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 νμ.
The initial energy of neutrino beam is 17 GeV and its composition is almost entirely due to νμ.
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 νe and less with νμ and ντ.νe weakly interacts with matter by W± and Z° bosons while νμ and ντ only by Z° bosons. So the principal possible effect consists in a massive transformation of νe in the |νμ› eigenstate.
Considering the small number of νe in starting beam we can neglect this effect.
Assuming that in the initial state only νμ are present in the beam, through a series of elementary steps, we can get
then we can obtain the probability
In the approximation mμ « Eμ we can write
and finally the transition probabilities between eigenstates of flavor
νμ 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 νμ 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 sen²2θ12=1, in analogy with the value attributed to Cabibbo quark mixing angles, and a value for Δm12 ≈ 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 Δm12 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 Δm12.
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 νe 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 lp and lp/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
In a Minkowski’s manifold we have:
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 Eν thus 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 lp along ν direction.
Similarly we can define Eν 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
If the $30 million figure holds, capital costs including interest for the 45 MW Rossi Ni-H plant would be an ultra low 0.0044 per kWh for the combined total heat and electric energy produced.
The $30 million cost of a 45MW Rossi plant financed @ 4% for the 30 year life of the plant would equal $51,560,850 in capital costs. Divide that by 30 = $1,718,695 in capital costs each year for the 45 MW heat & power plant
If the Rossi plant produced 7500 kWh of electricity x 8760 hours per year that would equal 65,700,000 kWh of electricity per year
The $1,718,695 capital cost divided by 65,700,000 kWh = $.026159741 per kWh of electricity. This very attractive capital cost for electricity does not count the value of the heat energy produced. Heat is 5/6th of the total energy produced, and that heat energy does have real value because the Rossi Ni-H power plants can be installed very near the point of use (unlike most coal and fission power plants).
If the total yearly kWh energy production of a 45 MW Rossi plant is factored, it would amount to 45 000 kWh x 8760 hours, or 394,200,000 kWh.
The yearly $1,718,695 capital cost divided by 394,200,000 kWh per year of heat and electrical energy produced amounts to an ultra low 0.00435995687 per kWh capital cost for the combined total heat and electric energy produced.
If a household uses 30,000 kWh of Rossi plant heat and power per year that would amount to $130.80 in prorated capital costs per year or less than $11 per month for that household. According to a U C Irvine study an average household in San Diego uses 18000 kWh per year with one third being electricity and two thirds being natural gas equivalent that is used for heating and hot water.
Contrary to this 1/3 — 2/3 ratio, the Rossi Ni-H plant would produce 1/6th of its energy as usable electricity and 5/6th as heat. However some of this excess heat could power adsorption cycle air-conditioning and refrigeration and this could reduce typical household electricity use by 30%.
A 45 MW Rossi heat and power plant would incur considerable heat energy losses and pipeline costs in distributing heat over a large area to thousands of individual houses. But there are many centralized residential, commercial, and university communities that currently use central heat and cooling plants powered by coal or natural gas. These communities would be natural first candidates for the 45MW Rossi Ni-H heat and power plant with its ultra low $.00435995687 per kWh combined heat and electricity capital costs, negligible Ni-H “fuel” costs, and zero emissions.
Zero emissions is really the bottom line issue. Pollution from fossil fuels and nuclear fission energy is rapidly destroying our world. The Ni-H energy revolution has arrived in just the nick of time, and fortunately it is already much less expensive than fossil fuel and nuclear fission energy…. Infinitely less expensive really…. because dirty fossil fuel and fission energy is destroying life on Earth!
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
The E-Cat is fit to be applied to any heat generator. It applies a delta T and the temperature sensors will limit the fuel consumption, whatever the fuel or the source of energy. If the source is electric power, the thermostat will decrease the consumption of electric power (in this case the convenience of the E-Cat is higher). When it will be in the market it will be more clear, now too many void speculations are in course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Robert,
US electricity prices (cents/kwh) are highest in Hawaii with New York City and San Francisco not far behind. European prices are somewhat higher, with the highest prices in Denmark, Germany, Italy and Ireland at the top. (Japan also is high, but I don’t know the price. Spain, Finland and Iceland are at the lower end of the European price scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/28/207971/electricity-prices-in-america-are-low/?mobile=nc
Germany, Italy, Japan and Hawaii should be eager to use Nick’le’ar Power even if it
first comes onto the market @ 8-10 cents per kwh.
Best customer applications (Heat and Power) are on-site users in order to minimize transmission losses.
Joseph
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
I made my calculation.
Since there will be 7.5 MWh/h electric for sale, after other 7,5 MWe is used to supply 45MW of heat energy reactor unit. It will be:
7.5MWe/h = 7,500kWe/h x $0.10 = $750.00/h
$750/h x 8760h/year = $6,570,000.00/year.
I am paying 18-19 cents/1kW, so 10 cent/kW is almost halve of the price from utility.
If, as Rossi say the price of plant will be $30 million, the cost of the plant will be returned after 4.6 year just for electricity at price 10cent/h. It will be less if we take also cost of the delivery added by the utilities.
Still, there will be 70% of heat energy (86.5 MW)left for sell or use by costumer.
Maybe some one can calculate to monetary value of this heat, and compare to value of the heat from coal, oil or gas, so the savings will be more visible.
Not counting that there will be no pollution or problems with delivery and storage of coal or oil.
While gas can be delivered by pipes.
Mr. Rossi: First, thanks for spending your valuable time answering our questions. I am having trouble explaining to my friends how the 10kW E-Cat will be integrated into various heating systems. One friend has a hot water system, another a forced air system and another an all electric system. If you or one of your associates could detail how the E-Cat will integrate physically into these systems and other systems it would be a big help to your future customers. Thank you.
To Dr. Joseph Fine, I would like to add my comment to your excellent post.
I got all these numbers from the net, but as you know the info can be a fact, or a joke.
So if this is not correct, someone please help me.
All dollar amounts are US$
The average residential retail price of electricity was 11.53 cents per kWh in 2010.
The range is 4.66 cents per kWh in Idaho.
And from the Hawaii Electric Light Company
(Island of Hawaii) an
enormous 36.31 cents per
kWh.
The cost of 1Mw of Wind Power is $1,194,193.
A New Wind Farm can produce energy for 6.5 cents per kWh.
Robert
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Dear Rob:
I expect the production of the E-Cat at very low prices, at disposal of everybody. The spread of E-Cats will improve the technology exponentially.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Your technology has created lots of new momentum in LENR curiosity, although not officially public yet.
Do you expect any relevant scientific news from universities or from any other academic research centres soon?
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
1- In a 45 MW plant, if Siemens gives us 30% of efficiency, the COP is not 6, is infinite: the energy to drive the resistances will be made by the E-Cat: if we make 45 thermal MWh/h, 15 electric MWh/h will be made, of which 7.5 will be consumed by the plant, 7.5 will be sold, together with30 thermal MWh/h.
2- The price of a 45 MW plant will be in the order of 30 millions.
3- the price of the energy made by our industrial plants will be made by the owners and by the market.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A.R.
It will take 7.5 Megawatts-electrical (7.5 MWe) to produce 45 Megawatts-thermal (45 MWth) (@ a COP = 6). The 45 MWth produced can be converted to 15 MW-electrical via a turbine/generator and you can then sell the 15 MWe. The E-Cat/Turbine is thus an electrical power “doubler”.
In a Combined Heat-Power (CHP) setup, you can also sell heat (as steam or hot water.)
If electricity purchased from the local utility costs X dollars (or Euros) per Kwh, you must price your electricity at about X/2 dollars per Kwh, since you are selling twice as much as you are using, but this covers only operating expenses and doesn’t recover capital equipment costs.
Electricity costs vary, but are about 10-16 cents/Kwh in the US and probably much more in Europe. Cutting the price of electricity roughly in half would be an achievement, but won’t lower costs to about 1 cent ($0.01) per Kilowatt-Hr.
If you use 7.5 MWe from the 15 MWe that was generated to sustain the plant, you would have to sell the remaining 7.5 MWe at a price needed to recover the capital costs and operating expenses. If one 1-MW plant costs $1.5 Million and 45 1-MW modules cost about $65 million and the turbine/generator costs another $15 million (I made this number up), you have to recoup $80 million in capital costs. (…if not more.)
There are 8,760 hours in a year. If you produce 7,500 KWe of electricity, there are ‘only’ a total of 65,700 KWhrs per year you can sell. At a price of 1 cent per KWhr, that would bring in $657,000 per year. If an investment costs $80 million but brings in about 657,000 per year, that has a rate of return of only 0.8 %.
You probably need to 1) reduce the costs of industrial plant (E-CAT) components significantly, 2) increase the price of the electricity sold for the first generation plants or 3) Increase the COP from 6 to about 8 to 10 or more. I think you may do a little bit of all of these choices with an emphasis on Choices 1 and 2. (Increasing COP could be a safety risk unless you understand the process thoroughly.)
Even if you start by selling electricity for 5-15 cents per KWh, you have drastically reduced the costs of the fuel requirements, so we hope that it will get adopted by the industry gradually. (Faster is better, but gradually is more likely.)
A question: How can you reduce costs to 1 cent per KWh and yet have the owners/operators recover the their investment costs?
Joseph
Dear Michele Iori:
Your pre-order for 2 E-Cats has been accepted.
Thank you for your attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Italo A. Albanese:
No, I cannot answer, sorry.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Could you explain, not revealing industrial secrets, why is easier for you to re-heat the e-cat every two hours instead of simply reduce the water flow? (Or increase the distance between nickel core and water pipes, maybe).
Best regards,
Italo A.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I submitted a pre-order of an home e-cat 4 month ago on the website ECAT.com, but I didn’t receive any confirmation…Now I would to add another pre-order (two e-cats in total), and I ask to you a confirmation.
Thank you and many compliments for your work, I’m a radiochemist living in Reggio Emilia and, when I “discovered” LENR on the net in 2008, instantly I started a crusade whit my collegues, who was very skeptical. I didn’t immagine that, near me, someone was ready to prove the reality of this phenomena!
Sincerely I dance in my room when I knew this. I would like to send my CV to your Italian R&D Laboratories, when they will be operative!
Best Regards,
Michele
Dear Marco S.:
Yes, is a possibility.
The COP is 6 also for safety reasons.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Jaroslaw Bem:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R,
Dear Matthew:
Patents pending are like divisions of an army in movement: the less the enemy knows of them, the better.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mark Saker:
We prefer maintain small modules, for safety reasons.
Yes, we’ll save space making more modules, we will fill better empty space.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
With the industrial plant, there was a lot of free space within the shipping container. Will your design for the new plant with the Siemans turbine have a different reactor design which will allow more reactors within the same space.
If you are to have the reactors in series to achieve a higher temperature why not build the group of reactors as one unit? This would reduce the number of pipes and troublesome gaskets?
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Have the new patents for the domestic reactor been filed with the Italian Patent and Trademark Office?
Good luck,
Matthew
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In case, when I use only 5 kW of power, (50 % of max power ECAT) in continues mode, is this mode extend the period of exchange the fuel cartridge from 180 days to 360 days?
Best Regards
Jaroslaw Bem
Dear Mr. Rossi
After the mythical public test on 28-oct-2012 you declared (ref: youtube) the COP has been almost infinite because there was no energy provided to the process. I gues ecat worked in self sustaining mode. In previous experiments it was reported variable COPs next to 80 (ref: Focardi). It seemed to me like a dream. But now, why ECat can’t run in self sustaining mode ? Why COP has dropped to 6 ?
Concerning home ECat. In my home I usually turn off heating during the night time. In order to avoid the startup peak of electrical consumption, can I set ecat to produce a minimal, for example 1Kw thermal, for all the night time (12 hours) ?
All the best
Macro S.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
1- In this moment we can count only on the 15 MW turbine, so that we need 45 thermal MW. The weight of 45 modules of 1 MW is 200 tonns
2- It will be a surprise…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Great News about achieving an Industrial-Ecat Temperature of 260 degrees C.
The (T_hot) temperature is 260 + 273 = 533 degrees K. If you can maintain a Temperature (T_cold) of 40 degrees C, or 313 degrees K, the Carnot efficiency is: (1 – T_cold/T_hot) = (533-313)/533 = 0.41 or 41%.
But next, you have to use a turbine, so the efficiency number will come down a bit.
Interesting comment about the tops of the pyramids. (The only structure built from the top down is a well.)
1) What is the approximate weight of the Industrial E-Cat? (Not including the turbine).
2) How can you retrofit domestic E-Cats with their relatively low temperature output?
Thank you and keep on keeping on!
Joseph Fine
Dear Walt C.:
1- yes
2- no
3- sure, it should become scrap nickel. All the components of the E-Cat are recyclable in case of dismantling.
Thank you for the patience you got to read almost all the Q&A of this blog!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Thank you for giving us such a “close-up” view of history in the making with your E-Cat invention. I’ve read most of the Q&A on your site, so I hope my questions aren’t redundant & I also hope I’m not delving into confidential matters–
I was trying to understand the recycling of the Ni that is received back by your agents as a result of 6 month E-Cat recharges.
1) Is the returned Ni all, or mostly, available to be reused, after reprocessing, in fresh E-Cat charges?
2) Is there a limit as to how many reprocessing cycles a Ni charge can undergo before it becomes unsuitable for use in an E-cat?
3) If the Ni does become unsuitable at some point, presumably it would still be suitable for general industrial use?
Thank You,
Walt C.
Dear Joe:
1- yes
2- yes
3- not a priority
4- self sustained using self produced electricity = infinite energy: the dream of Tesla (and mine).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mario:
The energetic consumption will be 1/6th of the thermal production.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Roberto,
When the E-Cat wi be readt we will give all the specific characteristics, but in any case, I repeat, the energetic COP will be 6.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Kerry Gronewold:
Our Attorneys are making a magnificent work with our patent system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
What progress are you making on the patent? Have you received any new information from the U.S. patent office?
I congratulate you and support your efforts.
Kerry Gronewold
Caro Ing. Andrea Rossi
Ripensando a quello che proponeva il Sig. Andrea M. Castellari pensavo, non si potrebbe iserire il suo e – cat nella mandata dell’impianto di riscaldamento fra la caldaia e i radiatori? In questo modo quando accendo il termostato ambiente la pompa inizia a far circolare l’acqua ad una temperatura di 70-80 gradi e prima di arrivare ai radiatori entrerebbe nel reattore innescandolo a sua volta il reattore produrrebbe acqua calda che dopo essere passata nei radiatori ritornerebbe in caldaia in questo modo la caldaia non si accenderebbe quasi mai. Nel caso non bastasse la temperatura per innescare la reazione interverrebbero le resistenze elettriche dell’e-cat ma anch’esse avrebbero un tempo di esercizio minore.
Distinti Saluti.
Buongiorno Eng. Rossi
Is it possible to know the daily (24h) power consumption in kwh of the E-Cat at 1/3 of its thermal power (3,3kw), 2/3 (6,7kw) and full power (10kw) without considering the 1 hour start-up consumption ?
Thank you very much and keep up with your good work and space heater invention.
Dr Rossi,
1. Must the E-Cat be cold before the fuel rod can be safely removed?
2. If so, is there a safety mechanism that is incorporated into the E-Cat that will prevent removal at any other time?
3. Will you continue to work at raising the temperature of the reactor from 260C even though you have achieved this important milestone?
4. What do you believe to be the next milestone for the E-Cat?
All the best,
Joe
Dear r Enrico Billi:
lavolale, lavolale!
A.
Dear Guru Gurovich:
Thanks also to you for the information. We are totally open to buy any real and ready proposal , to test it. If a thing works, is good. If doesn’t work, it is not. Other considerations are a loss of time.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Matteo:
They siply do not know what they are talking about. Anyway, the working products will meake everybody understand how much money they will save. Theoretical discussions are worthless.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Wolfgang Gaerber:
Thank you for the information: we are open to any proposal that can improve our technology: we just neede a real proposal, ready to be tested immediately. We buy any working prototype ( so far it works).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe:
1- yes, but there is also an integrated control
2- yes
3- by a turn over
4- progressive
5- manually
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Jam:
We have resolved so far up to 260 Celsius, and it is enough for the Siemens turbine. For the industrial applications we got the target and we are already designing the first plant: “non siamo mica qui a fare le punte alle Piramidi!” (Crozza-Bersani)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Jouni Tuomela:
CERN is a mine of information, suggestions, inspiration for all of us.
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ulrich:
Sterling engines need at least 500 celsius to be efficient.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear BM:
1- Confidential
2- Confidential
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Bib Norman ( and the many other Readers who made similar comments):
When the electric power generator of the E-Cat will be a real optional, all the existing E-Cats will be able to be retrofitted. This fact has nothing to do with the fact that now it is not worth to modify it foe few numbers which will porefer steam: if we want very low prices, we have to compromise: big numbers are necessary for a version to make it feasible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Italo R.:
We are working on it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi,
Thank you for your prompt and succinct reply. I believe I have now a grasp on the technical challenge you have been facing (limited controllable ΔT of the simplified reactor core).
The solution you are implementing is nothing short of brilliant (cascading T-tuned cores in series) and very much deserving of Prof Kullander’s attention.
I’d personally go for the MKII version of the domestic e-Cat, but I’ll submit your case to acquaintances in some quarters, just to see their faces when they’ll realise they’ll have to repackage their energetics in a relatively short time-span.
Best regards,
AMC
Caro Roberto,
Le porgo le mie piú sentite scuse se puó apparire che ho “preso in prestito” (o plagiarizzato) le sue idee. Il fatto é che non solo ne ho elogiato l’originalitá, ma chiaramento ne ho estratto i loro aspetti positivi per proporre una soluzione forse piú pratica.
Fortunatamente, sembra che Dr Rossi ci ha sorpassato entrambi ed abbia il problema sotto controllo.
L’unica giustificazione che posso offrire per il mio sarcasmo é che ogni giorno c’é gente che muore per davvero.
Le auguro una buona giornata,
AMC
Gentile Dr. Rossi, pare che in questo periodo molte siano le domande sul COP che sembra essere piuttosto basso per certe applicazioni.
Certamente lei che è l’ideatore e che vive tutto il suo tempo con la sua creatura, starà pensando ed operando per possibili miglioramenti e sviluppi. E sicuramente tutte le idee che a noi vengono (dietro la tastiera) sono ben misera cosa in confronto.
Potrebbe essere realizzata uns configurazione di questo genere?
Ad esempio 4 E-Cat connessi in serie, nei quali attraverso una pompa esterna venga fatto circolare un fluido di trasporto calore (es. olio diatermico). Questo fluido circola in un loop chiuso che attraversa i 4 reattori (l’uscita del 4° entra in aspirazione pompa, la mandata della pompa invia all’ingresso del primo la cui uscita entra nel secondo ecc.).
All’avviamento viene data corrente alle 4 resistenze e dopo qualche tempo, innescatasi la reazione, l’olio si riscalda e fa aumentare ulteriormente le temperature nei reattori.
Ad un certo punto dovrebbe essere possibile togliere almeno parzialmente l’alimentazione elettrica alle resistenze, e le reazioni dovrebbero autosostenersi.
Il COP pertanto dovrebbe aumentare in modo considerevole, perchè parte dell’energia termica necessaria a sostenere la reazione arriverebbe dagli altri reattori e non dalla rete elettrica.
Naturalmente il calore in eccesso deve essere asportato: nello stesso loop ci sarà uno scambiatore di calore che permetterà attraverso un circuito secondario separato di scaldare qualche altra cosa.
E’ solo un’idea che lei certamente avrà già sperimentato.
Quali inconvenienti potrebbe dare una configurazione del genere?
La ringrazio per l’attenzione, e scusi il messaggio lungo.
Italo R.
Dear Mr. Rossi
A while back you stated that we could upgrade the heating unit to electrical when it becomes available. You just recently said the home units do not have steam, is the upgrade still possible? It seems that would be very difficult, but I hope it is still possible.
Regards,
Bob Norman
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Would it be possible to ask the following two things, if they are not revealing too much:
1.) What Siemens turbines / technology are you looking at?
2.) Does the cold fusion process involve the use of crystals of any kind?
I understand of course if you cannot answer for reasons of confidentiality.
I wish you all the best with your work and I am very excited to see how it goes!
Dear Mr. Rossi,
have you thought of combining the domestic E-Cat with a stirling engine ?
These stirling engines (e.g. Microgen engine) are currently sold with natural gas boilers to produce electricity at about 1 kW.
The E-Cat could possibly run without buying much electric energy from the grid.
Best Regards
Ulrich E.