Rossi Comments on Theory and Radiation

Given the discussions we have been having here regarding the possible mechanism behind the E-Cat reaction, I thought it was interesting to see a couple of Q&A’s on the Journal of Nuclear Physics in this area:

Maurizio
August 28, 2016 at 6:16 PM
Dear Andrea:
Which is the peak quantity of the specter of the radiations you have been able to detect inside the Ecat?
Ciao,
Maurizio

Andrea Rossi
August 29, 2016 at 7:29 AM
Maurizio:
Borderline in between X-Rays and Gamma, around 50 keV.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

JPRenoir
August 28, 2016 at 8:39 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Did you change idea about the chance that electron capture could explain the LENR?
JPR

Andrea Rossi
August 29, 2016 at 7:25 AM
JP Renoir:
Absolutely not. Electron capture in LENR is impossible. It can happen only with atoms overweighted with protons, and this is not our case.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Rossi has always said that the E-Cat is perfectly safe because they never are able to measure radiation beyond background levels outside the E-Cat, but here he clearly states that there is radiation inside the reactor that somehow apparently never escapes. For a quick reference, here’s an image from the Mirion Technologies website about different types of radiation and the shielding required to block them.

radiation

  • GiveADogABone

    These comments by AR are signatures of bremsstrahlung radiation :
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/24/summary-of-citta-del-capo-radio-metropolitana-interview-with-andrea-rossi/comment-page-1/
    Part 2 – The Theory
    The main effect is the thermalization of low-energy Gamma (50-120 keV).

    Dear Andrea:
    Which is the peak quantity of the specter of the radiations you have been able to detect inside the Ecat?
    Andrea Rossi
    Borderline in between X-Rays and Gamma, around 50 keV.

    http://www.radiologymasterclass.co.uk/tutorials/physics/x-ray_physics_production
    The X-ray spectrum
    As a result of characteristic and bremsstrahlung radiation generation a spectrum of X-ray energy is produced within the X-ray beam.

  • Bob Greenyer

    With regard to Lugano and photons, the fuel was preprocessed if you consider the SEMs, and I already discussed and rationalised that if you passed the initial “burst” in this processing step you would not see the signal 7 type spread.

    I deduced that a tungsten sheath would prevent post “burst” emissions (when they are below 120keV) and subsequent to this analysis it was established by looking through a database of Rossi’s blog (which I never read) that he had said this in the past was part of the HotCat design.

    Lastly, we identified that the Neutrons occurred below the melting and wetting temperature of Lithium Hydride (LiH) when they would have a free path. When the Lithium is wetted to the Nickel, it is an effective neutron moderator. In addition – we saw no neutrons at higher temperatures, so in our opinion, based on our data, David Bianchini should not have see neutrons at the operating temperature of the reactor.

    The protocols for our up and coming experiments will explore this hypothesis further, however, we will have more realtime neutron detection with various degrees of moderation due to the excellent open work of Bob Higgins.

  • KeithT

    I think you have to differentiate between the statements regarding radiation either inside or outside that originated from the early version Ecat tests of 2011 and before from those statements that involve later generation Ecats / Hotcats. From previous Andrea Rossi answers I think there are at least two Ecat processes that he developed.

    The first process is the one where Nickel was converted to Copper, this is the process that had stability problems and was limited to a COP of 6 due to unwanted side effects if the temperature was allowed to rise above a limit. The second process is the one currently being discussed.

    Mattias Carlsson – April 8, 2011 at 9:08 AM
    Dear Rossi,
    As I understand from your answers you confirm or suspect that only Ni 62 and Ni 64 react to produce Cu 63 and Cu 65 respectively.
    The Swedish professor Kullander says in the magazine “Ny teknik” that in the ‘spent’ fuel there is 10% copper 63 and 65 (70:30) and 11% iron.
    Since nickel 62 and 64 is present in the proportions of 3.6% and 0.9% totaling 4.5% in normal natural nickel. Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?
    Best regards Mattias Uppsala Sweden

    Andrea Rossi – April 8, 2011 at 9:33 AM
    Dear Mr Mattias Carlsson:
    Yes, we do.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Jed Rothwell – April 11, 2011 at 8:44 PM
    Mattias Carlsson asked “Did you enrich for heavier nickel isotopes to make the nickel fuel?” and you replied:
    “Yes, we do.”
    Elsewhere you said that processing the Ni adds only about 10% to the cost. Yet monoisotopic elements are very expensive. To enrich the sample even 1% would make it cost far more than normal Ni.
    How do you explain this? Perhaps there is some confusion.
    (Incidentally, Piantelli says in his patent that his Ni is enriched. See patent WO 2010/058288)

    Andrea Rossi – April 11, 2011 at 10:01 PM
    Dear Jed Rothwell:
    I am not going to give more information about this issue. Just can say we have invented a process of ours to enrich Ni without relevant costs. To elaborate Ni powders along classic processes is the invention of the hot water. It is as invent and patent the sputtering in 2010…
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

    The process that was invented in 2011 is the one that converts Ni58 to Ni62, i.e. the current process used in the industrial Ecats, this is the process that has been measured to have no external emissions.

  • sam

    Eugenio Mieli
    August 30, 2016 at 7:32 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    considering the many variables we must consider (technical, legal, political) and consequently the difficulty in being precise in predictions, may you now make a schedule of upcoming major deadlines in the long road of E-Cat?

    I’m sure that on certain issues you will be forced to repeat yourself, but I think it is interesting to have an overall timing pattern that reflects your feelings today. Obviously without obligation . . .

    Thanks so much,

    Eugenio

    Andrea Rossi
    August 30, 2016 at 8:44 AM
    Eugenio Mieli:
    1- continue the manufacturing of the industrial plants: NOW
    2- complete the R&D of the QuarkX to sell the first unit: within 2016
    3- presentation of the QuarkX prototype: within 2016
    4- start massive production of the E-Cats in the USA and in Sweden: 2017- 2018
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Frank Acland
    August 30, 2016 at 7:45 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    Why will this be in important week for the QuarkX?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    August 30, 2016 at 8:36 AM
    Frank Acland:
    We have to make a test that should be conclusive for the first stage of the R&D, if positive.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • artefact

      mille grazie

  • Bob Greenyer

    Contrary to your point, in the case of Celani we found 0-12.5% excess across a wide range of apparatus run at different sites. We could never match Celani’s figures from NI Week and ICCF17 – then we discovered a possible reason why, following a 2 year process we established with Celani that his results were, when adjusting for errors in his apparatus, much closer to ours. We were not getting it repeatedly wrong, we were just seeing the real result.

    In the case of our 2013 repeatable observation of Photons from Celani wires, we stand by that also and that does not even take into consideration that Jean-Paul Biberian replicated our findings within 24 hours. If only independent researchers could replicate other peoples findings in 24 hours every time – it would be wonderful. This early discovery of repeatable photons lead to other researchers revealing to us a flood of other similar research findings by other parties.

    Our excess heat observed in Rossi Lugano type reactors (seemingly around 1.14 across several experiments and with TC and Optris measurement) was not as glamorous as Alexander Parkhomov’s results, however, Parkhomov’s mass flow calorimetry approach reported in his most recent presentation is in line with our results – this is the second time in our history where the more people research, the closer they have got to our results. In addition, we demonstrated live that the Lugano thermal measurement approach was wrong, note, that does not necessarily mean the energy yield was less than claimed, but it was incorrect to use emissivity of anything other than around 0.95 using an Optris PI160 as a basis for the calculation. The Lugano authors know they got that wrong and have not attempted to defend their mistake or challenge us given the strength of our thorough investigation and the subsequently discovered fact that page 42 in the Optris manual tells an operator what to do also.

    In the case of “the signal” GS 5.2 no one has provided an alternative explanation for the live data results, it finally explains the observation by Celani of the “turn on” signal in Rossi’s first public demonstration and explains and verifies the historic design choices made by him. It also supports empirically his claims for the type of photon energy output he says comes from the process. This is far more significant than excess heat in our opinion and cannot be the result of miss-calculation.

    In the case of thermal neutrons observed in GS 5.3, this is also a big tell and not a result of miss-calculations, they were observed live on camera. Since then other researchers have reported Neutrons and the whole subject is more openly discussed which is a good thing. MFMP collaborator Bob Higgins has even developed an open source Neutron detection system in response to this finding and very soon a good number of researchers will be capable of detecting and recording live, any potential neutron fluxes from their experiments. Rossi surrounded his Ottoman style reactors with Water which by itself could attenuate the small neutron yield we observed, however, this water could additionally have been borated and passed through a heat exchanger to deliver the heat. Rossi claims no radiations above background outside his reactors, that is not the same as no radiation in the process.

    Without intending to we have seen data to support Rossi as well as other researchers, in addition we have seen data that has been more representative of the real effect in the public embodiments most known. We have also repeatedly shown were data has been incorrectly interpreted or there have been systematic errors leading to erroneously positive claims.

    We will keep researching openly and honestly – the data is just that, data, each step tells us something, we are very satisfied with our progress given the diminutive resources – principally in experimentalist time.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Here are some known endothermic neutron forming reactions.

    Li(7) + He(4) > B(10) + n -2.79 MeV

    Al(27) + He(4) > P(30) + n -2.64 MeV

    P(30) > Si(30) + positron

  • Rene

    That statement ‘it is a machine’ is just as information free as ‘the internet is made of tubes’. Let’s give it a rest.

  • Rene

    “Rossi has always said that the E-Cat is perfectly safe because they never are able to measure radiation beyond background levels outside the E-Cat, but here he clearly states that there is radiation inside the reactor that somehow apparently never escapes. ”
    Rossi has said al this since 2010. Well, OK he was always a bit squirrely saying no radiation measured outside, then when pressed he refined that to indicate there was low energy radiation inside which simple shielding would stop. 50Kev anything can be stopped easily with thin shielding (except for neutrons). Tis shielding nowadays is mostly integral to the reactor proper.
    Now about neutrons, he reported neutrons at high COP years back, but a bit later he also reported that the neutrons were a result of side reactions that were not part of the main LENR process, and that he took care of it. The ‘how’ was never disclosed, but we all speculated it had some to do with fuel preparation to refine the mix so that whatever caused the neutron generation was removed.
    I see this latest statement of his being entirely consistent with previous ones.

  • Steve Swatman

    Rossi has always said that the E-Cat is perfectly safe because they
    never are able to measure radiation beyond background levels outside the E-Cat,

    Are you sure?

    I believe that Mr Rossi did detect neutron bursts when he his reactor ran at “Very COP” (around200+) I think I read it on this site too, but it was quite a while ago, maybe 2yrs back. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/17/neutron-detection-and-the-e-cat/

    there were also a couple of others Me356, 2 Swedish scientists Lidgren and Lundin, who stopped experimenting because of neutron bursts at very high COP, also around 200+

    The thing is, they are perfectly safe when run at lower COP levels and of course they are surrounded by water. so long as they do not dry up, explode or run at stupid COP,

    “neutrons can escape from the E-Cat, if it is pushed to certain limits,
    and much of Rossi’s work has been to make sure that production models of
    the E-Cat are never allowed to reach that point. The control systems
    that Rossi and his team have developed are therefore of great importance
    for ensuring the E-Cats operate in a completely safe manner.”

    • http://gkos.com/gkos/meego/combokey.html Seppo

      From Città del Capo Radio Metropolitana Interview With Andrea Rossi, Sept 2012: “The main effect is the thermalization of low-energy Gamma (50-120 keV).” Reported in ECW: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/24/summary-of-citta-del-capo-radio-metropolitana-interview-with-andrea-rossi/

      • GiveADogABone

        http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/24/summary-of-citta-del-capo-radio-metropolitana-interview-with-andrea-rossi/
        Part 2 – The Theory
        2 years ago Rossi and Focardi believed that energy production was due to transmutation of Nickel into Copper. In these years, all the experiments have made it very difficult to believe that the process was so.

        The main effect is the thermalization of low-energy Gamma (50-120 keV). The transmutation of Nickel into Copper is a side effect. In fact they have found traces of Copper in the dust, but this does not justify the energy produced, because they should have found more copper.

        So, that is the end of the Copper. Where does the 50-120keV gamma come from? Can they generate 6.7MeV protons or is that also a side effect or a completely different pathway for Piantelli?

        This seems to explain the function of the lead in the E-cat. Whilst providing the shielding, it also provides the heat source for the water boiling.

    • Frank Acland

      As cited in the link you provided, Rossi has said that during the R&D process that neutrons had been detected when they pushed their experimental reactors to high COPs. Since then he has said they have worked to ensure that commercial E-Cats don’t produce any radiation outside the reactor.

      • Omega Z

        Irving, August 29, 2016 at 6:34 PM

        Dr Andrea Rossi,
        News about the QuarkX?
        ——————————————–
        Andrea Rossi, August 29, 2016 at 10:36 PM

        Irving:
        This will be an important week.

        Warm Regards, A.R.

      • Steve Swatman

        I understood that Frank, I wanted to cover the point before the shills jumped on it. 1 perceived error is usually enough to get them filling a while thread.

    • US_Citizen71

      The process that causes the slow neutrons is likely similar to the Genie reactor proposal their reactor has been claimed by some to be LENR. Even if Rossi’ process work very differently than the Genie it might make a good trigger for a hybrid reactor to burn up waste or uranium ore. Fission that could be essentially turned on and off by a switch, that also fails safe because if the trigger melts the neutron flux lowers and stops could be very useful for energy production.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    The machine-in the sense of microscopic natural accelerator

  • Bob Greenyer

    Piantelli agrees that EC in relation to LENR is impossible

    • Gerard McEk

      So that dismissers the WL-theory in its totality?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Piantelli dismisses it because “it does not consider the wave function”

    • hunfgerh

      I miss the reasons why this is impossible.

  • Observer

    Does “the peak quantity of the specter of the radiations” refer to the highest energy photons or the wavelength of peak intensity?

  • Barbierir

    No aswer by Johnson, Fabiani or Penon yet but Fernando S. Aran is the new attorney on behalf of J.M. Products, Henry Johnson and Quantum Leap

  • Gerard McEk

    The Widom-Larson theory assumes electron capture by protons leading to ultra-slow neutrons, that consequently cause decay and transmutation. AR dismisses the electron capture, but would he also dismiss ultra-slow neutrons as the main cause of decay and transmutations?

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      Apparently ultracold neutrons should generally produces both Rossi reactor and the reactor Brilyuen Energy

  • Zephir

    /* Did you change idea about the chance that electron capture could explain the LENR? Absolutely not. Electron capture in LENR is impossible. It can happen only with atoms overweighted with protons, and this is not our case. */

    There are many other LENR & transmutation systems, not just E-Cat. For example Patterson/Niedra/Notoya have dealt long time with potassium carbonate electrolysis, where the electron capture mechanism is quite possible (potassium itself decays with electron capture mechanism). Electron capture would lead into much smaller energy yield than the actual cold fusion though.

  • Stephen

    I think these are very interesting answers by Andrea Rossi especially the X-Ray spectra peak.

  • hunfgerh

    JPRenoir
    August 28, 2016 at 8:39 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Did you change idea about the chance that electron capture could explain the LENR?
    JPR

    Andrea Rossi
    August 29, 2016 at 7:25 AM
    JP Renoir:
    Absolutely not. Electron capture in LENR is impossible. It can happen only with atoms overweighted with protons, and this is not our case.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Without the influence of high current densities on an atom that answer is correct.
    Under the influence of high current densities – small currents in nano areas (nano-area = superconductor-material) – the answer is wrong.