily on Internet and most of this post is based on these lighting documents.

ALESSANDRO CAVALIERI is a physicist who teaches Mathematics and Physics in a secondary school, in Northern Italy. His cultural interests goes from Chaos Theory to the Mind-Matter connections. He loves to read books on the history of Physics.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

swartzI received from Alessandro Cavalieri the following contribute about the NANOR reactor developed by JET Energy, a clean promising energy multiplier very different from Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat:

I would like to resume and integrate the interesting paper “Dry, preloaded NANOR®-type CF/LANR components” by Mitchell R. Swartz (JET Energy, Inc., USA), Peter L. Hagelstein (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA) and others, recently published by Current Science.

Indeed, the ZrO2–PdNiD NANOR®-type reactor is a device capable of significant energy gain over long periods of time with reasonable reproducibility and controllability. So, it could be used, in the future, as an effective, clean, highly efficient, energy production system.

The NANOR® components are smaller than 2 cm in length, and with 30–200 mg of active LANR material. Their ‘core’ contains active ZrO2–PdD nanostructured material [Zr (66%), Ni (0–30%), and Pd (5–25%) by weight], loaded with additional deuterium (D) to achieve loadings (ratio of D to Pd) of more than 130%.

Indeed, nanostructured materials have incredibly large surface area to volume ratios. Second, many also have new unexpected quantum mechanical properties: they enable quantum confinements, surface plasmon resonances, and superparamagnetism.


A two terminal NANOR™ device containing active ZrO2-PdNiD nanostructured material.

The ZrO2–(PdNi)D is prepared in a complicated process that begins by oxidizing a mixture of zirconium oxide surrounding metallic palladium, nickel or Pd–Ni islands, located and dispersed within the electrically insulating zirconia dielectric.

The desired nanostructure islands of NiPdD have characteristic widths of 2–20 nm size. This nanostructure size is selected because it can react cooperatively, generating large amplitude, low frequency oscillations. The characteristic width is between 7 and 14 nm.

The zirconia dielectric matrix is insulating at low voltage and keeps the nanoscale metal islands electrically separated. It also prevents the aggregation of the islands. Each nanostructured island acts as a short circuit elements during electrical discharge.

The fuel for the nanostructured material in the core is deuterium, and the product is believed to be de novo 4He produced by the deuterium fusion. The ‘excess heat’ observed is thought due to energy derived from coherent de-excitation of molecule D2 to ground state 4He.


According to a previous Swartz’s paper, the helium-4 excited state is either the first excited state, or one energetically located above it, all at least 20 million electron volts (20 to ~23+ MeV) above the ground level. This is significant in magnitude and clearly we cannot say that they are “low energy” reactions.

Swartz adds, in the same paper, that “Melvin Miles of China Lake with Johnson-Matthey Pd rods was the first to show the correlation of heat and helium-4 production. Arata and Zhang reported de novo He4 with LANR, including with Zr2O4/Pd powder exposed to deuterium gas, but not with hydrogen gas”.

Well, the excess energy gain of a NANOR compared to driving input energy is up to 20 times. The reactor openly demonstrated an energy gain (COP) which ranged generally from 5 to 16, a much higher energy gain compared to the 2003 demonstration unit (COP 2.3).


Input and Heat Output of a two terminal NANOR™-type device Series 6-33ACL131C2 device, showing the calorimetric response at several input powers, for the device and the ohmic control.

The input powers were below 100 mW. Therefore, the output power of a NANOR, considering a COP of 20 and no more of 200 mg of active powder, would be about 2 W. It is interesting to compare this parameter with the E-Cat, a much larger device.

You have to consider that the Andrea Rossi’s Hot-Cat illustrated in the TPR-1 had a reaction chamber of about 200 cubic centimeters, which may contain about 100 grams of active powder. So, a NANOR using 100 grams of active powder would produce a thermal power of (100000 / 200) x 2 = 1000 W, or, more simply, 1 kW.

Thus the difference seems not so great. Indeed, in the test on a Hot-Cat performed in December 2012 the E-Cat power production was almost constant, with an average of 1609 W, as illustrated in TPR-1. So, there is approximately a factor 2 between the performances of the two different reactors.

Although small in size, the LANR excess power density of a NANOR is more than 19,500 W/kg of nanostructured material. According to TPR-1, the power density of a Hot-Cat can be estimated in about 50,000 W/kg for the test performed on March 2013. We find again a factor 2.


Photo of a NANOR reactor (credit: Barry Simon).

NANOR is a two terminal device in which the activation of the desired cold fusion reactions is, for the first time, separated from the loading. The proprietary prepared preloaded ZrO2–(PdNi) nanostructured materials are dry, and glued into electrically conductive, sealed configurations (see the photos).

According to Swartz’s papers, the production of the preloaded core material is a complex engineering problem, because it involves “preparation, production, proprietary pretreatment, loading, post-loading treatment, activation, and then adding the final structural elements”.

The NANOR reactor, which generates significant excess heat from applied electric fields, is driven by a high DC voltage circuit up to 1000+ V rail voltage, required to surmount the extremely high electrical resistance of the nanostructured material.

The reactor is easily activated, driven by an electrical circuit and controlled by an electrical driver. The controlled driving system uses pulse wave modulated microcomputer control of specialized very high voltage semiconductors linked to a current source driving system.

NANOR excess heat generation is produced thanks to complicated polarization/transconduction phenomena, including an avalanche transconduction electrical breakdown through the ZrO2-NiD Nanostructured CF/LANR component, as explained by Hagelstein at ICCF-19.


Peter Hagelstein illustrates the NANOR at ICCF-19, in Padua, Italy. See here the video.

As the voltage was increased to about 24V, the impedance suddenly decreased to very low values. It was shown theoretically that this sudden reduction can be attributed to an “avalanche effect” that is typical of the current–voltage behavior that occurs in Zener diodes.

Finally, I would add that the papers on NANOR by Swartz and Hagelstein lack of many details about how the reactor works and is made, so the just reported resume is, in reality, only a partial description. Rossi’s reactor is known in much more detail, thanks also to the public TP tests.

ALESSANDRO CAVALIERI is a physicist who teaches Mathematics and Physics in a secondary school, in Northern Italy. His cultural interests goes from Chaos Theory to the Mind-Matter connections. He loves to read books on the history of Physics.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone