Classical Interpretations of Relativistic Phenomena

by
Sankar Hajra
Indian Physical Society, Calcutta, India
Email: sankarhajra@yahoo.com
.
.
Introduction
Important observations on the behavior of light waves began to be performed from the time of Roemer (1670) and important experiments on electricity and magnetism began to be conducted from the time of Coulomb (1783). Maxwell (1865) tried to unify both streams of knowledge and dared to realize what light was. There were numerous experiments to demonstrate that Maxwell’s theory was correct, though some might argue that the theory was inadequate.
In the Maxwell’s theory, if c is considered to be the speed of light in free space, Maxwell’s equations are then valid in free space where the earth is obviously moving with an appreciable velocity. Therefore, the Maxwell’s equations should be affected on the surface of the moving ear- th. But curiously, all electromagnetic phenomena as observed on the surface of the moving earth are independent of the movement of this planet. To dissolve this problem, Einstein (1905) assumes that Maxwell’s equations are invariant to all observers in steady motion which acts as the foundation of Special Relativity. In the second place, the relativistic mass formula is routinely confirmed in particle accelerators. Therefore, Special Relativity is held to be more acceptable than Classical Electrodynamics. In the second decade of the past century, Einstein extended his special relativity to General relativity, a space-time curvature physics wherein he explained many puzzling gravitational phenomena with the application of his space-time curvature proposition.
From the days of inception of the theory of relativity (1905), numerous physicists like Paul Ehrenfest (1909), Ludwig Silberstein (1920), Philipp Lenard (1920), Herbert Dingle (1950), F. R. Tangherlini (1968), T. G. Barnes et al. (1976), R. Tian & Z. Li (1990) and many others have doubted (fully or partially) over the foundation of the theory of relativity and many of them have proposed alternative approaches.
In the period between the last decade of the last century and the first decade of the present century (1991-2010), C. A. Zapffe, Paul Marmet, A. G. Kelly, N. Hamdan, R. Honig and many others have made important contributions in this direction.
In the first part of this paper, we have shown that the mass of a point charge as per Classical Electrodynamics is the same as that of Special Relativity and the foundation of both the deductions lies in Classical Electrodynamics of Heaviside (1988). Therefore, mass formula confirmed by the particle accelerators is fully consistent with Classical Electrodynamics too.
In the second part, we have shown that the consideration of the effects of gravitational field of the earth on electromagnetic entities easily explains classically those puzzling gravitational phenomena (explained by Einstein) as well as why all electromagnetic phenomena as observed on earth’s surface are independent of the movement of the earth; and this elucidates that both the invariant proposition and the space-time curvature proposition of Einstein are unnecessary.
Our goal is to show here the efficacy of the classical physics to interpret relativistic phenomena rationally and easily. In this study we have only used Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations, Newton’s equations of motions and his theory of gravitation. We have used no theory of our own.
.
.

173 comments to Classical Interpretations of Relativistic Phenomena

  • Joe

    Wladimir,

    1. In QRT, what is the mechanism that prohibits the creation of a dineutron?

    2. In QRT, what is the mechanism that prevents the collapse of the deuteron?

    3. In QRT, are single protons – and not just neutrons and deuterons – allowed in the nuclear halo?

    All the best,
    Joe

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Davide C.:
    Yes: thank you for your intelligent question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Davide C.

    Dear DR. Rossi,
    in your NDA there is also the name of the indipendent third party?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Neri B.:
    The results are not worse than Pordenne’s ones.
    Please, wait for the publication of the Report.
    I cannot say more than this, because I am bound from an NDA.
    Warm Regards,
    A. R.

  • Neri B.

    Dear Andrea,
    congratulations for your recent achievements for third party validation and manufacturing of three plants. I think these are two of the most important news since much time.
    I have some questions concerning this:
    You stated that third party validation has been good and results have been better than in 16th July test ( i remember an estimated COP 2-3). I was expecting you stated ” results are aligned with the test report presented in Pordenone”. Which is the reason these tests are ( i suppose ) worse than the Pordenone’s ones? Can you give us a rough estimation of COP, mean temperature and duration of these validation tests?
    Thank you for your kind attention. Please keep the good job
    Neri B.

  • Wladimir Guglinski

    Email sent to Dr. John Arrington, Argonne National Laboratory:

    Dear John Arrington

    I am doing theoretical calculations on nuclear magnetic moments for the light isotopes, by using my new nuclear model.

    I will put the results in four papers, and I will publish them in Peswiki.

    The first paper is ready. It exhibits the calculations for the istopes of lithium and boron.

    The theoretical values I have obtained are agree to experimental data of nuclear tables.

    In the first paper it is shown how Pauli’s Exclusion Principle works in the structures of the light nuclei, and why some isotopes are stable and other are not, thanks to Pauli’s Principle.

    The first paper is published in this Peswiki link:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:_Stability_of_Light_Nuclei_%E2%80%93_PART_TWO

    I suggest you to read it, and carefully to ponder on two possibilities very important for the advancement of Science:

    1- First possibility – Suppose that the nuclear structure existing in the nature is different of the structure proposed in my new nuclear model, and the existing structure does not work with the principles proposed in my theory.
    Well, in this case it is possible that nuclear theorists can arrive, one day in the future, to a successful theory capable to explain all the nuclear properties (in the case they are going in the right way with their current attempt).

    2- Second possibility – Supppose that the nuclear structure existing in the nature is the same structure proposed in my new nuclear model, and the existing structure works by the principles proposed in my theory (and several experimental data are corroborating such hypothesis, as I already had showed in my book, and now I am showing in the present paper now published in Peswiki).
    Then in this case it’s IMPOSSIBLE for the nuclear theorists to get success in their current enterprise, because they are not developing the Nuclear Physics by considering the nuclear structure existing in the nature. They will continue forever their development of the current Nuclear Theory, and they will NEVER find a theory capable to describe satisfactorily the behavior of the nuclei and the nuclear properties.

    In the case the second possibility is correct, who is the looser?
    It’s my opinion that the looser is the science.
    Don’t you think so ?

    Regards
    WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI

    PS: The results of magnetic moments calculated:

    3Li7
    Experiments = +3,256
    Theoretical= +3,223

    3Li9
    Experiments= +3,439
    Theoretical= +4,023

    3Li11
    Experiments= 3,668
    Theoretical= 3,637

    5B9
    Experiments= 1,800
    Theoretical= 1,976

    5B10
    Experiments= +1,800
    Theoretical= +1,765

    5B11
    Experiments= +2,6886
    Theoretical= +2,588

    5B12
    Experiments= 1,003
    Theoretical= 1,009

    5B13
    Experiments= +3,1778
    Theoretical= +3,000

    5B14
    Experiments= 1,185
    Theoretical= 1,103

    5B15
    Experiments= 2,659
    Theoretical= 2,877

    5B17
    Experiments= 2,55
    Theoretical= 2,877

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Luca Salvarani:
    1- the report will be published by the indipendent third party: we are not in control of it
    2- we are working to couple the Hot Cat with a Carnot system
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Luca Salvarani

    Gentile Andrea,

    1) Sono molto contento che i third party tests siano finalmente conclusi e non vedo l’ora di poter leggere i reports. Per adesso vorrei chiederle quando, indicativamente, saranno pubblicamente disponibili e se è soddisfatto di come si sono conclusi.
    Non le nascondo che temo un po questa fase di peer-review, data l’ostilità delle caste scientifiche verso qualsiasi cosa possa minacciare la loro posizione (garantita non a caso dallo stato, e non certo guadagnata giorno per giorno sul mercato come fa lei!) e non vorrei che cercassero di ritardare o peggio bloccare persino questi reports. Non crede che un peer-review pubblico e trasparente dopo aver pubblicato su internet come si fa su questo sito sia un soluzione migliore in grado di bypassare chi, avendo vested interests, si oppone a questa tecnologia a prescindere dai dati sperimentali? Oppure per favorire l’accettazione della tecnologia sono preferibili vie tradizionali di peer-review e pubblicazione?
    2) C’è stato qualche progresso nella produzione di energia elettrica nel frattempo?

    Di nuovo un grosso in bocca al lupo!

  • Paul

    Andrea,

    It is right
    that on this day
    we give thanks
    to be given the opportunity
    to prove ourselves worthy
    of the gifts bestowed upon us
    by our creator.

    Paul

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Clovis Alan Ray:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gian:
    OK
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    We will give description of the Hot Cat when ready for sale. We are working on the design.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Joseph A.:
    Our Customers will do.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Joseph A.

    Rossi,

    I watched an interview of you where you once didn’t necessarily agree with the term ‘cold fusion’ for your reacators. Have you decided on the correct terminology? Do you agree with using the term Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) or do you have you decided on a better description?

    I have a brother-in-law; by the name of Eric, who works in a scientific field. Over this US holiday I have attempted to explain to him how your E-cats and hot-cats function. Without any evidence supported by “nuclear experts” my brother-in-law refuses to believe your reactors could work. I think the sheer magnitude of your breakthrough is just too incomprehensible for most all people to believe.

    As for me, I have been following your work for more than two years. The 2011 demos you performed, I plotted all the recorded by the observers, I read all your accounts, I read observers accounts and I studied results closely. From these I have concluded your E-cats/hot cats work as you stated, but as for my brother-in-law and others everywhere — at what time in future would you anticipate there will be some sort of acceptable scientific verification that your reactors work, whereas the mainstream media will finally begin reporting your breakthrough?

    I fully understand that you must protect your IP for your family and your partners/investors, but if possible could you please taks a guess at a date/timeframe where a number of independent physicists might begin going on the record that your reactors work.

    Please stay in good health.

    With regards,

    Joseph A.

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You stated “The prototype we are making will be (gas fueled) 2 meters long, 1 meter wide, 1 meter hight (I hope). These dimensions will enclose the primary fluid ready to go to the heat exchanger to heat the secondary circuit’s fluid.”

    It seems you are using a primary fluid to transfer heat from your eCat units to a secondary fluid. You previously reported that one eCat cannot be allowed to supply another eCat with the required thermal energy to control it. Does not a primary fluid that is touching multiple eCats have the same problem? That is, the primary fluid received thermal energy from one eCat and can pass some of it to another eCat? please clarify.

  • Bill Conley

    In an earlier response to Clovis Alan Ray you noted that “the third party validation of the Hot Cat has been completed” which is great news for many of us who follow your work with interest and admiration. Howeever, in the same response you mentioned that “A Report will be published after peer reviewing.”

    This is troubling if you are speaking of a traditional academic peer review process that can take 6 to 12 months. This would certainly push public access to the report far beyond its forecasted availability within this month (November). I hope you are speaking of some abreviated peer review that will still allow publication in the very near future.

  • gian

    Caro ing.Rossi,

    voglio quì esprimere tutta la mia simpatia e la mia riconoscenza per Lei e per la Sua attività.
    Ammiro la Sua tenacia. Per esperienza professionale come sperimentatore, so quanto sia bella, ma dura, dura, dura la vita di chi si dedica con passione alla ricerca sperimentale.
    Lei ha il vantaggio di poter lavorare su di un tema che può trasformare l’avvenire dell’Umanità; ha per contro da lottare ogni istante contro l’incredulità, l’invidia,la malafede di chi difende interessi di parte.
    La data di oggi è fondamentale. La stringata comunicazione che con modestia ha da poco fatto costituisce una svolta epocale.
    La validazione da parte di un organismo indipendente dovrebbe aprire nuove e più agevoli strade nell’iter burocratico e sopratutto cambiare non solo l’atteggiamento dei mass media, ma anche la considerazione del mondo accademico. Il cammino sarà ancora arduo e accidentato ma, tenendo conto della Sua tenacia, il successo non mancherà.
    Come italiano ad italiano mi permetto di chiederLe di voler essere generoso nei confronti della Sua Patria. Come è successo a tanti Grandi l’Italia è con Lei stata matrigna. L’affetto e la stima di quanti dall’Italia la seguono possano almeno in parte fare da compenso.

    Che Iddio voglia aiutarLa.

    Con profonda stima.

    Gian

  • Dear, Sir.
    Thank you for your friendly reply, it is great news about the validation of your historic work.
    And that your cranking up production, it want be long now,until you want have to work so hard.
    I know you enjoy your work, i would as well, and I just wanted you to know you have a standing offer to come and comment on the e-cat world,

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    Thanks I know exactly what you mean. Regards Eric Ashworth.

  • eCat-ering

    Dear Andrea,
    I suggested you and all your fans/reader the following interesting article:

    http://coldfusion3.com/blog/cold-fusion-pioneer-says-lenr-is-not-fusion

    warm regards
    eCat Team

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Antonella:
    Thank you very much for your kind attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Clovis Alan Ray:
    You merit this info: yesterday the third party validation of the Hot Cat has been completed.
    Has been good.
    The results have been better that in the July 16th preliminary test.
    We are presently manufacturing 3 1 MW E-Cats:
    1- Low Temperature 1 MW E-Cat
    1- 1 MW Hot Cat
    1- 1 MW Hot Cat gas fueled
    A Report will be published after peer reviewing.
    We are working very hard.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dr. Rossi
    If you read this, just look at the poll on the side bar on e-cat
    world, and you can see how your revolution is going,
    sir. you have hundreds and maybe thousands, of troops just milling
    about, ready for action ,e-cat world is your headquarters.
    for this revolution, we know you are a very busy man, but if you
    can, could you come on to our,web site, and give us a few words of
    encouragement.
    I posted this on francis acland e-cat world , and he said that you
    have never visited there, is this true.
    if so you should, because you have many loyal fans or revolutionary
    troops that would love to have you come bye and speak with us.
    we have just put up a new poll, are you Optimistic or
    pessimistic regarding the e-cat, btw. i really like your black cat,
    -smile- and have always believed in you and your work so
    please come.
    After all we at e-cat world have taken a lot of crap over the years
    too , but as you will see their are a great many folks on your side,
    and e-cat world is a civil place and we try and keep it that way in
    cast you want to come bye. and we are very excited about the hot black
    cat.
    Have you meet the fp/mp group that are trying to replicate the celani
    cell, these young people are doing good work, and could use some
    encouragement from the master inventor.
    I think these are some exciting times we are living through, and you
    sir would make your adoring fans very happy with just a few words,
    you can speak on any subject you like we would like to know about your
    plans for the further, you must have some great things in mind, i
    know i would, we would love to hear some of them– anytime
    — your loyal soldier, Clovis ray

  • Antonella

    Carissimo Andrea,

    da tempo non scrivo nel Journal perché non ho nulla di interessante da aggiungere alla discussione, ma voglio che tu sappia che sto seguendo e tifando perché tutto vada per il meglio.

    Un caro saluto a te e a tutti i lettori,
    Antonella

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Eric Ashworth:
    We are interested only to products really existing in the market and well consolidated. We cannot afford to take the risk of new techs, we are already enough new by ourselves !
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Jouni Toumela:
    Thank you for the information,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear rancesco,
    Thank you for the insight.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    The configuration we use is not fit to make any kind of weapons. As a matter of fact, also a hammer can become a weapon, though. We are not at all interested to this field.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Bob:
    Thank you,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • @ Bernie Koppenhofer,
    @ Jouni Tuomela,

    Hydrogen embrittlement (Wikipedia)

    But the present explanation seems to be pressure build up:

    The mechanism starts with lone hydrogen atoms diffusing through the metal. At high temperatures, the elevated solubility of hydrogen allows hydrogen to diffuse into the metal (or the hydrogen can diffuse in at a low temperature, assisted by a concentration gradient). When these hydrogen atoms re-combine in minuscule voids of the metal matrix to form hydrogen molecules, they create pressure from inside the cavity they are in. This pressure can increase to levels where the metal has reduced ductility and tensile strength up to the point where it cracks open (hydrogen induced cracking, or HIC). High-strength and low-alloy steels, nickel and titanium alloys are most susceptible.

    1. But, if also LENR is involved, then Ti also is a candidate for Ti-H fusion? 😉

    2. Also in nuclear reactors, this phenomenom is welknown. At the moment, there even is a problem in some of our Belgian nuclear reactors I think… So, if LENR is involved, then, via these problems, they also got a key to a better way of producing energy? 😉

    3. As the E-cat works with hydrogen at high pressure, they have to choose the right metals?

    Steel with an ultimate tensile strength of less than 1000 MPa or hardness of less than 30 HRC are not generally considered susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement. Jewett et al.[2] reports the results of tensile tests carried out on several structural metals under high-pressure molecular hydrogen environment. These tests have shown that austenitic stainless steels, aluminum (including alloys), copper (including alloys, e.g. beryllium copper) are not susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement along with few other metals.[3] For example of a severe embrittlement measured by Jewett, the elongation at failure of 17-4PH precipitation hardened stainless steel was measured to drop from 17% to only 1.7% when smooth specimens were exposed to high-pressure hydrogen.

  • Bob

    Dear Andrea Rossi

    Here is a link to information about a new development in production of thermoelectric materials.
    http://www.egr.msu.edu/news/2012/11/14/new-thermoelectric-material-could-pave-way-low-cost-energy-solutions.

    I hope this information will be useful.

    Kind regards,

    Bob

  • Steven N. Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Weaponizing eCat Technology

    My father shared a story of back in the 1930’s, as a boy scout on a
    camping trip, he placed a gallon can of pork and beans into a camp
    fire to heat it up. He had neglected to punch holes in the can.
    After awhile, it detonated and beans flew everywhere. No one was injured
    but it took a while to clean the beans out of their clothes, ears, etc.
    Anything can become a weapon.

    “When a high explosive detonates, it is converted almost instantly
    into a gas at very high pressure and temperature. Under the pressure
    of the gases thus generated, the weapon case expands and breaks into
    fragments. The air surrounding the casing is compressed and a shock
    (blast) wave is transmitted into it. Typical initial values for a
    high-explosive weapon are 200 kilobars of pressure (1 bar = 1
    atmosphere) and 5,000 degrees Celsius.” – Internet article.

    The Hot eCat technology has a maximum temperature of below 1,250
    degrees Celsius, the melting point of Nickel. Thus, Hot eCats can
    support around the 1,000 degree Celsius operating point.

    Assume an internal structure of a metallic material with a relatively
    high specific heat. Conceptually, a number of Hot eCats units could
    heat the metallic material to near 1,000 degree Celsius. Surrounding
    the metallic material would be an enclosure with scoring to form
    shrapnel. The bursting point of the enclosure would be less than the
    pressure of ultra-critical steam raised to 1,000 degrees Celsius.

    When the metallic material reaches the required temperature, an
    amount of water is injected into the center of the metallic material
    generating huge amounts of ultra-critical stream. The stream passes
    through exhaust ports within the metallic material to the enclosure
    until the enclosure bursts.

    The exploding enclosure and ultra-critical steam are the damage effects of the device. Similar to having a water heater blow up but on steroids.

    Because of the lower temperatures and pressures, the resulting
    explosion will not have the same magnitude of a conventional explosives device. Because of the long thermal charging time and the lack of a fast
    energy release mechanism, the use of eCat technology would be a
    failure as an effective weapon. (Conventional explosive-based
    weapons will be more effective). But any energy-producing device can be made into a weapon.

    Still, in the wrong hands, it could become a terror weapon. Perhaps your engineers can design in methods to prevent this un-intended usage.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Jouni Tuomela…..Very interesting, thanks. Sounds like LENR to me. (:

  • francesco

    Dear Dr.Rossi,
    I’d like to show you some quick and effective ideas to independently monetize your technology, hoping you’ll appreciate it.

    A simple way to self-financing would be production of synthetic fuels.
    These are simple, clean (0% CO2) processes, and also highly profitable, since you have cheap energy.

    Hydrogen
    Hydrogen is highly requested by the industry and is quite highly priced.
    A very effective way to produce Hydrogen with your invention is Catalysed Thermolysis of water, also known as Thermal Decomposition, or Water splitting.
    It just requires heat, and you should have a lot of it.
    Water dissociates naturally with heat; starting from ~2000/2500 °C the dissociation ratio is quite high.
    Industry developed a number of catalyst that aim to lower the reaction temperature and increase the efficiency.
    See table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting#Research
    The reaction temperature can drop up to 550 °C with Copper-chlorine cycle (Cu-Cl) catalyst.

    Methane
    Methane synthesis just requires Carbon, Hydrogen and energy.
    The process is well known and documented, and what prevents it from being profitable is just the energy price.
    Two researchers at ENEA developed a good methanation process that absorbs Carbon from atmosphere (pdf in IT language)
    http://www.sede.enea.it/produzione_scientifica/pdf_brief/Capriccioli_IdroMetano.pdf
    This process is CLEAN, the CO2 that Methane releases when burned is in the same quantity of the CO2 absorbed during the synthesis process.

    Gasoline
    We all know how the gasoline price increases every day.
    Here’s a process to produce CLEAN gasoline (the CO2 released when fuel is burned is in the same quantity of the CO2 absorbed during the synthesis process)
    Air Fuel Synthesis (www.airfuelsynthesis.com) is an UK company that developed a clean process that uses CO2 from atmosphere, Hydrogen from electrolysis and renewable energy in order to synthetise fuel:
    http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/images/stories/chart.png
    Just replace electrolysis with above thermolysis process and energy source with your technology.

    Please let me know what do you think about this.
    Thanks in advance.

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    this seems wery interesting?
    Hydrogen enbrittlement in metals:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121119132309.htm

    BR Jouni

  • Eric Ashworth

    Dear Andrea Rossi:
    With regards your mention of the carnot steam turbine generator and several drawbacks for home use. Perhaps you may be interested to know that the present design in the steam turbine generator is inefficient and noisy because of its simplistic design and the use of stators. There is a new technology whereby by using an integral design set -up the present day steam turbine can be reduced in size by three and half times, consume an added amount of steam and maintain a linear throughflow without the need of stators. This type of turbine requires four rotors whereby the impellers overlap and thereby compliment rotary activity through the body of the turbine. Of course it is a totally new design and one that G.E. have refused to comment on but I have been informed that the technology is before its time as it has many applications in the power industry. Just to let you know that if you start manufacturing steam turbines perhaps you may be interested in this design set-up and of course I would allow you to use it with no strings attached as I wish you all the best in your business venture. Eric Ashworth.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Giovanni La Mantia:
    Thank you, we contact them now.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Giovanni La Mantia

    A commercial Helium ions microscope.

    http://microscopy.zeiss.com/microscopy/en_de/products/ion-microscopes.html

    “ORION NanoFab
    Your 3-in-1 Multibeam Ion Microscope for Sub-10nm Nanostructuring
    With ORION NanoFab you profit from the only system in the world that covers the complete range of micromachining to nanomachining applications using gallium, neon and helium ion beams integrated in a single instrument.”

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gherardo,
    Sorry, I hadn’t understood fully your comment.
    Yes, you are right, it is unthinkable to make electric power with a domestic E-Cat, with the existing power production technologies. The Carnot cycle makes sense only for industrial applications, as you correctly think and all the direct conversion system are not mature, or can yield too low efficiency.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    from your previous answer to my question I understand I do miss something.

    My understanding is that functionally both produce heat and then hot water and electricity.
    The dimension should be important because:
    – an industrial plant works 24×7, has marginal noise problems, is maintained costantly and room is tipically not an issue;
    – a domestic use would have peaks and idles, noise sensitive, maintenance is at premium and room is scarce.

    Mainstrem turbines for the electricity production are quite large, noisy, maintenance intensive and need to spool up to start production. A 30kW steam turbine like http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/steam-turbines/sst-040.htm#content=Technical%20Data would be uncompatible with an apartment installation and would have a steep cost.

    Can you elaborate a little more your point?

    Thanks, Gherardo

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Pekka Janhunen:
    Yes, there are restrictions that we have to communicate to our Customers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dear Andrea,
    For the 1 MW plants for which certification already exists, are there any specific restrictions required by the certifiers, such as some minimum safe distance to passerbys, or a requirement of daytime or 24/7 manned presence on site?
    If the only requirement is that educated workforce handles the device, then applications should be much more numerous than if e.g. a 24/7 manned presence or large safety distances are required.
    regards, /pekka

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Gherardo:
    Domestic or industrial is not a dimensional distinction: it is a functional distinction.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

  • @Koen Vandewalle,

    You wrote: “The point is: too much money in the world, makes that people do no longer want to work for it. So money, or value is very important to make the world go round.”

    I think we gradually should evolve to a society and a world with a world economy where there’s more co-operation, that should replace the deadly competition we have now.

    At the moment, we live in a world with a world-economy that is too much based on deadly competition, and this makes slaves of most people, especially the lower classes, but also mid- and even ‘higher classes’. The world economy should SERVE the people on earth (and also elevate poor and underdevelloped countries, instead of exploit them), and not make us/them slaves in a inhumane system of deadly competition and economic war. Competition always is praised that it makes people work, and that ‘it makes the world go round’, but there’s also a lot of destruction/abuse/exploitation (of the lower classes/poor countries) in it, and exaggerated competition certainly will destroy us, if we remain on this path. In the aquarian age, humanity should learn to co-operate, otherwise we will destroy ourselves. We need a world-economy that is based on co-operation and NOT on deadly/exaggerated competition. We need a world economy that is eventually steered by the united nations in an attempt to let people/countries co-operate to produce what is necessary according to the needs of the people. G3, G4, G5, G7, G8, G20, Bilderberg, … and so on, should focus more on co-operation, so that people/countries are inspired to co-operate (and survive together instead of destroy each other), so that we get a better world with no war and peacefull co-operation in the end. (The other path is deadly competition to its extreme, which will make enslaved enemies of us all, who finally will destroy each other).

    A year ago, during the ‘Arab Spring’ and the economic problems in the eurozone, I wrote a small text in English about it:

    http://hetstilleverzet.blogspot.be/2011/06/to-young-people-of-spain-and-in-middle.html

    And no, I’m not an ideologic marxist or communist, who reduced the freedom in their countries, but I’m just convinced that we need more co-operation (in the (world-)economic field) to survive with so many people on this beautifull planet Earth. (The present system of exaggerated and deadly competition also reduces the freedom of most people on this Earth).

    And as a beginning, capital and labour should be more balanced, and have an equal voice in the steering of our world economy. So the ILO (‘The International Labour Organisation’, which is part of the United Nations) should have a stronger voice in the world economy and in the meetings of the G3, G4, G5, G7, G20, Bilderberg, … and so on. (Think, for instance, of our European ‘Rheinland-model’, with a balanced representation (equal number of representitives of unions (employees) and employers in the government of our companies).

    By giving the ILO (‘The International Labour Organisation’, which is part of the United Nations) a stronger voice in the important world-wide meetings that steer the world-economy, I hope the world-economy eventually will become more humane and more co-operative, so that more people (and more countries) will get out of the present slavery and will enjoy more freedom. (But I repeat: this is not marxism nor communism, but just a more enlighted/balanced vision for this world and its economy).

    Kind Regards,

    Ir. Daniel De Caluwé
    (at the moment living in
    Mechelen, Belgium).

  • Gherardo

    Dott.Rossi,
    I see a potential problem for the domestic e-cat.
    While for the industrial e-cat the coupling with a turbine is a good match, doing the same for the domestic e-cat would present a cost and maintenance problem.
    Even with lower efficency a converter with lower initial cost and maintenance needs would be a better fit.
    The other alternative would be to switch back to condominium sized plants and forget too small e-cats.
    Your toughts?
    Best regards, Gherardo

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear drew:
    No, they did not.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Dear Liberty90:
    Starlite is not in commerce, so we cannot test it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • liberty90

    Mr. Rossi, have you heard about material called Starlite ? If claims of Mr. Maurice Ward were true, such wonderful insulator can be, I suppose, useful for E-Cat in some way. And it’s a shame that such wonderful thing is almost forgotten. Maybe someday your company should contact family of late Mr. Ward and investigate their claims.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite

    PS. Mr. Koen Vandewalle, “money is a concept of trust”, so if government “give for free, ten million money”, this will lead to hyperinflation, like in, for example, Zimbabwe. Energy, on the other hand, is useful not as a means of exchange. You should compare this to industrial revolution, not to printing money.

  • Koen,

    Concerning your comments about money and energy, I respectfully disagree slightly about one thing. In a very real way, money today IS a set of energy credits. Almost all oil is traded in dollars, therefore dollars have real value. A growing economy requires a greater and greater amount of energy. Energy is not valued by money, it is the thing that gives money ITS value. If worldwide energy production were to diminish, then the value of currency would diminish.

    If we consider this to be true, then a new form of energy that arrives on earth will mean that a certain amount of wealth will be added to the economy as a whole. This is the most immediate economic result of LENR. Wealth will be created but not at the expense of other wealth.

    I think that it might be some amount of time before a new energy might affect the economy enough to dissuade people from mining energy sources that are self-destructive. The economy is unlikely to destabilize from the introduction of more wealth.

    Andrea Rossi is quite correct in saying that there is room for all energy sources because our world is currently so starved for energy that it seems unlikely that any form of energy might lessen the value of any other source of energy.

    Lot’s of good things will happen, but at a realistic pace.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>