The reader asked a logical progression of questions that began from an attempt to understand theory and what impact theory may have on LENR energy and, eventually, LENR technology. Here, I will answer his questions as he asked them.

1. Do you think the Widom-Larsen theory is plausible?

Yes, certainly. Once you have neutrons in the system, it’s simple. The key is explaining how neutrons could be created in the LENR system. For two decades, lots of people in the field knew that, if you had neutrons, the rest of the process would be a no-brainer. These people included Peter Hagelstein (MIT), Tadahiko Mizuno (Hydrogen Engineering Application and Development Corp., Yasuhiro Iwamura (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries), Stanislaw Szpak (SPAWAR Pacific), Larry A. Hull (see news clip), and Fangil Gareev (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research). Some of them speculated that virtual neutrons were involved.

But Widom and Larsen figured out how, through collective effects, real neutrons are created. They knew the neutrons were real because experimentalists observed real isotopic changes. They also knew the neutrons had to have ultra-low momentum because researchers had never observed high fluxes of neutrons emitted from the experiments. Throughout the history of the field, researchers have observed and reported small bursts of neutrons. In hindsight, with the understanding of the Widom-Larsen theory, we can easily explain these neutrons as spallation neutrons that are knocked off of neutron-rich nuclei.

I first learned about the Widom-Larsen theory from professor David Nagel in 2005. Nagel was very excited about it and told me that he thought it could explain what, until then, I had called “cold fusion.” He sent me a set of slides he made to help people understand the theory. I had been so unimpressed with “cold fusion” theories at the time that I told Nagel I wasn’t willing to spend my time learning about it. But he was very persistent. Finally, he offered to tutor me on it. He spent an hour with me on the phone.

Of course, one hour was not enough to understand so many new concepts, but it got me started. But what I did understand is that, once you had the neutrons, it changed everything. No more “miracles” or “new physics” to overcome the Coulomb barrier. This, as well as Widom and Larsen’s paper in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal, was enough to get my attention.

Once I began to see the third-party support, I got excited. This was the first time since the beginning of my investigations in 2000 that I had seen even moderately supportive comments from third parties about any LENR theory.

However, I did not anticipate that the theory would create a firestorm or that Nagel would later retract his enthusiasm for it. I don’t know what his reasoning was, but it became clear to me that, although a viable theory of LENRs was a great thing for the field, for science, and for the general public, it was not necessarily a good thing for Nagel’s friends and colleagues who had been trying to convince the world about the reality of “cold fusion” for two decades.

In retrospect, I can see that the Widom-Larsen theory represented their worst nightmare. If LENR, with the help of the Widom-Larsen theory, is accepted and goes mainstream, the big labs will take over.  The existing group of LENR researchers, most of whom are retired, probably won’t play a significant role in the next phase, but of course they will be remembered for their crucial role in bringing the field this far.

2. Do you know how the massive surface plasmon electrons are created?
3. Is the mass of the electron increased?
4. How much energy is required to create these plasmons?

I think you probably have read my articles “Widom-Larsen Theory Simplified” and “Where Does the Energy Come From in LENR?“

But, as you may have noticed, we do not get deeply into the matter of surface plasmon electrons there.

The general answer is that the massive surface plasmon electrons are created as a result of the correct physical conditions, collective effects, triggers and other key factors that exist in working LENR experiments. For a more complete and technical answer, I refer you to the paper I wrote with Joe Zawodny for the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.

5. Does the surface plasmon process liberate more energy than consumed?
6. Doesn’t the creation of a neutron by inverse beta decay require energy?

I have created a spreadsheet for you that provides a visual answer. I’ve appended it to the bottom of “Where Does the Energy Come From in LENR?“

7. How can gamma radiation be converted into infrared heat?

I don’t have the answer to that in my head, but I believe Larsen explains it in his U.S. patent 7,893,414, issued Feb. 22, 2011.

8. Do you know the current status of this technology?

I think it is ready to become a technology, but there is still a lot of science to learn. I don’t know too many people who really understand the mechanism. I also do not believe that anybody has mastered the required material control and nanotechnology fabrication skills. But I am very optimistic that it will happen and that we will see a LENR revolution in our lifetime.

On Jan. 12, 2012, we published “Where Does the Energy Come From in LENR?” which gives a general introduction to our understanding of the reaction mechanisms.

We have recently added the following table of one set of possible reaction pathways to that article. It provides a more detailed accounting of the steps and energy gains or losses in each step.

[Update, Feb. 24, 2012: This set of reaction pathways was based on the SRI International replication of the Case deuterium gas experiment. The energy cost of 0.78 MeV is for creating the heavy electron which then reacts, depending on the experiment, with either hydrogen or deuterium to make one or two neutrons and a neutrino. If it reacts with a proton, the effective cost is 0.78 MeV per neutron. If it reacts with a deuteron, you get two neutrons for the price of one; 0.39 MeV per neutron.]

Several weeks ago, Rossi wrote that National Instruments was working with him on his 1MW E-Cat.  

Earlier today, we reported that two days after the Oct. 28, 2011, inaugural demonstration of his 1MW E-Cat plant, Rossi told his fans that he had delivered his first commercial product to his first customer.

Yesterday, we reported that Rossi never delivered his “1 megawatt E-Cat” to his unidentified customer and that it remains in his garage.

We also reported that, on Jan. 12, 2012, Rossi showed a promotional video revealing that the big blue box hadn’t moved.

We reported earlier today that Rossi explained the discrepancy to his fans as a “translation” misunderstanding.

Rossi has given two reasons why the big blue box remains in his garage. The first is faulty gaskets. The second is that he made a joint decision with National Instruments to make all the control systems for the big blue box with the 50 nuclear reactors in his garage rather than at the customer’s site.

Apparently, his customer had purchased the 1 MW E-Cat nuclear plant before it had all the control systems.

“We decided together with the customer and National Instruments to make all the control systems and all the fixings of the gaskets in our factory in Bologna, instead of the customer’s place,” Rossi wrote. “The delivery will be made within one or maximum two months, when all of the works will have been completed.”

Today, an author who is working on a book about Rossi contacted Julia Betts, the corporate communications and investor relations manager for National Instruments, to inquire about its relationship with Rossi.

According to e-mails the author received from Betts, National Instruments is not working with Rossi.

“Leonardo Corporation/Andrea Rossi is currently not a customer, partner or distributor of National Instruments,” Betts wrote.

The author sent Betts another e-mail asking about a variety of possible relationships her company might have with Rossi or his company.

“Per our previous [news release] from November,” Betts wrote, “we were only in discussions with the Leonardo Corporation regarding the use of National Instruments’ engineering tools. Currently, Leonardo Corporation/Andrea Rossi is not a customer of National Instruments.”

The author retraced his steps to learn how he had become confused. On Nov. 14, 2011, he had seen the news release from National Instruments that mentioned Rossi.

“National Instruments has contributed product solutions to some of the most advanced projects including the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and tokomak fusion device control systems,” the release stated. “Additionally, the Leonardo Corporation has intentions to incorporate National Instruments tools in its control system.”

The author had also seen a news report about National Instruments on one of the 80, mostly anonymous, E-Cat promotional Web sites. The Web site said that Sterling Allan, an E-Cat blogger who is also a business associate of Rossi’s, stated that National Instruments was working with Rossi.

“Stefano Concezzi, the director of National Instruments’ Science and Big Physics Segment, also revealed to Allan of PESN … that National Instruments is indeed working together with Leonardo Corporation in the development of the much awaited E-Cat,” the Web site reported.

Allen recently told New Energy Times that he is a sales agent for Rossi. Allen also told New Energy Times that Rossi had offered to pay for Allen’s work on Rossi’s Web site.

On June 14, 2011, Steven B. Krivit, editor of New Energy Times, met Rossi, saw his device, and began asking scientific questions.

On June 16, 2011, New Energy Times published “Preliminary Report of Interviews with E-Cat Trio Rossi, Focardi and Levi.“

On July 30, 2011, New Energy Times published “Report #3: Scientific Analysis of Rossi, Focardi and Levi Claims.” The 200-page report included scientific and engineering analyses from 20 independent experts.

On Aug. 7, 2011, New Energy Times condensed “Report #3″ into two pages: “Rossi’s Scientific Failure in Seven Steps.”

On Aug. 28, 2011, New Energy Times distilled “Seven Steps” into the following two paragraphs:

In a seven-month period, the Rossi group sought credibility for its claim of extraordinary levels of excess heat through scientific and academic validation. In seven public attempts, the group tried to demonstrate convincing experimental evidence for its claims.

In all attempts, the group failed. It has no experimental evidence on which to base its extraordinary energy claim. It never did.

Rossi responded on his blog that the marketplace will be his judge.

“In any case, we will start our 1 MW plant in October, and we will see how it works,” Rossi wrote. “Of course, I assure [readers that Krivit's] considerations are invalid, but I want to say more: Our products on the market will confirm this.”

According to Rossi, his product was “on the market” in October, 2011. But on Feb. 14, 2012, Rossi clarified that “on the market” does not mean “available for delivery;” not even for a million dollars. Today, Rossi said on his blog that deliveries will surely start within 12 to 18 months.

“In Autumn, we will surely send the detailed offers to all the ‘horde’ of pre-orderers,” Rossi wrote. “The deliveries will start hopefully within the next winter, surely within 18 months.”

A week ago, Rob Duncan, vice chancellor for research and a professor of physics at the University of Missouri, announced to a general audience at the university’s Saturday Science series that he intended to purchase two of Rossi E-Cats, according to the Columbia Tribune.

Today, the author contacted Duncan by e-mail and asked him about his purchase plans.

“I took a closer look at this,” Duncan wrote, “and we have decided not to pursue an E-Cat purchase at this time, but we will be very interested to track how this progresses.”

**************************************************
Background Facts on LENRs
Steven B. Krivit’s LENR Publications and Presentations
**************************************************

[Feb. 21, 2012 Correction: We wrote "Allen recently told New Energy Times that he is a sales agent for Rossi. Allen also told New Energy Times that Rossi had offered to pay for news stories on Allen’s Pure Energy News Service." We have corrected the sentence to read "Allen recently told New Energy Times that he is a sales agent for Rossi. Allen also told New Energy Times that Rossi had offered to pay for Allen's work on Rossi's Web site ." We apologize for the error.]

But today we learned from readers that Rossi had, in fact, told his fans that he had shipped the 1 MW E-Cat. According Rossi, the discrepancy is the result of a “translation error.”

Artist's visualization of 1MW plant on its way to "the customer." Image courtesy JB Salvage.

Readers should not get confused between Rossi’s 1MW E-Cat and his electric generators. Both are constructed within shipping containers, but the 1MW E-Cat comes in a big blue box, the gensets come in big grey boxes.

Rossi vegetable-oil-based EON genset

On Oct. 30, 2011, a commenter using the name “Luke Mortensen,” asked Rossi several key questions.

Mortensen’s questions:
1. Is the 1MW container gone?
2. Have you started building another 1MW in another container?
3. Any improvements you want in version 2?
4. Will the buyer of the next 1MW container be the same customer or a different customer?
5. What city will you be working (hiring) in the US?

Rossi’s answers:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes. gaskets
4- different
5- Miami (Fl), Boston (Ma), Manchester (N.H.)

A week after Rossi’s video showed that the big blue box was still in the back of the Rossi brother’s tire shop, E-Cat fans were concerned.

Rossi explained that the plant was in the shop for two reasons. One, so they could fix the gasket problems that had been identified two and a half months earlier, (see yesterday’s article,) and two, to make the control systems for the big blue box that contained the 50 smaller boxes that each contained a nuclear reactor.

Rossi explained that a translation problem made him think that the big blue box had already been delivered to the customer.

“A misunderstanding, due to bad translation, has made [me] think the plant was already in the place of the Customer,” Rossi wrote.

The translation of “Is the 1MW container gone?” into Italian is “Il 1MW contenitore è andato?” The translation of “Si” into English is “Yes.”

A Jan. 12, 2012, promotional video on Rossi’s Web site, Ecat.com, shows the same 1MW E-Cat sitting in the same place where it was “tested” by “the customer” three and half months ago.

Screenshot from Jan. 12, 2012 Rossi E-Cat Promotional Video

The dramatic image above is from a second camera team which is filming the first camera team which is interviewing Rossi. The 1MW plant appears to be idle while two E-Cats in the foreground are producing a gentle flow of steam.

According to comments Rossi made on his blog on June 18, 2011, he had 300 working reactors in his Miami factory. He did not report any gasket problem at the time.

“We have 300 reactors in operation now in our factory,” Rossi wrote, “and we are making exponential progress day by day.

“My 300 reactors actually under stress tests are making steam without water, I mean perfectly dry steam, and they will go in operation not in my factory, but in the factory of our Customer.”

For readers who missed our “Report 3” seven months ago, perfectly dry steam is invisible.

Journalist Mats Lewan reported on Oct. 29, 2011 about the much-anticipated Oct. 28, 2011 test.

“According to the report,” Lewan wrote, “the test was approved and the plant would now be transported to the customer.”

However, the report does not say it would be transported anywhere, and it wasn’t.

“The results of the test are satisfactory to accept the delivery,” the report states.

Below the conclusion, there is a handwritten note by the person Rossi identified as the customer’s representative, Domenico Fioravanti.

“To be upgraded the system of gaskets some leaks have been noticed,” Fioravanti wrote.

Most of the report was drafted and typed in advance of the test — including the conclusion.

Conclusion of Oct. 28, 2011 1MW inauguration and test by Rossi customer

The poorly redacted lines for the affiliations were decoded by clever readers months ago.

In the place where Rossi’s company is named, it says “For Leonardo Corporation.”

In the place where the customer is named, it says, “For the Customer.”

According to Swedish journalist Mats Lewan, Rossi and his wife, Maddalena Pascucci, each own 50 percent of the company.

According to a Jan. 26, 2012, document filed with the European Patent Office, Leonardo Corporation paid €10,000 to Pascucci for the rights.

Excerpt from document filed with European Patent Office

According to the document, Leonardo Corporation’s registered office is 1331 Lincoln Road, Suite 601, Miami Beach Fla., and Pascucci resides at Via Ezio 24, 00192 Rome, Italy.

Leonardo Corp. (Apt. 505) "Current Principal Place of Business" (Photo: Google)

According to real estate records, 1331 Lincoln Road, Suite 601, Miami Beach Fla. is an apartment owned by Pascucci. Corporate registration of the couple’s company shows it located one flight below, in apartment 505.

New Energy Times has been unable to identify in which apartment the couple have their factory with the 300 E-Cat nuclear reactors.

Rossi is an Italian man who was apparently granted a permanent U.S. visa. He lives in Florida with his wife Maddalena Pascucci. Until we obtained this invoice yesterday, we had no evidence that Rossi was conducting this business, which some people think is fraudulent, in the United States.

Today, Rossi posted a message on his blog and stated that the invoice is “unvalid.” He therefore removed any doubts about the authenticity of the invoice.

He also announced some exciting news for E-Cat fans.

“Practically all the world’s territories have been already licensed,” Rossi wrote. “Soon we will organize a convention of all our licensees.”

Dick Smith, the Australian businessman who offered Rossi a million dollars for a successful E-Cat test, sent New Energy Times a copy of the cancellation of the invoice today that he received from Millin.

Report #4: Rossi’s NASA Test Fails to Launch
University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi
The Failure of Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer, Caught on Video
Rossi’s Scientific Failure in Seven Steps (English)
Report #3: New Energy Times #37, July 30, 2011 

********************************************************************************

This article is a follow-up to these articles:
Feb. 13: “Rossi’s Australian Investment Opportunity Falls Through“
Feb. 14: “Smith Offers $1 Million Prize for Successful E-Cat Demo“

As we showed in the Feb. 14 article, Rossi responded to Smith’s offer.

“When Our E-CATS will be in the market,” Rossi wrote, “this millionaire will have the chance to buy for few hundred dollars an E-Cat and test it as he wants, so why waste money? I do not need his money.”

Yet two weeks ago, Rossi sent an invoice to hopeful investors in Australia for $131,000 for a “license” to a product that Rossi did not yet have on the market.

It seems that Smith called Rossi’s bluff. According to Rossi’s e-mail yesterday, his E-Cats, assuming they are real, are still not available for delivery. Rossi’s promises have been ongoing for a year.

On Oct. 7, 2011, Ny Teknik quoted Rossi: “Within a few months the product will be on the market, and the best test is done by the customers who will come back with the product if it doesn’t work.”

On Jan. 16, 2011, Rossi wrote on his blog: “We have already passed the phase to convince somebody. We have arrived at a product that is ready for market. Our judge is the market. In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypotheses, conjectures etc. is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that works and go and sell it, as we are doing.”

On Jan. 16, 2011, Rossi wrote to New Energy Times: “What I have presented is not a theory or a laboratory prototype waiting for the approval of anybody but the market: we are starting an industrial production of our reactors. If somebody has a technology able to compete, the competition will not be on the blogs, but on the market. In this field the time of mental masturbations is over. Now is time for facts, and facts are operating reactors of satisfied customers.”

Oddly, there is no evidence of the “customer” Rossi sold his device to in October and there is no evidence of any satisfied customer at all. There is only chattering from Rossi on his own blog and rumors and speculations on the various E-Cat blogs.

We suggest that readers who are not familiar with the Rossi story look at the following New Energy Times articles for context:

Report #4: Rossi’s NASA Test Fails to Launch
University of Bologna Terminates Relationship With Rossi
The Failure of Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer, Caught on Video
Rossi’s Scientific Failure in Seven Steps (English)
Report #3: New Energy Times #37, July 30, 2011 

Link to PDF Copy of Offer:

USD1,000,000 for Successful Repeat of E-CAT Demonstration

*****************************************************

Rossi Responds:
————————————————
“Andrea Rossi
February 14th, 2012 at 6:23 PM
Dear Archibald Fields:
This is a Clownerie. If this guy wants to test a 1 MW plant and has 1 million to spend he can buy a 1 MW plant, with a regular contract, that gives him all the necessary guarantees and to us the logic financial guarantees. Our plants Are tested by Our Customers and the Consultants they choose. I have not time at all for this clownery. Besides: when Our E-CATS will be in the market, this “millionaire” will have the chance to buy for few hundred dollars an E-Cat and test it as he wants, so why waste money? I do not need his money.
Warm Regards,
A.R.”
————————————————