Rossi: Weak Force not Behind LENR

Andrea Rossi doesn’t say too much about how he thinks the E-Cat works, although he reports that he continues to work with Carl-Oscar Gullstrom, and they are planning experiments to test some of the theories they contemplating.

Rossi was asked on the Journal of Nuclear Physics this week if he thought the Weak Force played a role in LENR.

Some researchers have theorized that weak interactions play a role in LENR phenomona. For example Srivastava, Widom and Larsen in this paper write “electromagnetic and weak interactions can induce low energy nuclear reactions to occur with observable rates for a variety of processes.” NASA researcher Joseph Zawodny also suggested here that LENR used weak forces.

However, Rossi disagrees. His reply to the question was: “No, because weak forces would emit much stronger radiations.”

So what does he think is going on? He still has not stated that he has a definitive theory, but that he is continuing work in this area with Gullstrom who at the November 2017 E-Cat gave a presentation on his current thinking on the subject. He theorized that there was a “new special potential of the strong force that is not found (common) in nature.”

He also highlighted one area that he and Rossi have been focusing on. He wrote:

“I and Rossi are making the hypothesis of the possibility that the temperatures of the plasma can reach the mass of a new particle/waves in fields that could annihilate without emitting high energy radiations because of the low energy.”

Rossi commented later on this saying

“Because since we start from particles that have a very low mass, because at 2600 Kelvin we have a mass between 1 electron volt- 1.4 electron volt. So we should have in this field, let us compare it to an ocean, we have crests of small waves and anti-waves that are resonances, they are not actually elementary particles, they are resonances in a field that disappear after, say 10 to the minus 23 seconds, they are not particles, they are resonances.

“But these resonances could through the annihilation between these virtual particles and anti-particles could produce energy that is not enough to generate strong ionizing radiations because they are not big waves, they are just small waves. And this could explain why we have heat in this measure that is not the measure of a full nuclear reaction, but we do not have strong radiations”

  • Gerard McEk

    So if that were true, where does the surplus of energy then come from?
    Something needs to lose energy, mass if the COP>1.

    • nietsnie

      Also, where does the change in nuclear composition come from if not from the shuffling of nuclear constituents? Neutrons, at the least, are clearly moving around – how can that happen if the weak force is not involved? I will be very interested to hear their theory.

      • Axil Axil

        Their theory is wrong so don’t be disappointed. You might be wise not to wait.

        • nietsnie

          You missed my sarcasm sign, Axil. I was going for ‘extremely dubious yet respectful’. It would not be the first time I was completely wrong (there was that other time…).

    • Bob Greenyer

      Debt management

    • Axil Axil

      Let us use some logic together. In biological transmutation, a lot of elements are transmuted without any production of heat. If transmutation of elements were somehow connected to heat production, then the bugs and chickens would vaporize due to the energy that is produced in nuclear reactions(aka E=MC^2).

      Let us assume that element transmutation is a secondary reaction to the main line energy source. So bugs generate almost no energy.

      How can a strong force reaction generate no energy?

      I will do a Bob Greenyer on you now. as Bob usually states, “use your head”. LENR is not nuclear. So where does the energy come from?

      • US_Citizen71

        I think in Rossi’s case it comes from what he original claimed he was doing. Combining Li and H. I think Rossi has likely perfected Li H fission to the point that it is energy producing. We are nearly a century down the road from when that reaction was first done by man. The plumbing parts reactors were low efficiency using lithium in a mostly liquid state. The reaction was likely caused by the slight lithium vapor that would be present if hot lithium liquid was in a partial vacuum being split by hydrogen ionized by the nickel catalyst. The magnetic field generated by the heating coil might have been the key to increasing the random rare collision that would cause fission to occur in the reactors operating environment. The HotCat increased the temperature in the reactor which would increase the random collisions on its own. During this series I think he maximized excitation via the magnetic fields of the coils to the limits he could do without diminishing returns. I think that at that point he began to experiment with sending electrical arcs through the reactor. The QX was born from those tests. The melted HotCat reactor could be explained by a successful increase in LI H fission efficiency showing the need for a higher temperature containment vessel. From what is public information on the QX it has Li and H at a plasma state and electric currents run through that plasma. These conditions are not far flung from Walton and Cockcroft’s experiment, the largest known difference is the reactants are at higher energetic states than they were in W & C’s experiment. To me Ockham’s Razor says Rossi has a working Li H fission reactor. The DOE should have pursued it during the golden age of nuclear power in the 50’s and 60’s. The word fission scares most people that understand what the word means today. It doesn’t matter that the product of the reaction is nothing but hot helium, “fission is deadly” to the layman. So if you are Rossi you have to explain where the energy comes from and fission is a four letter word, any untestable theory is as good as another when you are using it for cover.

        • Axil Axil

          I have a theory about how Rossi got to where he is today with the QX reactor.

          I beleive that Rossi began to use old ash from his reactors that showed signs of LENR activity. This began his ideas about LENR fuel. LENR fuel is prepossessed material that is enriched in the LENR active agent.

          I accept Leif Holmlid;s idea that Ultra dense hydrogen powers all of the fuel based LENR reactions. In this way of thinking the LENR active agent is ultra dense hydrogen(UDH). However in Rossi’s fuel the LENR active agent is ultra dense lithium.

          UDH is tough stuff, it can revive floating in plasma because of it coat of electrons. this is called degeneracy pressure of electron compression


          This UDH is what produces the LENR reaction as I have explained in other previous post.

  • Jouni Tuomela

    “let us compare it to an ocean, we have crests of small waves and anti-waves that are resonances, they are not actually elementary particles, they are resonances in a field that disappear after, say 10 to the minus 23 seconds, they are not particles, they are resonances.”
    Bose-Einstein condensate has something to do with this?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Rossi is catching up theory wise – he should critically listen to axil.

      Rossi has a huge advantage however – he will have seen direct electrical production (and he should know the direction it flows in). He will have seen light without extra heat, he will have seen visual anomalies at both a macro and micro level and he will have seen material disruption & transmutation. He also knows for sure what he has put in and how he triggers it.

  • cashmemorz

    Every avenue has to be looked at. “Even” the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics, of which I am fully convinced has a lot going for it. Could the resonances mentioned by Rossi/Gulstrom et al, be the same ones that the GUT-CP relies on for how the electron and photon interact? Could that have a bearing on what is going on in Rossi’s device?
    The way a photon is captured by the outer electron in an atom, as envisioned in the GUT-CP, is by way of resonances between the photon and the electron. The action of the photon and electron, vibrating in unison draws the photon into the inner side of the orbitsphere of the electron. The photon resides inside the electeron’s ortbitsphere at a distance of the planck distance or the minimal physically limited distance. Here the limit of the planck term is implied as real physical term. By being a totally physical value, is why under GUT-CP all measurements, including location and momentum have been measured simultaneously in several experiments when done according to the rules of GUT-CP.

    “..the measurement-disturbance relationship of the HUP(Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), has been tested for the first time and experimentally
    disproved [L. A. Rozema, A. Darabi, D. H. Mahler, A. Hayat, Y. Soudagar, A. M. Steinberg, “Violation of Heisenberg’s
    Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 109 (2012), 100404.].”: page 1699 Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics,

  • Gnabi Yiebigo

    Hello everyone, thanks for your inspiring posts and comments.
    This one it’s a little off topic here, sorry for that.
    I wonder if LENR may support the theories about a static/shrinking universe proposed by Christof Wetterich and other theoretical physicists.

    • cashmemorz

      At this point in the theorizing towards how LENR is actually driven, its anybodies game at this time including your proposal. If you, or any one knowledgable about that theory can show conclusively that LENR has that particular connection, eveyone will be thanking you. Get acquainted with what is known about LENR so far in the experiments being done by various parties and also your theory. If you find any viable connection let us, on ecat world, know what you find, then we can discuss it in more detail.

    • Roland

      The static/shrinking universe hypothesis has been settled by observation; the universe is not only still expanding, the galaxies are still under acceleration away from the origin point by mechanisms unknown.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, keep in mind the reason for the big bang theory has little to do with an expanding one.

      And if the person is claiming a static universe, then they are claiming one that always existed. I mean, there is zero need for some creating story in regards to the universe if it already existed!

      I mean, if something was always there, then you don’t need a starting point, and from a logic point of view that would not even make sense to “look” for some start point when we agree it was always here!

      Plato, Aristotle etc. all had the idea of a static universe. (Something that always existed). So the general science community has this idea for “most” of the history of modern science. These dudes were not running around looking for some silly creating story, because you don’t need one!!

      The idea of a created universe (better said caused one) is primarily a European Christian view.

      And if the universe is not caused, then it always existed. And if it always existed, then it HAS to be the way it is.

      What this means is that Plato, Aristotle etc. then assumed by reason, logic, math etc. that you can determine everything. (Because there is no choice – everything must exist “as is”). If everything MUST exist, then you don’t need to go out and make observations and use the science method to figure things out.

      I mean, I do not have to ever have seen a triangle, but as defined with 3 sides then such a triangle can only exist in a form with 3 sides. Such a think cannot exist any other way as defined.

      Same goes for the universe – if it has to be, then no decision process or observation process is required. (You can by reason and logic figure out everything).

      However, we see that the universe is “caused”. No such thing as a random event, and more so with the discovery of fusion, we learned that stars are not some lights hanging in the sky, but really like a tank of fuel for your car – they are being used up, and if that fuel is being used up, then they can’t have always existed could they? The stars are running out of gas – using up their fuel tanks!

      Thus around 1900-1920 with discovery of fusion, then it became clear that the universe was not always there, but had to have a cause. And a cause means intention.

      This also means that the science community had to adopt the Christion view of a caused universe (now of course they disagree on that cause, but the science community certainly did not like having to adopt this idea that the universe did not always exist). They REALLY did not want to accept and adopt this view – since it played right into the hands of the Christians. A lot of crow to eat in this regards!

      The big bang really did not solve this issue, since what was before the big bang? Was something there or not? And then the issue becomes what was that state?

      The largest issue is of course entropy.

      If I see a rock roll down a hill, the rock is now at a lower state of energy. If I burn H + o2 then again, the result is a chemical result at a LOWER state of energy. If I un-compress a spring, then again the spring is at a lower state of energy.

      And those stars! – Same thing, the star is ALWAYS moving to a lower state of energy.

      So a rock can’t roll up a hill on its own (to a higher energy state).

      That water can’t revert back to H and o2 all on its own.

      And, same goes for the fusion in the star – it converting that matter into energy. No process exists to reverse this in nature (or by simply logic unless one going to suggest rocks can roll up a hill to a higher state of energy on their own!!! – that’s called magic, or voodoo – not science anymore).

      The WHOPPER of the issue then is EVERY observation is EVERYTHING moving to that lower state of energy. We NEVER see the reverse.

      Thus, the universe could not have always existed. Introduction of the big bang does ZERO to address this issue. There is no experiment, no observation, no nothing that shows things all by themselves can move to a higher state of energy (that would be what we call a miracle).

      Furthermore, there is no such thing as a random event, so to toss more mud on this issue, there is no explain of the cause of the big bang.

      Unless a reasoned logical explain of how rocks can go up hill to a higher state, then this big bang theory is a real mess. You have to start at a HIGHER state of energy – and how long and why did that higher state of energy “out of the blue” decide to THEN start moving to a lower state of energy.

      So what was the state of that energy? Why did it decide to start moving to a lower state of energy? And if we talking about all the matter and energy of the universe? Well, has to be something rather large – but then now we back to a static universe, are we not?

      I often laugh at those articles that claim things are going in, and out of existence right before us! Really, so you mean an o2 molecule ceases to exist? It is not o2 anymore?

      You mean at a given point in time, nothing exists and that o2 is gone?

      So that means if we wait, then the o2 molecular pops into existence out of nothing then? Either something is there, or not! And if the o2 does not exist, then how would it know to pop back into existence as o2, and not appear by magic as say some copper molecule?

      It is this kind of crazy that permeates the science community, and until such crazy logic is dumped, then science will simply go no place in regards to making sound observations

      Unfortunately, because the universe is clearly “optional” and does not have to be, then the only means to determine something that is “optional” and does not have to “be” or exist is by observation. The universe is a caused one, and nothing can occur without a cause.

      As for this theory of an already existing universe? Well, that’s just recycling of older ideas that have already been tossed out as not making sense from the entropy point of view.
      And I don’t think LENR is effected here. However, I do think how the sun works, and how LENR works are connected, and I think if we discover how LENR works, then this will result in a working model of how the sun works.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Axil Axil

    Here is a orthodox science experiment that shows LENR effects. This experiment shows where LENR energy comes from.


    Experimental observation of anomalous thermal radiation from a three-dimensional metallic photonic crystal


    We report some striking results on thermal radiation properties of a resonantly coupled cavity photonic crystal (PhC) at elevated temperatures (T = 400–900 K). We experimentally found that at resonant wavelengths, λ = 1.1, 1.64, 2.85 μm, the PhC emission is spectrally selective, quasi-coherent, directional, and shows significant deviation from Planck’s blackbody law at equilibrium. The presence of non-equilibrium effects, driven by strong thermal excitation and cavity resonance, may be the major cause for our experimental observation.

    Sooner or later, science would stumble over some sort of LENR reaction.

    thermal radiation coming off this photonic crystal (PhC) is up to 50 times stronger than blackbody radiation at certain frequencies. That radiation is coherent, directional, and focused.

    This finding has the researchers puzzled.

    I speculated that the coupled cavities in this crystal form a polariton Bose condensate that emits hawking radiation at specific thermal frequencies. There also may be some overunity here: more energy out than in…

    I gave you a huge clue: hawking radiation.

    If the energy is coming from hawking radiation, can you put the LENR pieces together yet? Start googling.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I think this is part of the what’s happening.

    Li-7 + p > Be-8 > 2 He-4 17.3 MeV at 53 min

  • Samec

    Some fun will emerge, after more scientists participating in LENR experiments and theory building discovers that not only energy is produced, also mass (in sum) is produced during LENR reactions. I.E. it is reason why calculations until now are not in compliance with anything.

    • nietsnie

      There’s an incredible amount of energy invested in a measurable increase in mass. Why do you think LENR creates mass? Where does the energy come from to do it?

      • nietsnie

        Actually, on second thought, if we presume a kg of mass to convert to in the neighborhood of 9 billion joules of energy, and that we can measure something on the order of a gram of mass to the 10,000th of a gram, that amount of mass should convert to 900 joules of energy. 900 joules is about the same as .25 watt hours – which is well within range of the energy invested in the experiments that have been done. My bad (there was that other time too).

        • MyselfAndMe

          Your numbers are off by many orders of magnitude (7)

          • nietsnie

            Oh God! You’re right. Thanks for checking my arithmetic. How embarrassing. And when one’s numbers are off by seven zeros – there’s really no excuse clever enough… Drat. It’s not ~9 billion joules to the kilo – it’s ~9X10^16 joules.

            So, remove 3 zeros to convert from a kilo to a gram; remove 4 more zeros to convert from 1 gram to 1 ten thousandth of a gram – that leaves 9X10^9, or 9 billion joules in every ten thousandth of a gram of mass.

            Multiplied by ~0.000277778 watt hours to the joule, I believe that makes it just short of 2,500,000 watt hours that is invested in a 10,000th of a gram of mass – which is *well* in excess of the total energy that has been supplied to any LENR experiment that I know of (although I did it in my head again – so no promises…).

    • Bob Greenyer

      Very good Samec – Why??

  • Anon2012_2014

    ‘However, Rossi disagrees. His reply to the question was: “No, because weak forces would emit much stronger radiations.” So what does he think is going on?’

    At this stage those like myself following LENR are less interested in unconfirmed hypotheses on the underlying physics of what we call “LENR” and more interested in public confirmation of excess energy productions with values well above any possible experimental error. Rossi is an engineer, not a physicist; and Gullstrom is only one of many. We need sufficient evidence to motivate the top theoretical minds (who are 90% in academia) to work on revising the physics models. Taking a guess as to what the model is now is premature and doesn’t help the field. I am waiting for Rossi to ship something that works to true public customers (as he apparently refuses to demo thoroughly and publicly, or release a paper or patent with sufficient details for an academic to validate his results).

    • cashmemorz

      Despite 2 fully working items based on different physics, (Free Electron Laser, The “Millsian”®, molecular modeling app, based on the predictions of the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics) the establishment in physics will have no part in that new physics, if it means redoing their theory, ie Standard Model, quantum wave mechanics, quantum field mechanics, etc. They have too much vest in careers, funding of QWM based projects such as hot fusion, quantum gravity, entanglemant projects that are paying them billions. That, among other things, like attitude, is enough to turn a blind eye to other kinds of physics. There are 4 more items in development using GUT-CP. But they are either too fantastic or go against the physics in QWM, good enough reasons to let the status quo continue.

      So why would LENR, even if it also is shown to work, be looked at by those “top theoretical minds”. Particularly if the physics were to be different from that currently accepted? The biggest excuse is that a new theory will always be “falsified ” by expeeriment until it cannot be “falsified”. That can take an awfully long time before a new theory is accepted.

      • Anon2012_2014

        ?? So why would LENR, even if it also is shown to work, be looked at by those “top theoretical minds”

        Because they will be forced to confront the reality of large excess heat coming from LENR plants and appliances. A new optimal model integrating all known experimental evidence that is then tested by new experimental designs will become the “conventional” understanding of the new physics. That is displace older models is a foregone conclusion. Much as quantum mechanics and relativity displaced classical mechanics and E&M. The spur is the incontrovertible proof of significant sensible LENR excess energy. The world view will change when that happens.

      • Axil Axil

        Bose condensates can be used to emulate physical systems that are hard to study experimentally, like supersolids, superconductors, or black holes. Now, Gretchen Campbell at the University of Maryland, College Park, and co-workers have shown that the rapid expansion of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) exhibits several features reminiscent of those that characterize an expanding universe. They suggest that their BEC system could be used as a laboratory test bed for cosmological theories.

        If science understands LENR, they might gain depth insight about how the universe works. LENR might be the motive force that keeps the universe on the move.

        • Jouni Tuomela


      • georgehants

        cash, so agree but after 70 years of almost no progress in science the Quantum guys are at last breaking new ground almost daily, things are moving.
        As you say science is still closed-minded in many areas but that comes down to our capitalist system leading to a self-serving society and no caring and sharing, Rossi being the perfect example.
        Regarding your other point about different physics to the Quantum etc. I think that at the speed progress is now being made, the two (if confirmed) will cross paths and become combined very quickly.
        As long as any Research is leading to new discoveries and a deeper understanding of our reality then we should be pleased and hope for more open-minded investigation of all scientifically banned subjects.
        Bob may help that process with his “O” day, we will see.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Rossi should share. That worked well for F&P.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Dr. Fleischmann had the courage of his convictions all throughout his remaining life after the F&P announcement. He did this best that he could with the experimental evidence that was provided to him by his own experiments in passing the knowledge on to society. When he finally closed his eyes, he could look back and feel that he did the best that he could for both science and society. While not receiving widespread recognition during his life, he lived a very good life. Life worked well for him. If LENR is eventually proven publicly with sufficient sensible excess heat to be economically useful, he will be remembered with the other scientific greats of time.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I hope so. In the meantime, Rossi should continue to fly
            under the radar.


          • georgehants

            Alan, of course you are quite correct, that proves my point that our system stinks and needs changing so that those who help society are automatically rewarded by society.

          • Alan DeAngelis
          • georgehants

            Alan, absolutely nothing wrong that improves a system for all.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

        • Bob Greenyer

          George, there will need to be re-evaluation of a lot.

  • Axil Axil

    The acceptance of LENR by science was fatally affected by the fusion meme. This fantasy must be destroyed before LENR is accepted by science as a real possibility.

    The old guard who came up with the fusion meme concentrated on a very narrow range of experimental data. That data gave the fusion meme some support. A true theory of LENR must support all LENR experiments not just a narrow few. This narrow understating of LENR is a system engineering error.

    This narrow perceptive on LENR theory is currently underpinned by this Rossi based theory effort. Rossi knows everything about his system but knows little of the other types of LENR experiments or does he much care about them.

    A system like The Hutchison Effect will have given Rossi agata.

    To change the spin on LENR theory, we must first put in place a valid replacement theory that is totally supported by experimental evidence.

    MFMP embraces a wide perspective on all types of LENR phenomena. As soon as Bob regains his health, and he provides us with his analysis of the many and varied experiments that MFMP has seen over these many years, we will have put in place a solid experimentally based platform to construct a valid LENR theory upon.

  • Axil Axil

    The 1 eV ​heat spectrum that Rossi claims is occurring has nothing to do with the Boltzmann constant or black body radiation. ​It is a quantum mechanical based aspect centered on the true cause of LENR: The Hawking effect.

    As Rossi changes the input power, this temperature does not change. This means that the temperature inside the QX is not a black body based temperature but instead produced by quantum effects.

  • sam

    April 21, 2018 at 6:02 PM
    When do you think we will be able to see in operation the Ecat SK?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 21, 2018 at 11:09 PM
    I hope within the year 2019.
    Warm Regards,

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Regarding believed to be constants, and the expanding universe, please be careful when watching this lecture.

    Not to blow your heads. Luckily this is in finnish so you just have to watch the pictures, so I think you are still safe:
    Please Axil, take a look.

    • Jouni Tuomela

      “What means that around the black hole there is created slow orbits, wich in prinsible and in relity also keep the mass of the black hole up.”
      At 25:00

  • Jimr

    I have a question. The 1kw with 13 modules is considered a QX, Is the 1kw with a single module consider a SK along with the 10 and 100kw ?

  • Axil Axil

    Don’t let the word scare you. The type of black hole that we are talking about is an electromagnetic black hole not a gravitational black hole. There are all kinds of black holes. They all use the same math equations and therefore behave in the same behavior. There are sound based black holes and there are water based black holes among other types. These are all called analog black holes.


    Image of water black hole

    In an electromagnetic black hole, photons go in but they don’t come out…except for Hawking radiation.

    For a lot more info see

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This may help us understand the two neutron pick-up reactions that Parkhomov thinks are taking place in his reactor.

  • sam

    Ruby Carat Cold fusion now podcast interviews Mats Lewan.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Thanks Ruby and Mats. This is a good one to share with newcomers

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Perhaps this image will bring the nebulous thoughts I had late week (below) into sharper focus.

  • sam

    Raffaele Bongo
    April 27, 2018 at 2:46 PM
    Hello A. Rossi

    Are you still doing R & D in direct electricity production or are you concentrating all your team’s efforts on developing heat production?
    It would be great if in the future the reactor could do without the external source of electricity. Can an autonomous E-Cat be considered in the future?
    All my support for your team
    Best regards


    Andrea Rossi
    April 27, 2018 at 4:46 PM
    Raffaele Bongo:
    Thank you for your suggestion, you are right, but I must confess you that now we are strongly focused on the industrialization of the Exat to make heat, also considering that with the heat can be made electricity.
    Warm Regards,

    Gerard McEk
    April 27, 2018 at 2:33 AM
    Dear Adrea,
    Just a few questions, if you allow me:
    1. If you present the Ecat QX, will you just present the ‘box’, or will you present the ‘box’ in operation?
    2. Have you already started to equip a factory for the Ecat QX?
    3. Do you still see a future for the low temperature Ecat?
    4. The way in how the QX and the cold- and hot cat are being stimulated are different, but still you remain that they both types work on the same principles. Do you believe that also somewhere inside the Cold- and Hot cat plasma’s play a role?
    I wish you and your team succes in getting the Ecat QX on the market this year!
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    April 27, 2018 at 8:30 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    1- the Ecat in operation
    2- yes
    3- no, because the high T makes also the low T, just increasing the fluid flow
    4- confidential
    Thank you for your kind wish,
    Warm Regards,

    Jim Rosenburg
    April 27, 2018 at 4:52 AM
    Is the single module of 10/100 kW dubbed SK?
    Jim Rosenburg

    Andrea Rossi
    April 27, 2018 at 8:23 AM
    Jim Rosenburg:
    SK, in memory of Prof Sven Kullander, high energy Physicist, Professor Emeritus of the University of Uppsala, Chairman of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences.
    Warm Regards,

    Frank Acland
    April 26, 2018 at 7:53 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Can you say what the main activities of your team are in these days? What are the current priorities?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    April 27, 2018 at 12:33 AM
    Frank Acland:
    We are focused on all the issues connected to the presentation of the industrialized Ecat QX. Also, we are working on the development of the SK.
    Warm Regards,

    Steven N. Karels
    April 26, 2018 at 2:22 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted “It is impossible to expose the eyes to the plasma, because it is inside the reactor: see the Stockholm video of the Ecat QX demo.”
    You also posted “It is necessary an eye protection index 14. Looking at it even for seconds can cause severe damages to the eyes.”

    These two posting seem contradictory. If the plasma is contained within the reactor and the reactor walls are opaque, then no eye protection should be needed.

    Did you mean to say that: if the plasma within the eCat reactor were, somehow, actually viewed, eye protection would be required. Since it only exists within the reactor, no eye protection is needed? Please clarify.

    Andrea Rossi
    April 26, 2018 at 4:09 PM
    Steven N. Karels:
    Exactly, I was talking of a hypothesis in case of a looking at the plasma, a case that cannot happen to a Customer,being the plasma inside the reactor.
    When we look at it in our laboratory must wear a 14 grade eye protection.
    Warm Regards

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.