*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 Dr Joseph Fine:

1- no

2- I can’t explain without a description of the confidential parts of the E-Cat

3- Only with the production of electricity we will improve the COP.

Probably we are very close to this. Very.

Big steps forward in these days ( for the industrial plants).

Warm Regards,

A.R.

News from italian parliament on Ecat and Andrea Rossi

http://banchedati.camera.it/sindacatoispettivo_16/showXhtml.Asp?idAtto=48151&stile=6&highLight=1

A.R.

1) Can electrical heating be used together with heat from one or more operating reactors to assist in starting/sustaining another reactor? That is, does using some heat reduce the electrical heating load?

2) Is there an advantage in using electrical power to drive a Heat Pump instead of resistance heaters to take heat from operating reactors and add it to the Heat Transfer Fluid of standby reactors? Or does the heat have to go directly where it is needed?

Heat Pumps can add heat to houses at reduced cost compared to electrical heating. But can heat pumps add energy to a standby reactor more efficiently than resistance heating? The Second Law has something to say here. But I don’t know “T-Hot and T-Cold”. Most heat pumps operate at much lower temperatures.

(If a heat pump would work, you would already be doing it! )

Thermodynamic Regards,

Joseph Fine

Of course, the electric heaters add the heat directly to the

Dear Rends,

I have not time to participate to forums, conferences, and so forth, barely have the time to answer in this blog. But I wish good luck to this new Forum.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Pekka Janhunen:

The E-Cat is very small (cm 33 x 33 x 6) , can be put vertically or horizontally. Total weight 10 kg.

Warmest Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi,

In narrow spaces, can one install the home E-cat in any orientation (horizontal/vertical)?

Dear Mr. Rossi,

there is a new LENR forum at http://184.171.250.170/~lenrforu/lenrforum/

Perhaps you are interested in participating?

Best Regards

Rends

Dear Alfonso Troisi:

We are working hard on this issue. The Siemens turbine, anyway, will be for plants over 15 electric MW of power, no way to make it fit for small applications.

Probably we will start soon the production of a 15 MW plant, totally self sustained utilizing part of the electric energy it produces to drive the E-Cat modules and using the remaining thermal energy for heating.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Remi Andre’:

The E-Cats with the electric power generators are very close for the industrial use, while for the domestic we can’t make sure projections so far.

Thanks again for your Pre-order,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Mr Rossi,

I perfectly understand that you are currently focused on your robotized production line and other problems but I’d like to ask you something. As I already pre-ordered the 10 kW Domestic E-Cat I’d like to know if you have any idea of the date when it would be possible to pre-order the “full pack”, I mean the one with very high COP. Thank you for your answer and forgive me if this question has already been asked before.

Dear Mr. Rossi,

I would like to know how the meeting with Siemens went. What they proposed was interesting and puts you near your goal of producing electricity with the home unit?

Thank you and have a miracle day!

Caro Andrea M. Castellari :

Mi scuso se rispondo in italiano ma purtroppo non conosco bene l’inglese.Riguardo al fatto di usare il solare per riscaldare un liquido che raggiungesse il nucleo del reattore.L’importanza del mio suggerimento era proprio che invece di usare resistenze elettriche per riscaldare il nucleo del reattore si potesse usare un liquido comandato da termostati,pompe… poi e la stessa cosa se uno invece del solare utilizza altre fonti per riscaldare il liquido,questo dipende dalla convenienza che uno ha.

Cordiali saluti

p.s. Colgo l’occasione per salutare e ringraziare per l’ottimo lavoro svolto fin ora l’ingegnere Andrea Rossi.

Dear Martin:

About the important decisions I have to meet the agreement of the Investors.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea M. Castellari:

Thank you for your detailed comment. To make it short: when we will be able to produce electric power, we will drive the E-Cats of a system of E-Cats with one E-Cat: at that point the COP will be very, very high… We are working badly on this, believe me.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr Rossi,

My heartfelt congratulations on you genial and intriguing creation!

Bernardus Carnotensis, as quoted by Sir Isaac Newton, wrote: “Nos esse quasi nanos, gigantium humeris insidentes.”

However, some dwarves are taller than others. More importantly, no snakes are to be found on any self-respecting giant’s shoulders!

Since I am fortunate enough to have letters before and after my name, I am clued up to the fact that commercially it makes sense reaching for the low hanging fruits, but I do have a query and perhaps a couple of suggestions to make, if I may.

Why is the domestic E-Cat limited to be an auxiliary source of heat? Can’t it be used on its own, or maybe in pairs? Is it because the latency to full power, or the limit of the outlet temperature (80°C should be enough for most domestic heating applications)?

Paradoxically, the “well-to-wheel” analysis of the domestic E-Cat carbon footprint seems only favourable where the electricity comes from “clean” sources (nuclear, wind) or the existing heat source is “dirty” (coal, heavy oil), with a wide grey area in between. The reason for this is the requirement for an electric power input that, whilst making the device a masterpiece of simplicity (meaning dirt cheap), also defies to some extent the very purpose of it.

I could not fail to notice that a suggestion was made to use solar power as the heat supply to the reactor core. How ingenious! The ever tiny hiccup with that configuration is that a parabolic concentrator mirror would require a clear sky in the full daylight. Any less, and it won’t work (ah, those pesky laws of optics!). I live in the North West of England (hence the generous helping of sarcasm), so I’d be stuffed!

But here is the deal: if you are happy to use a heating fluid to control the reactor output instead of the electric resistor (as that very original suggestion implied), then it would be fairly straightforward to implement a small gas heater (fed with bottled propane or mains gas) to provide a regulated heat input to this circuit. And the upside is that even though a fossile fuel is the source, the carbon footprint will be considerably less than the electric equivalent (bar the “luckier” places). I’d venture that even the running costs would be substantially more attractive, not to mention the potential for this set-up to be 100% off-grid, which would be a bonus in developing countries.

Sod the COP. Give me clean air, that’s what I’d say. But I digress.

Talking about off-grid, assuming for a moment that Her Gracious Majesty’s Government is not totally out to rip me off and decided it would be a expedient, since your product is such a good thing, to tax it to extinction: Wouldn’t it be nice if your device could be used in a domestic (micro) combined heat & power generation (mCHP) set-up? I’m convinced you are loosing sleep over it (or maybe sleeping like a baby and dreaming about it). Incidentally, those buffoons querying your estimated working hours have obviously never worked on anything remotely important in their entire life.

I am sure you have come across that devil that is the Carnot’s theorem, which applies when converting heat into useful mechanical work. It is inescapable that the higher the hot source temperature the higher the efficiency, so any progress in that direction has the potential to provide huge benefits, for instance infinite COP, as you rightly mentioned. May I bring to your attention the prior art in this area, as in the WhisperGen http://www.whispergen.com/content/library/whispergen.html (there are a few other mature products). This is an highly compact Stirling engine incorporated into a gas heater unit. Note that this and other similar appliances currently enjoy generous feed-in tariffs (in the UK) for the excess (“clean”) power generated. Technically, Stirling engines are the best match for small-scale, small ΔT set-ups. For the larger scale (100KW plus), closed Brayton cycle machines (esp. the novel supercritical CO₂ variety) would probably be the ticket for compact and super-efficient systems with temperatures in the order of 500°C. Something already in the works is the StarRotor engine, which seems to have gone into silent-running mode recently.

I think what I am trying to say is that steam engines or turbines are not all that is out there.

Please do keep up the good work,

AMC

Dear Andrea,

I try to explain my question. Can you make your own discisions or do you have to ask permission to the investors? (ofcourse we talk about the big issues and not about buying a box of matches)

Best regards,

Martin

Dear Vladimir S.:

Yes.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Martin:

I do not know what you mean by “boss” exactly. I am the President and CEO of Leonardo Corporation. As such, I am liable in front of the Board of Advisers of the Trust from which Leonardo Corporation is owned.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea,

Are you still the boss in your own company? I hope so because i know

You have good intensions and investors are nesceserry but most of THE times

Hard to handle.

Best regards,

Martin

Dear Mr. Rossi,

in your posts you mentioned that the average consumption of E-Cat would be 1,2kW. However in another post you stated that the consumption is 1,2 x 24 only if the E-Cat used at full power. Now I’m confused what is true. If don’t need the 10kW output constantly all the time, does it mean that the average consumption will be less than 1,2kW on such days?

Thank you in advance and all the best for your work!

Dear Marius,

The thread will be M 10, but with an adaptor it can be coupled anyway. We will give all the connection data in the instruction manuals that you will receive together with the proposal.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Rob:

The pump will be the same pump you already have in your heating circuit.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Does the latest E-cat design include a pump for regulating the water flow?

Looking at the indicated dimensions I assume it’s not, so it may be a requirement that the E-cat is embedded in a heating system with permanent water flow?

Dear Mr. Rossi,

I am planning some modifications on my heating system this summer and also to make it E-cat-ready by adding an extra loop from the heat storage tank.

Could you please share the pipe size recommended for the E-cat, or even better, the threads type/size (male/female) that will be used on the inlet and outlet of the E-cat.

Additionally, do you recommend to use flexible line or copper pipe directly (with sufficient length to allow for thermal expansion)?

Warm Regards,

Marius

Dear Luca Salvarani:

I agree, also because the production of electricity will make the COP infinite, if we consider that in a system of E-Cats one makes the power to drive the others.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Hank Mills:

The snakes, their puppeteers belong to a self referenced worls and they are making a storm in a glass: outside the glass there is the ocean in which the E-Cats ship is gonna navigate.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Gio,

Yes,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Keith W:

The E-Cat gives its maximum advantage only in the cases in which the 10 kW of power are actually used in continuous: in the cases in which it has to be shut down and started many times per day his advantage is minor, even if we have made it so that during the idle periods the power consume becomes 50% less.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Rossi

Thank you for your quick reply to my questions. I’m still a little unclear with a few points I hope you can clear up for me.

To my question 2, asking if the e-cat can operate ‘on demand’ you answered “It can work on demand, using a by pass. The E-Cat will work at lower energy, ready to give max power on demand.”

Also to my question 6, asking what the minimum electricity consumption is with reduced heat output you answered “The minimum is zero, the max is 2.7, the average is 1.2”

With the two points points above, I want to be sure that I have understood you correctly. When the e-cat is working at lower energy it does not consume any electricty except for the control circuits as you say the minimum is zero.

So for my simplified situation (ignoring hot water demand) where I need heat for my central heating system for 2 hours in the morning (5:30am – 7:30am) and 6 hours (4pm – 10pm) in the evening, how much electricity would the e-cat use?

If I understand you correctly I would use:

2.7kW to start at 4:30am – one hour start up required.

1.2kW*2 during two hour heating period from 5:30am to 7:30am

0kW no heat required from 7am to 4pm – Does the e-cat need to shut down here or is there an ‘idle mode’? If in idle how much electricity will it use?

1.2kW*6 during six hour heating period from 4pm to 10pm

0kW from 10pm to 4:30am System shut down.

Total electricity for one day 2.7+2.4+7.2=12.3kW

Are my calculations above correct?

I appologise if these questions sound stupis but I’m really trying to understand the cost benefit for me which i’m sure will also apply to most other people with similar setups.

Many thanks.

dear ing. rossi

i have another question about consumptions of the ecat.

The consumptions and the costs are about only a 10 kw module e-cat?

So for example when you say that “in the first hour of activation the E-Cat eats 2.5 kWh” , this consumption is about a module of 10 kw and so for a 30 kw ecat( my case)i have to multipy for three?

Thanks in advance

Cordialità e stima

Dear Andrea Rossi,

I see you told someone, “Let alone snakes, they count nothing at all.”

I have to disagree. The snakes have done damage already. Their information warfare campaign to belittle the numerous SUCCESSFUL E-Cat tests performed in 2012 created significant FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in the minds of those who did not have the resolve to see through their false claims. These sub-human creatures created problems that did not exist, attacked the reputation of credible scientists (such as Dr. Levi), and have told countless flat out lies. Their malicious activities have prevented the world as a whole from fully recognizing, and accepting the extreme significance of your technology. Their “discredit the E-Cat at all cost” campaign has even turned previous allies against you. What they have done is despicable.

As an individual on the “outside” of Leonardo Corporation, I have quite often felt an intense desire to *something* to oppose the activities of the snakes. However, I realize there is little I can do but wait for the home units to go on sale. The wait for that to happen will be excruciating.

Some of us simply wish we had something we could be doing to contribute, especially when we see the snakes and potential copy-cat competitors continuing to slither around.

As the inventor and developer of the E-Cat you have a job to do, and are making fantastic progress. Please just remember that there are some of us that wish we could be doing more to help.

When we start jabbering excessively about the snakes, get caught up in technical speculation to try and understand more about the E-Cat, or ask too many questions please forgive us. We are simply going a bit stir crazy while we wait.

Thanks for all of the work you are doing.

Dear Andrea,

Since e-cat requires electric power, which is very expensive in some countries (expecially here in Italy) it’s crucial to get also the electric power production as soon as possible. The first generation will enable substantial savings but only the second generation will trigger off the revolution.. On this you have talked about 2 years after the first generation domestic e-cat, but recently you have also achieved some improvements in the electric production for 1 MW plants. So I wonder if this could take less time, maybe 1 year. Thank you!

Dear Rob:

Second choice.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Maarten:

You consume 1,2 x 24 if you use the E-Cat full power. But if you use your heater 24 hours at full power you spend much more than with the E-Cat.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear H.Hansson:

We will publish all our certification when we will have completed the process. Let alone snakes, they count nothing at all.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Mr Rossi,

In your postings to readers you point out that your design already have several “authorizations” (certificates ??). You will gain much credits by releasing these certificates. Not only will the “snakes and puppeteers” stand out as a clown mob. But it will lend confidence to the process and allowing you to build your brand.

Dear Andrea,

Here in Belgium our electricity costs about €0,22/kWh. At 29 kWh a day (1,2×24), this would mean that the operating cost of an e-cat will be €6,4 a day or €192 a month. That’s a lot of heating cost.. Much more than my heating with natural gas. Or am I overlooking something?

Kind regards,

Maarten

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Can you tell us a bit more detail on the hydrogen in the E-cat cartridges?

Is the cartridge pressurised with hydrogen upfront or is it released from materials by heating up the cartridge that are added to the other materials in the cartridge?

Dear Readers:

Somebody has put in the net the new that since our E-Cat has nuclear reactions it cannot be authorized, therefore it will never hit the market.

It is opportune to make clear that:

1- we are making the certification necessary to go in the market respecting the law

2- we already got important authorizations

3- the basic fact is that no radiation has ever been detected outside the E-Cat

4- when I will be able to release the theory of our process, it will be pretty clear that it is impossible for radiations exit the E-Cat.

5- we are already making the robotized line to make 1 million pieces per year and sure as heck I will put the E-Cats on the market, respecting the law.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Fabio T:

Your pre-order has been accepted.

During the fiest hour of activation the E-Cat eats 2.5 kWh, after that the average consume of electricity is 1.1-1.2 kWh/h.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Peter Metz:

The COP is 6.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Andrea Rossi,

A recent comment indicated that the E-Cat will consume 1.2kWh/h on the average over a 24 hour period. If I understand this correctly this implies a COP of over 8. Even though you only guarantee a COP of 6 are you saying we might expect to see higher COPs, i.e. 8?

Thanks,

Peter

Dear Keith W.:

1- the 2 E-Cats will be applied to your heater, which will be a back up

2- It can work on demand, using a by pass. The E-Cat will work at lower energy, ready to give max power on demand.

3- it will be alweays on, but you will regulate it on demand

4- yes

5- yes-

6- The minimum is zero, the max is 2.7, the average is 1.2

7- yes

8- less, it will be 1,2 x 24, if you use it 24 hours

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Mr. Rossi

Many thanks for your prompt answer.

At this point, just a new question: how much power does it need during that periodical 1 hour phase?

Best Regards,

Fabio T.

P.S.: Please accept a pre-order of 2 E-Cats entitled to me (you can see my full name in my private email address).

Dear Fabio T.:

1- no

2- depends from the time elapsed between the two phases: if it is up to 15 minutes, it recovers, after that recovers progressively less

3- no

4- 1 hour

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Mr. Rossi,

in Italy, where I live, a domestic contract with electric company is typically for a maximum power of 3 KWh. I’ve read that the E-Cat needs around 2.5 KW to start. This scenery could lead to power interruptions if someone was concurrently using another device, imagine a microwave oven or just a lot of little consumption devices.

Questions:

1) Could the E-Cat itself (not it’s control devices) be damaged if the starting procedure was abruptly interrupted?

2) Giving immediately back power, would mean restarting from the beginning or you will save the time spent before interruption?

3) Given that every two hours the E-Cat would require again to be powered, the necessary amperage needed in this phase would be the same of starting phase?

4) How long will last this periodical powering phase (more or less)?

I apologize if you have already answered these questions, directly or indirectly, through this blog. I think, anyway, that these are issues of wide general interest, so I will be grate to you for a clear, even if short, answer.

Best regards,

Fabio T.

Dear Andrea Rossi

I am waiting with great anticipation for your home e-cat to be launched however I am not clear on exactly how it will operate on a daily basis. I’m trying to make a comparison of how much it will cost to operate an e-cat for my hot water and heating. I’m sure many other readers will be interested in this too.

I would really appreciate if you could explain how you foresee the e-cat operating for the following typical scenario?

I have a 20Kw boiler with provides hot water on demand (no hot water storage) and central heating (the typical European system which circulates hot water through radiators). The central heating system operates for 8 hours per day. 2 hours in the morning and 6 hours in the evening.

1. Can the e-cat replace my existing boiler and will I require two e-cats?

2. Is the home e-cat designed to operate on an ‘on demand’ basis? I read that it had a long start up time so I’m not sure.

3. Will the e-cat need to be on and operating non stop, i.e. 24 hours per day for my scenario above?

4. Can the output be varied in accordance with the heat required?

5. If yes to the above question, will the electricity consumption reduce too with the reduction in heat output?

6. If yes to above then by how much will the electricity consumption reduce? What is the minimum consumption?

7. Is the 1.67kW electricity consumption an average consumption taking into account the 2.8kW start up consumption and the self-sustain periods?

8. If yes to the above question then for 24 hours continuous operation it will use 40kW (1.67kW*24) of electricity?

My concern is if the e-cat needs to operate non stop then the costs will be high and would not make it any cheaper than my current system and I’m sure many other people with similar setups.

For me, electricity cost is 0.17€/kWh. So to run one e-cat for one hour the cost is 0.28€/kWh (10kW/6cop*0.17). Therefore to run it for 24 hours is €6.80 (0.28€*24hrs), and €230 (€6.80*30days) per month. But if I need two e-cats then that will be €460 per month which is 1.9 times higher than what I pay per month for gas for my existing system.

Are my assumptions and calculations correct? Please explain exactly how it is expected to operate for my scenario as I’m sure most Europeans will be in the same situation. Especially since the cost of electricity seems to be rising in most European countries.

Many thanks for your time and efforts and all the best with your production line.

Dear Daniel De Caluwe’:

1- separate licenses have been given

2- Benelux has been licensed

3- When we will start the commercial strategy, the entire network of the licensees will be published, in occasion of a convention

4-Industrial plants will be treated separatedly, yes the contact will be with Leonardo Corp

5- Of course you will be entitled to ask a sub license, but only the Licensee has the right to decide if and to whom give a sub-license

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Lu Fong,

You have nothing to be sorry about, your questions are interesting.

1- Our Customers will buy a product manufactured by Leonardo Corporation. The persons who will not buy an E-Cat because they do not know our company, will buy it later, when they will know our company.

2- When we will put for sale hundred thousands units, to say that they have not been indipendently tested is an oxymoron

3- The E-Cat will be certified

4- As you know, by law a Customer has 60 days of time to give back the device if unsatisfied, and we give all the guarantees required by the law.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Italo R.:

The persons who made a pre-order are my personal Customers: the “avant- garde”! Anyway, we will sell the E-Cats to all the persons that will buy it. Of course we will not supply directly or indirectly the E-Cats to wannabe competitors who, being unable to translate into reality the bullshit they chatter about, are trying to fill up the gap buying our stuff to re-brand it. We and our licensees will stay alerted in this sense.

Warm Regards,

A.R.