The question about the real nature of the Rossi E-Cat has heated up once again. This has started with the talk made by Dr. Mike McKubre at the Cafe Scientifique several months ago where he discussed the issue of cold fusion and mentioned the E-Cat technology. It is actually an interesting speech since he talked about the whole history of cold fusion. As an offshoot of Mc Kubre’s lecture, there has been a lot of discussion has regarding the licenses and government control needed if one considers the E-Cat as a nuclear device.
The importation of a nuclear reactor has to go through strict government safety rules and regulations. This is true not only in the United States of America but everywhere else in the world. In the US, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the government body that is tasked to issue a license to the seller and the buyer. The US Department of Energy is also involved in this control. Most governments around that world have their own rules that govern the importation of nuclear reactors.
One thing that has to be noted is that since the introduction of the Rossi E-Cat, it was never considered a nuclear reactor by Italian inventor Andrea Rossi. He calls his invention the energy catalyzer device, which has been shortened to E-Cat. Another name for the device is Low Energy Nuclear Reactor (LENR). He also calls his device a fusor energy device. When asked if his invention is a nuclear reactor, the inventor has not given a straight answer to the question. It was actually his collaborator, Sergio Focaldi who stated that the device is a nuclear reactor.
The only E-Cat patent existing in the world today is Rossi’s patent in Italy. The Andrea Rossi E-Cat patent in Italy, however, also does not state that the device is a nuclear reactor. If this is the case, Rossi does not need the license that pertains to nuclear reactors. The issue is not resolved until now and the rumors continue to circulate around the many E-Cat blogs in the internet. With all these speculation, it all really boils down to the biggest question. And this actually pertains to the real nature of the reaction that happens inside the core of the Andrea Rossi E-Cat. Hopefully, Andrea
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
To me it seems reasonably clear that the device is not a nuclear reactor according to the traditional understanding of what that is, and the differences are all in the favor of the safety of the e-cat, viz:
1) No radioactive waste products of any significance (if at all);
2) No production of excess radiation requiring more than minimal shielding (i.e., such that a minimal shield prevents any exposure under normal operating conditions that is exceeds known safety protocols);
3) Overheating, should it occur, causes a shutdown of the reaction rather than a melt-down.
If all three of these are correct, then the device should be free from controls as a nuclear device. Notice, though, that I say, “should,” not “will.” There is no doubt that effort will be expended to get regulatory agencies to stop the commercialization of the e-cat and related products. Let us hope for everyone’s sake that UL certification, which should be able to verify the three points above, is enough to enable US markets to operate.
what is a nuclear reactor.
if one mean a fission reactor, no
if a hot fusion reactor no
if a disintegration reactor no
is it nuclear, yes, but any atom is nuclear.
Reactors are subject to NRC regulation as “production facilities” and “utilization facilities.” These are facilities capable of producing or using “special nuclear material.” Special nuclear material includes, for example, plutonium and U-235. Other material might be determined to be SNM, but only if it is capable of releasing substantial quantities of atomic energy (“energy released in the course of nuclear fission or nuclear transformation”) and that it is in the interest of the common defense and security to do so. I think it is safe to assume that e-cats would not be regarded as facilities subject to NRC licensing.
In an effort to get a better handle on potential regulatory issues, I would appreciate any insight as to what the function of the Rossi catalyst might be. I have speculated that it might be a matrix that could provide a source of protons. Anyone have any thoughts?
I like this definition:
A nuclear reactor uses a nuclear fission chain reaction to produce energy. The cylindrical core of a reactor consists of fuel rods containing pellets of fissionable material, usually uranium 235 or plutonium 239.
A posthumous salute to G. Preparata who developed Fleischmann’s experiment in his laboratory in Milan. Italy.
Carlos Lanza
C.E.O.
Tecnored X Design & Consulting Corporation