*by Marco Lelli*

As it is well known a recent series of experiments, conducted in collaboration between CERN laboratories in Geneva and the Gran Sasso National Laboratory for Particle Physics, could have decreed the discovery of the transmission of a beam of super-luminal particles.

Experimental data indicate that the distance between two laboratories (approximately 730 km) was covered by a beam of neutrinos with an advance of approx 60 nanoseconds with respect to a signal travelling at the relativistic limit speed c (which takes a time interval of the order of 2,4.10-3 s to perform the way).

Neutrino beam starts from CERN and after travelling 730 km through the Earth’s crust, affects lead atoms of the OPERA detector at Gran Sasso laboratories. Production of neutrino beam is due by the acceleration and collision of protons and heavy nuclei. This event produces pions and kaons, which then decay into muons and ν*μ. *

The initial energy of neutrino beam is 17 GeV and its composition is almost entirely due to ν*μ. *

Publication of the OPERA experimental data immediately got a deep world mass-media echoes: the possible confirmation of the results of the experiment seems to imply an explanation leading to change our current thoughts about theory of relativity and, therefore, the intimate space-time nature. In this assumption c may not be considered a speed limit on the quantum scale investigation.

In this paper we try to show how the uncertainty principle and the oscillation in flavor eingenstates of neutrino beam may provide a possible explanation for OPERA’s data.

Our research assumes two basic hypotheses.

*First approximation:* approximation in number of flavor eigenstates (and then in mass eigenstates) within is supposed to play neutrino oscillation.

We consider this oscillation between two flavor eigenstates. Then we assume that each component of the neutrino beam can be described by a linear combination of two eigenstates of flavor. These two eigenstates are: μ flavor (the flavor of neutrino beam generation) and τ flavor.

Oscillations in this two flavor was already observed in first half of 2010 within the same OPERA experimental series.

Although, as it is known, the neutrino oscillation cover three mass eigenstates for its complete description, we assume here an approximation for dominant mass of neutrino τ, which reduces the description of neutrino propagation in a linear combination of only two mass eigenstates.

In this approximation we can now describe the propagation of each neutrino produced at CERN as a combination of two mass eigenstates as follows:

Flavor and mass eigenstates are related by a unitary transformation which implies a mixing angle in vacuum similar to Cabibbo mixing angle for flavor of quarks:

then

*Second approximation:* we suppose that propagation of neutrino beam is in vacuum. The propagation in vacuum is determined by the temporal evolution of the mass eigenstates

We can consider valid this assumption, at least in first approximation, because matter interacts in particular with ν*e* and less with ν*μ* and ν*τ.*ν*e* weakly interacts with matter by W± and Z° bosons while ν*μ* and ν*τ *only by Z° bosons. So the principal possible effect consists in a massive transformation of ν*e * in the |ν*μ*› eigenstate.

Considering the small number of ν*e *in starting beam we can neglect this effect.

Assuming that in the initial state only ν*μ* are present in the beam, through a series of elementary steps, we can get

then we can obtain the probability

In the approximation m*μ *« E*μ* we can write

and finally the transition probabilities between eigenstates of flavor

ν*μ* beam produced at CERN propagates as a linear superposition of mass eingestates given by the following relation

This superposition generates an uncertainty in propagating mass neutrino that grows over time and is equal to

This uncertainty in the mass eigenstates of the neutrino implies an uncertainty in the energy of propagation.

Given the relativistic equation

taking the momentum of propagation p=cost, the uncertainty linked to neutrino mass eigenstate is linearly reflected in an uncertainty in the propagation energy:

Therefore we have

Following the uncertainty principle we have

so the uncertainty (12), about the value of ν*μ* energy of propagation, causes a corresponding uncertainty in its time of flight between the point of production and the point of arrival.

This uncertainty is expressed as follows:

In OPERA case available experimental data are:

Assuming sen²2θ*12=1*, in analogy with the value attributed to Cabibbo quark mixing angles, and a value for Δm*12 *≈ 10-²eV ≈ 1,6.10-²¹ J we have

then

(14) shows that the advance on the propagation of neutrino beam, detected in the execution OPERA experiment, is between the range determined by the uncertainty principle.

The advance Δt is then interpreted by the uncertainty principle and the neutrino flavor oscillation during propagation. This oscillation implies an uncertainty in the neutrino propagation energy, due to the linear superposition of its mass eigenstates, which affects the uncertainty of its flight time.

According to this interpretation, therefore, the results of OPERA experiment, if confirmed, would represent not a refusal of the condition of c as a relativistic speed limit, but rather a stunning example of neutrino flavor oscillation according to physics’s laws known today (uncertainty principle and speed limit c).

The range indicated in (14) depends on the competition of two factors. On one hand, the intrinsic nature of inequality of the uncertainty principle, on the other our fuzzy knowledge of Δm*12* between mass eigenstates of neutrinos with different flavors.

One of the most convincing experimental proofs of flavor neutrino oscillation is the lack of solar electron neutrinos measured experimentally respect to the theoretically expected flow.

OPERA, as well as other tests, was designed to observe possible flavor oscillation in a neutrino beam running along the earth’s subsurface. Any oscillation can be found by observing a change of flavor in a fraction of neutrinos in the arrive.

However, if this happens, neutrino mass eigenstate is described by a linear superposition of mass eigenstates of pure muon neutrino and tau neutrino.

This condition generates an uncertainty on the propagation energy, which translates into an uncertainty on the flight time.

This is directly proportional to the total flight time and the square of the difference between the mass values of the different flavors of neutrinos, while it is inversely proportional to the total energy of the beam.

In this interpretation, therefore, the advance of the flight time of the neutrino beam with respect to the velocity c, far from being a refutation of the relativistic speed limit, is a good demonstration of neutrino flavor oscillation.

So we could use the advantage Δt in an attempt to determine, more accurately, the value of Δm*12*.

On the other hand, examples of physical effects equivalent to a super-luminal propagation of particles are considered in other fields of contemporary theoretical physics. Hawking effect about the emission temperature of a Black Hole is, under this respect, a very significant example.

*Cosmic neutrinos flavor oscillations*. We can now consider what could be the value of the advantage Δt respect to the time of flight of c in the case of neutrinos coming, for example, from a SuperNova explosion.

In this case the average energy of neutrinos ν*e* is of the order of 10^7 eV and the time of flight, for example in the case of SuperNova 1987a, of the order of 10¹² s.

Under these conditions we have

and it is conceivable that it may start a continuous sequence of oscillations in mass eigenstates.

The logical consequence of this situation is a superposition of two equally probable mass eigenstates.

We lose the information of to the initial state of the emitted neutrino along the way.

So the uncertainty in mass eigenstates exists with respect to the state of arrival of the neutrino and a mixing of mass eigenstates with the same probability equal to ½.

In this hypothesis we have

therefore an advantage Δt of approx six orders of magnitude lower than in the OPERA case.

*Interpretation of the principle of uncertainty used above*. The uncertainty principle is commonly intended as an aid to explanation for the impossibility of determining, by observation, contemporarily the position and momentum of a physical system, with absolute precision, because the one excludes the other.

Assuming this interpretation the uncertainty principle could explain , in the case of OPERA, a set of measures centered on an advance Δt=0 with a spread on the obtained measurement results in the order of (14).

In contrast, the experimental measurements provided by OPERA appears to be centered on a value of Δt ≈ 60 ns in advance respect to the time of flight of c!

Which explanation is therefore possible to give to the application of the uncertainty principle to justify the consistency of the data provided by OPERA with the fundamental laws of physics known today?

The most coherent interpretation seems to be as follows: the temporal evolution of the neutrino mass eigenstate introduces a temporal evolution in the state of total energy that interacts with space-time producing a reduction of the time of flight. This interaction has to be coherent with the uncertainty principle.

Energy gained or released by neutrino, during oscillation, must be released or gained by space-time, according to the principle of conservation of energy.

A more accurate explanation will require the introduction of some new hypotheses.

We suppose below that space-time possesses a quantized structure. We define a fundamental 1D string element that has the dimension of a length or a time. This fundamental element is a 1D vector in the 2D string wolrdsheet: we call this element the quantum of space-time.

To each 1D of space-time is associated a 1D energy-momentum vector (the total energy associated to a quantum of space-time) that is related to the module of the 1D quantum of space-time with a relation of constraint that we define below.

To introduce the basic unit of space-time we introduce the Polyakov 2D string action and we proceed to its quantization finding the 1D elementary quantum of space-time

Now we want to consider (17) in the limit n -> 1. The infinitesimal parameters dσ and dτ take the meaning of physically limit movement along, respectively, the spatial direction and temporal direction of the 2D string worldsheet.

We can call these limit movement as follows

Ω^x e Ω^0 take the meaning of quantum of space-time in space direction and time direction in the 2D string worldsheet.

Therefore, in this case, to each spatial direction of the elementary string element corresponds a temporal direction that, in a Minkowski’s manifold, is orthogonal to the space direction. The relation (18) binds the module of the element of string along the spatial direction with respect to temporal direction, in the case of a Minkowski’s manifold, and have the values l*p* and l*p*/c.

Double differentiation

appearing in (17) must now be rewritten taking into account that in a Minkowski’s manifold, for relations (18), we can write

then

Since it is possible to show that 2D string worldsheet action of Polyakov coincides with Nanbu-Goto action

given the relation

and because we have

*μν*we have indicated relation T

*μν =*Tη

*μν*. So we indicate string tension in 2 dimensions as a tensor of rank 2.

In a Minkowski’s manifold we have:

*μ*or Ω^

*ν*we get the 2D energy-momentum vector for the string element along the direction μ and ν respectively,

Relation (23) was obtained in a Minkowski’s manifold: it is therefore valid in a region of space-time in which the action of gravitational energy is negligible. Under these conditions (23) defines a relation of constraint: the product of the 1D length of the fundamental string element (the length of the module of the quantum of space-time) and the 2D energy-momentum vector of 2D string worldsheet associated with this element is constant and equal to Planck’s constant.

2D energy- momentum vector E*ν t*hus defines the expectation value of energy of empty space that corresponds to the amount of energy needed to increase string length of an element of length l*p* along ν direction.

Similarly we can define E*ν * as the 2D energy-momentum vector associated with the increase of a quantum of space-time along ν direction. For these reasons, in a Minkowski’s manifold, (23) takes the form:

valids in each quantum of space-time.

*Calculation of the anticipation Δt in the time of flight.* (24) can be written taking into account variations in the 2D string worldsheet fundamental element:

multiplying the two members is obtained the variational relation of least action for the elementary 2D string worldsheet:

so we have

and then

From (28) we obtain (13) and the result (14). In (28) the term is an appropriate constant of integration that take in to account vacuum fluctuations of energy of magnitude for the system under investigation.

*Conclusions.* Conducing our analysis in 2D we quantize the 2D Polyakov string worldsheet action, obtaining a constraint relation that relates 2D energy -momentum vector and the module of 2D elementary string element (the quantum of space-time).

We have therefore assumed that the neutrino flavor oscillation interacts with the energy associated with each element of the 2D worldsheet string (or the space-time) exchanging energy. This exchange is obeying the law of conservation of energy.

This kind of interaction does not require any hypothesis of fifth force, and may, on the contrary, be assumed of gravitational type, in the sense that the energy due to the neutrino mass eigenstates interacts with the energy of the elementary string element with an easy phase overlapping, just as it is with a gravitational mass.

We can therefore assume that neutrino, through the temporal evolution of its mass eigenstates, exchanges energy with space-time. This exchange causes a change, a contraction in the length of the 2D fundamental string element. Integration of this contractions along the path of neutrino flight produces as a result the observed advantage in the time of the flight.

The energy associated with each elementary quantum of 2D string worldsheet in a Minkowski’s manifold corresponds to the energy of empty space-time, ie the vacuum energy of the gravitational field in absence of gravitational source. The target of a forthcoming work will be to show how this vacuum energy is able to produce effects phenomenological equivalent to hypothesis of dark energy and dark matter under certain conditions.

Basing on the assumptions here introduced the same uncertainty principle, from first and irreducible principle of physics, assumes the rank of derived condition through (25) – (28) by a more fundamental principle that is (23).

**References:**

[1] B. M. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. Usp., 26 (1983) 1087.

[2] L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D, 17 (1978) 2369.

[3] S. P. Mikheev e A. Yu. Smirnov, Il Nuovo Cimento C, 9 (1986) 17.

[4] S. Braibant, G.Giacomelli, M. Spurio, Particelle ed interazioni fondamentali, Springer, 2010.

[5] J. N. Bahcall, “Neutrino astrophysics” (Cambridge, 1989); http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb

[6] http://www.arcetri.astro.it/science/SNe/sn1987a.jpg

[7] H. A. Bethe e J. R. Wilson, Astrophys. J., 295 (1985) 14.

[8] G. Pagliaroli, F. Vissani, M. L. Costantini e A. Ianni, Astropart. Phys., 31 (2009) 163.

[9] V. S. Imshennik e O. G. Ryazhskaya, Astron. Lett., 30 (2004) 14.

[10] W. Baade e F. Zwicky, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 20 (1934) 259.

[11] A.M.Polyakov, Gauge Fields and Strings, Harwood academic publishers, 1987.

[12] Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam, arXiv:1109.4897.

[13] F. L. Villante e F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. D, 76 (2007) 125019.

[14] F. L. Villante e F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. D, 78 (2008) 103007.

[15] M. A. Markov, “The Neutrino” (Dubna) 1963.

*by Marco Lelli*

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Just a quick question:

You mentioned that the E-Cat can be connected to the exsisting power/hot water supply in the home with a COP of 6. As I am renting at the moment the E-cat which I will purchase will be attached to the power/hot water supply of a home which I do not own. When I decide to move, can the E-cat easily be disconnected so I can take it with me to my new property?

Thanks

S. Broenink

Mr. Rossi,

This is just to let you know that I would love some day to get the chance to meet you, and shake your hand. Keep on keepin’ on. The smart people are not listening to the noise.

Cheers,

psi

Baltimore, MD

Dear Rends:

Thank you for your comment: we cut the parts related to our competitors because we never comment the work of our competitors. Any reference to them is cut from the comments.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Alessandro G.

Firs of all, thank you for your trust.

You can have all the necessary instructions when our Italian commercial Licensee will contact you to send the offer for the 3 E-Cats you have ordered and he will also talk with you about the assistance organization. This is valid also in all the Countries of the World: we have already covered with our Commercial Licensees vast part of the World and we think we will cover it all within September.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Rob:

The charge will be changed every 6 months.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Rob,

You are right, if the prices you report are right. Prices are different in different places. All I can say is that our COP is 6. In some places the E-Cat is paid back for sooner than in other places.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Mr. Rossi,

In my country (The Netherlands) 1KWh of electricity costs 0.25 euro and 1m3 natural costs 0.60.

1m3 natural gas delivers 10 KWh of energy. This means natural gas is 4.17 times more cost efficient to product heat.

With the e-cat having a COP of 6, it requires 1KWh of electricity to produce 6 KWh of heat.

From financial point of view this means that the e-cat is only 6/4.16 = 1.44 times more cost efficient compared to my traditional heating system.

What is your comment to this observation?

Hydrogen is very hard to store for extensive period of time.

What will the shelf time for an ECAT cartridge?

Gentile Dott.Rossi, mi dispiace disturbarla nel suo lavoro ma ho la curiosità di porle alcune domande e spero che questo sia il sito giusto. Ho fatto il preordine su Ecat.com di 3 unità di e-cat per uso domestico ma con tre ordini diversi in quanto le dovrò installare in diverse unità abitative, premetto che seguo gli sviluppi da oltre 1 anno e che sono residente a Bologna Italy, vorrei sapere se avete in programma di svolgere dei corsi per eventuali installatori o manutentori in quanto sarei interessato a parteciparvi e quale sia il sito o il luogo dove potermi informare. Inoltre dispongo di un abitazione indipendente adibita a bed&breckfast a Bologna, sarebbe l’ideale per sperimentare sul campo e mettere a punto questa nuova tecnologia, se le iteressa può contattarmi.

Distinti Saluti Alessandro

Dear Mr. Rossi,

I’m not a “Rossi” believer, I am very critical, but I stick to facts, and currently I am being censored worldwide (Forbes, “Independent” E-Cat News aso.), maybe you can publish my statement here on your website?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/02/24/dick-smith-rossi-e-cat-too-fantastic-to-be-true/

http://ecatnews.com/?p=2094

Mats Lewan – Ny Teknik

“In about 3:30 hours of self sustained mode (from 15:53 until 19:25), a total energy of Pheat x 3.5 = 10.5 kWh were then produced, or 38 MJ. – Report by Mats Lewan – mats.lewan@nyteknik.se”

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+oE-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf

Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011. Participants: Giuseppe Levi, David Bianchini, Carlo Leonardi, Hanno Essén, Sven Kullander, Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi. Travel report by Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander, 3 April 2011.

“The energy produced inside the device is calculated to be (1.000-0.013) (16:30-10:45) 4.39 =25 kWh.”

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf

Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi “Ni-H” reactor – Dr. Giuseppe Levi

“In fact 1g of H can produce (max) 128 kJ. In [Test2] the power measured was 12686 +/- 211 W for about 40 min with a water flux 146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s. The mean input power during the test was 1022 W. This means that 11664 * 40 * 60 = 27993600 J were produced.”

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Levi,%20Bianchini%20and%20Villa%20Reports.pdf

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece

And even this is a complete idiot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmgTo2Kw1U

All these experts above are idiots, who have fallen for a hoax, and were too stupid to measure correctly?

All victims like mom and dad!

The title of this website is “Independent eCat News”, but should better be called, “How can I crawl a hypocritical capitalist as farthest in the ass as possible!”

Dear Daniel De Caluwè:

Thank you for the suggestion, maybe you are right.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear anon_proxy:

We will sell regularly our products to all the People that will want it. That’s all.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

On 20-Feb-12 16:54, ….. wrote to info@leonardocorp1996.com (but never get a delivery notification):

> Dear Mr. Rossi,

>

> My feeling is the e-cat is poisoned. You may never allowed to sell or gift a single e-cat. Sorry, I feel so desperate about the change of ownership of the Leonardo Corp.

>

> To be sure, please check your terms of the deal for you allows own or carry out a single e-cat out of the company. I hope I am totally wrong.

>

> I had an advise that you gift a e-cat to popular, trusted and clever people like F1 driver MSC, Bill Gates, that you will be sure that the e-cat(s) you gave will not be changed hand, stolen or exploited.

>

> Best Regards,

@C.Goldmann,

Could the problem (with the messages that are wrongly seen as spam), be caused by filling in the ‘Website’-space? Because I also have problems posting messages to this blog, but only when I fill in the space referred to as ‘Website’. But when I don’t refer to a website, my messages are accepted by this forum (P.S. Further information: I use ubuntu-linux)

Dear C. Goldmann:

I censored nothing. Sometime the comments are spammed by the robot if contail elements mistaken for advertising. Try again or send

to: info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

At this address you by pass the robot.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear dm:

info@leonardocorp1996.com

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dr Rossi

Am trying to email you re business – sent req 2 days ago but no response.

What is best email channel to reach you

Thanks DM

You censored my posting before? Why?

Dear Ed:

The operating modes are infinite, but for the industrial and domestic use we have to choose the safest versions.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dr Rossi-

Thanks for your reply to my question. I have one final question concerning the Oct. 6 test. The Ecat on Oct 6 ran in self sustain mode for about 3.25 hrs to produce a COP of 6. However, an answer to an earlier question implies that the Ecat can only run stable in self sustain mode for 2 hours. My question is:

Is the mode to produce a COP of 6 with only 2 hours of self sustain mode, and not 3.25 hours like Oct 6, a different operating mode? How many different operating modes does the Ecat have?

Deare Mark Saker:

The snake is not a skeptic, is a puppet paid by puppeteers who would compete with us but are not able to. He is strongly connected with their company. He gets money to make libelling against us also from other 2 well identified entities. We will give detailed and throughly information in due time. Everything in due time, we will get some fun.

Answers:

1- 48 hours

2- Same of the 28th Oct test

3- From 101 through 110 Celsius

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

I have read that National Instruments have confirmed your version of events which is great news against the sceptics.

I also noticed that you mentioned on your blog that you now have the control system in place on the 1MW reactor. I wonder if you can answer these questions:

1. Have you had the 1MW container working at 1MW, and if so for how long?

2. Have you switched the 1MW device off, then on again with satisfactory results?

3. What is the temperature of the output that the 1MW reactor is running at?

Many Thanks

Dear Jean Blanc:

I hope we will have the product ready by the next winter. Then you will have all the precise data. Persons ho have signed made pre-orders which are not binding, and everybody will be free to confirm or cancel the order after the precise proposal that will receive.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Franco Morici,

Thank you for your suggestion, very interesting.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Ing. Benedetto Schiasvone:

The amount of electric power in kWe necessary to the E-Cat is 1/6 of the thermal enrgy in kWt produced.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Gent.mo Ing Rossi,

seguo la vicenda dell’E-Cat con attenzione e fiducia, in attesa di vedere i primi prodotti commerciali. Ho di lei la massima stima, e immagino le immense difficoltà tecniche, economiche …e politiche che sta affrontando.

La mia domanda è molto semplice: lei ha ribadito che per gli E-cat domestici da 10kW è in grado di garantire un COP pari a 6 e un autosostentamento “stabile” per max 2 ore: ma qual’è il consumo elettrico medio in WATT dell’apparato durante un ipotetico funzionamento continuativo di 6 mesi (tempo massimo prima di una ricarica)?

La ringrazio e Buon Lavoro

Ing. Benedetto Schiavone

Dear Mr. Rossi,

usually I write (and perhaps disturbing) to ask You technical info, but in this case I would submit a little thinking about the possible slightest increase in COP of the system E-Cat.

From the information You kindly provided, I understand that the Self-Sustained mode can be maintained without compromising the stability of the system for about 2 hours and that the COP operation is fix to 6.

I wondered then if it made sense to organize a group of E-Cat (say six, 5kW each) in a sort of cluster that covers 24 hours operating in which a rotating each element can operate in Self-Sustained mode for 2 hours and than again (after 10 hours operation in normal mode to recover its full stability) to complete 24h period.

Given a starting COP of 6 and completed the start-up of all, in this configuration performing the calculations we get:

-a typical system clusters 5kW * 6 = 30kW (thermal power)

-each element to operate need for any 5000W / COP6 = 833.3W (electrical power)

-but overall consuming only 833.3 * 5 = 4166.5W

since only 5 of 6 reactors active are absorbing electricity at same time.

If we determine the new system COP we get:

30kW / 4166.5W = 7.2

I understand this is only a very small improvement (+20%) but an improvement at all, that perhaps that does not jeopardize the system stability.

The improvement is paid for with a more complex management system.

Forgive me if often I contact You for the discussions that might seem minor.

Thank You for your attention.

Kind Regards

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Considering the large number of persons who have signed up for Home E-Cats I think it would only be fair if you as soon as possible publish a video where you demonstrate the Home E-Cat and how you establish its performance.

Kind regards, Jean

Dear Andrea B:

When the domestic E-Cats will be on the market the validation, the only one which really counts, will be made by the Customers, and the Customers will not be much interested to the formulas, they will be interested to the money they will earn using the E-Cat.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Ed:

The COP is 6, whatever the mode.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Roberto:

Yoy will install the E-Cat where you already have your heater or boiler.

Your pre-order has been accepted.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Caro Andrea Rossi

Volevo chiederle se l’E-cat e’ possibile installarlo in appartamento ad esempio in bagno come una caldaietta a metano oppure ha bisogno di una stanza adeguata tipo central termica.

Inoltre vorrei chiederle se puo’ accettare il mio pre-ordine di un E-cat uso domestico.

Ringraziando le porgo i miei piu’ Cordiali saluti.

Dr. Rossi –

You answered one of my questions in the reply to Franco Morici. The other question is:

What is the COP of the ECAT using input power driven mode only? Meaning, what is the COP of ECAT without using self sustained mode?

Dear Rossi,

Once your device will be in the market, and therefore (I guess) the working set up of the apparatus will be public, do you think you will add the secret component to the patent, in order to speed up the validation process?

Dear Yugo:

Within hours the place would be discovered and our safety and security should be jeopardized. The Puppeteers would unleash their snakes. We want to work in peace.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Franco Morici:

1- 2 hours

2- yes

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Luca Salvarani:

1- yes

2- yes.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

I clearly understand the benefits of involving other (I suppose very few, professional and selected) investors, since I’m specialized in corporate finance. I also agree that it doesn’t play to disclose too much details about this, but I hope you’ll anyway answer to these questions, expecially the first one:

1) Do you actually retain the CONTROL of the company? This is a crucial point for me! because I really appreciate your purposes, expecially the low cost policy in order to benefit a large number of customer triggering a real revolution… but other investors could be (absolutely legitimately) much less interested in this, focusing mainly/only on short term profit maximization. Or at worst there could be a conflict of interests: e-cat implementation and diffusion will likely impair many corporations’s cash flows and profits (benefiting customers on the other hand) and so almost surely impairing a lot of financial assets… for example oil/gas/traditional energy’s infrastructure/renowables and many others stocks and bonds, commodity futures and related derivatives… I mean that your invenction could be a blessing for the people, but like all great technological improvements and disruptive invenctions, has also the potential to create and destroy immense fortunes! since you are doing all very quickly and on a worldwide scale.. I’m sure you get this point!

2) In addition to financial means, are those investors providing you other key skills? Maybe managerial, technological and legal ones? I hope so, because even an expert entrepreneur and inventor like you needs all possible help and advice to succeed in this revolution.

With all my heart good work and good luck.

Dear Ing. Rossi,

If possible, I would ask You a couple of technical things on E-Cat.

The first question, how long is the max self-sustained period in which the E-Cat can run continuosly without to affect the system stability.

The second, considering the case of COP of 6, if E-Cat power output can be modulated by means of an external control loop.

Thanks for the info. Good work.

Kind Regards

Dear Mr Rossi,

We would love to see some photos from your new factory, would it be possible for you to publish some photos of you in the E-Cat factory?

Regards,

Yugo

Si, è ovvio che il COP di ciascuno stadio non cambia, ma non capisco cosa intendeva per “.4″ quando accennava al cop di una pompa di calore. Di norma e’ circa 4 per una aria-aria, e dato che accennava a 1/10 di tale valore, ho ipotizzato che si riferisse a un COP calcolato in un punto di lavoro piu’ alto, dove non ha senso usare una pompa di calore (cioe’ 110 e più gradi). Comunque un grande in bocca al lupo per tutto!! Enrico

Dear Lu Fong:

I have received many comments with the same questions regarding National Instruments, so I answer to you and the answers are valid also for the other Readers who have put the same questions.

We have worked very well with N.I., and we have learnt from them very much. We are very grateful to them for all what they have teached to us, training our technological people in a very useful way, for weeks.

As I said already, Leonardo Corporation is structurally changed in these last weeks, and the Trust to which now Leonardo Corporation belongs has chosen other suppliers. Also our Customer has chosen other suppliers. We will remain always grateful to NI for what they teached to our people and we will ask in future proposals also to them . Personally, I am convinced that sooner or later we will buy also their systems.

Said this, I want answer in the detail to your questions:

1- Our scheduling, obviously, will not be affected, the suppliers we have chosen are already respecting all the scheduled milestones.

2- 3- Yes, we have already the control systems set up in the 1 MW plant, which will be delivered to the Customer very soon. By the way, such systems have been chosen directly from the Customer, who preferred a supplier he was already working with.

I want to add that we have chosen other Customers not because better, but only because of their longstanding collaboration with our Partners and Customer. I personally think that NI is a very good company and, again, we will maintain them in our list of Suppliers, honoured of this.

The 1 MW plant is a magnificence, and the preparation of the robotized line to produce the E-Cats is in schedule to start the production within Autumn and the deliveries within the next Winter, with some luck; in the worst case, within 18 months we will deliver, and we will deliver at the prices we promised. The technology has been revolutionized, we are testing the new E-Cats and we are very satisfied. This very week we will start to use the new control system made by the new Supplier.

Let me do a last consideration: the fact that snakes and clowns have used this episode to create a mess is the demonstration that we have not to release the names of our Partner, Suppliers and Customers, to avoid the falsifications that the puppet snakes and the clowns make up and, over all, the disturbments that they bring up to all the entities working with us. We all need to work in peace. We have to work in our factories 16 hours per day (also today, Sunday) and we have not time at all to compete in the field of the chatters of snakes who are PAID by their puppeteers to try to create a mess from nothing.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

I am watching the development of the E-Cat very carefully. Yesterday it was reported that National Instruments and Leonardo Corporation/Andrea Rossi or partners are no longer doing business together.

1. Is this true? If true will this development affect your manufacturing schedule of 12-18 months?

2. Does the E-Cat have a control system ready for commercialization and manufacture in your factory?

3. Is delivery of the 1MW E-Cat to your 1st customer still on schedule (less than 1 month from now)?

Thanks and good luck with your invention and work.

L.F.

Dear Enrico:

Every device maintains its own COP: the intrinsic coefficient of performance of a device is not modified by the intrinsic COP of the devices it is connected with.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Yesterday I read the comment posted by Theoretic regardind COP and put in cascade (series) of ECat and heat pump.

Without claiming to be exhaustive, I wanted to make some considerations.

The efficiency of heat pumps compared to the Carnot cycle is:

0.5 – 0.7 for large sizes

0.3 – 0.5 for small sizes

The COP of the heat pumps respect to a electric resistance stove can assume under optimal conditions a maximum value of 4 – 5

The heat pumps allow a temperature difference (in-out) of some tens of degrees centigrade and the maximum temperature reached in exit and of the order of 60-65 ° C for some models up to 80 ° C, and in any case for the COP falls dramatically in case of :

* Delta t high

* High temperature output

* Low temperature input

being the Ecat a

true generator of thermal energyand not a heat pump maintains its COP (equal to or greater than 6) in all conditions:* Delta t high

* High temperature output up to 100 ° C

* Temperatures low input from 0 ° C

Another important question about the idea of Theoretic to cascade a ECat with a heat pump to obtain a multiplication of the COP:

The COP is the ratio of thermal energy produced / electrical energy input

So the COP resulting from the cascade (series) of two devices, (for example: Ecat and heat pump) that produce heat

can not be the multiplication of the COP values of the individual devices, the second device to increase the temperature of the inlet fluid from first device needs electricity not heat.Thus having ‘noble’ energy (electricity) for generating heat becomes convenient to use only the device that has the higher COP:

the Ecat!But the reasoning of Theoretic in his idea is not entirely wrong because I thought it might be applied to existing large heat pumps

I’m talking of pre-existing large installations, eg.: shopping centers that have large heat pump systems (hundreds of kW installed)

Inserting a single 10 kW ECat module as a booster beginning of the thermal cycle, I think you might have (roughly calculated) a savings of several percentage points, given the high amount of energy produced would lead to an immediate payback and significant savings.

Ieri ho letto il commento di Theoretic riguardo al COP e alla messa in cascata (serie) di un’ECat e una pompa di calore.

Senza la pretesa di essere esaustivo volevo fare alcune considerazioni.

Il rendimento delle pompe di calore rispetto al ciclo di Carnot vale:

0.5 – 0.7 per modelli di grandi dimensioni

0.3 – 0.5 per modelli di piccole dimensioni

Il COP delle pompe di calore rispetto ad una stufa o termosifone elettrico a resistenza può assumere in condizioni ottimali un valore massimo di 4 – 5

Le pompe di calore permettono un salto termico di alcune decine di gradi centigradi e la massima temperatura raggiungibile in uscita e dell’ordine di 60-65°C per alcuni modelli fino a 80°C, e in ogni caso per il COP scende drasticamente in caso di :

* Delta t elevati

* Alte temperature in uscita

* Basse temperatura in ingresso

essendo l’ECat un

vero generatore di energia termicae non una pompa di calore mantiene il suo COP (uguale o maggiore di 6) in ogni condizione :* Delta t elevati

* Temperature di uscita alte fino a 100°C

* Temperature di ingresso basse da 0°C

Altra precisazione importante riguardo l’idea di Theoretic di mettere in cascata L’Ecat con una pompa di calore per ottenere una moltiplicazione del COP :

il COP è il rapporto energia termica prodotta / energia elettrica immessa

Quindi il COP risultante dal collegamento in cascata (serie) di due dispositivi (Es.: Ecat e pompa di calore) che producono calore

non può essere il prodotto dei COP dei singoli dispositivi, il secondo dispositivo per incrementare la temperatura del fluido di ingresso ha bisogno di elettricità non di calore.Quindi avendo potenza elettrica (nobile) per generare calore diventa conveniente utilizzare solamente il dispositivo che ha il COP maggiore:

l’ECat!Ma ragionando appunto sul commento di Theoretic la sua idea non è del tutto sbagliata infatti ho pensato che potrebbe essere applicata a tipologie di installazioni preesistenti per migliorarle usando l’ECat come booster.

Sto parlando di grosse installazioni preesistenti, es.: centri commerciali che hanno grandi impianti a pompa di calore di centinaia di kW già installati, inserendo un ECat come booster all’ingresso del ciclo di riscaldamento credo che si potrebbe avere (calcolato a spanne) un risparmio di diversi punti percentuali il quale, data l’alta quantità di energia prodotta, porterebbe ad un payback praticamente immediato e un notevole risparmio.

Ing. Rossi, per COP pari a .4 nelle pompe di calore intende il COP disponibile alla T necessaria in input all’ECat?

Dear Andrea,

To keep the reaction alive without extra heat input, have you considered a toroidal core geometry? By suitably modulating the flows in different cooling pipes, perhaps one could get a reactive “hot region” circle around the torus indefinitely. Just an intuitive idea.

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Actually LGB got it all right. The problem for “Locomobiles” have been the “boiler” start up time. If a eCat can works for 6 months before needs to be re-fueled that problem is solved. As a steam engines is much smaller than internal combustion engines having similar performance, it would theoretically be doable to re-fit todays car and buses with a steam package..

Dear Franco Morici:

Good question. The distinction is between laboratory tests and industrial/domestic products. In lab tests I can take risks, while when we sell products they must be intrinsecally and integrally safe. This is why the yield is different: a good example can be the performance difference between a Chevrolet Montecarlo for normal use in highways and the same for NASCAR racing.

Warm Regards,

A.R.