.
by
Sankar Hajra
Calcutta Philosophical Forum, Salt Lake,
AC -54, Sector-1, Calcutta – 700 064, INDIA
E-mail: sankarhajra@yahoo.com
.
.
To know whether a fuel isp roper fuel or not is to determine whether the fuel gives off greater amount of energy when it is used than the energy involved in making the fuel from raw natural materials.
A huge amount of energy is obtained when Hydrogen or thermite (a mixture of powdered Aluminium and oxide of iron) is burned.
But energy obtained from combustion of those fuels is not greater than the energy spent to make them from natural resources.
Therefore, Hydrogen and thermite cannot be treated as proper fuels.
Electricity could be readily generated from combustion of those fuels, but, electricity made from those fuels must be more expensive than electricity made from coal or petroleum.
According to Einstein’s E=mcˆ2 formula, 1Kg of any material (preferably Uranium) will give 9×10ˆ16 joules, or 2×10ˆ16 calories, of heat energy through complete nuclear reaction.
[E = mcˆ2 = 1 x (3 x 10ˆ8)ˆ2 joules = 20 x 10ˆ12 kilocals = 20 trillion kilocals]
If that would be true, then powerful states around the world would not compete for oil in the deserts of Arabia.
If one ton of Uranium of someton ‘Little Boy’ bomb could take part in the so-called nuclear reaction, then some million of square miles of the world would burn, instead of only 1.7 square miles of Hiroshima.
It not at all possible to give supply of electricity to the people from so-called nuclear fuels at a cost lower than fossil-fuel electricity for the reasons stated above.
However, it is possible to give ontological lectures on nuclear fission/fusion or to earn immense money from so-called nuclear projects.
.
.
Hi Andrea.
What has become to the jet engine that you acquired?
Wishing you, Andrea, and all the readers a wonderful Christmas period and New Year.
Jean Pierre
Dear rvanspaa:
1- thank for the information, I’ll take a look at this patent
2- I cannot give further information regarding this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I have a couple of suggestions.
1) If you are sure that nuclear reactions are involved, then you might want to take a look at the old patent of Paul Brown (US4835433). I spoke to Paul about this before he passed away, and he told me that he had achieved a conversion efficiency of about 70%, which is not unreasonable for direct conversion.
2) In your most recent patent application, you mention 62Ni. Presumably because adding a proton leads to 63Cu which is stable, and also because 62Ni is about 3 times more prevalent in natural Ni than 64Ni.
However you may also care to consider including 60Ni, because of the possible reaction:-
2*H + 60Ni => 58Ni + 4He + 7.9 MeV. (For the theory, see my web page at http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/relativistic-both.pdf).
This is also a nice clean reaction yielding only 58Ni and an alpha particle, the energy of which is readily converted. Even if 61Cu were formed (which normally has a half life of about 3.3 hours), if would be almost completely reduced to 61Ni after about 2 weeks, so it would not be a serious problem. It may also undergo enhanced electron capture, and be neutralized essentially immediately. I.e. you may get the reaction to 61Ni immediately.
In short, it’s worth trying because 60Ni is about 26% of Ni whereas 62Ni is only a few percent.
Dear Mario Massa:
I do not agree with the ideas of Sankar Hajra, even if the peer reviewer has accepted his paper. But what I think is very uncorrect is the fact that he did not answer to the comments of the Readers directed to him. This is very disappointing and unprofessional, because the comments were very polite and honest.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I’d like to know a your opinion regarding the article by Sankar Hajra that you have posted. For what I have seen, he did not reply to your reminder of clarifications asked from some readers. Do you consider true his ideas (I consider crazy)?
desidererei avere una sua opinione sull’articolo di Sankar Hajra che ha pubblicato. Per quanto ho potuto vedere egli non ha risposto al suo sollecito di fornire chiarimenti chiesti da alcuni lettori. Lei considera le sue idee vere (io le considero folli)?
Dear Jam:
The 3rd Party verification report will be published, supposedly, within the first week of February. This does not depend on me, anyway.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
It is 2013, where is the 3rd party verification report?
Dear Martin Aubrey:
The best choices are, in order of applicability: 1, 3, 2, 4,5.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
How do you see the best practical use for the 1MW (or larger) Hot E-Cats?
1. Production of heat for industrial purposes in individual factories.
2. Production of electricity for industrial purposes in individual factories.
3. Production of heat for local distribution at community level.
4. Production of electricity for local distribution at community level.
5. Production of electricity in centralised locations for grid distribution.
Or a combination of these?
Kind regards,
Martyn Aubrey
Dear Prof Joseph Fine:
Yes, but, please, remember that I am supposing. A real design, with all the necessary engineering, has not been made yet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I don’t think it is worth to think about Gigawatts power plants.
Transmission of electric power on long distances costs.
Also, there are big loses of energy on way to customers (I read somewhere, that there are 13% loses in transmission over the grid)
Isn’t it better build smaller plants closer to customers as factories, offices or apartments buildings so electric energy and heat can be used.
And just the rest of electric power sent through the grid.
This way, it can be prevented of blackouts on big areas as it happened couple times in the past.
Andrea,
If 1000 1-MW units occupy 3000 cubic meters, a single 1-MW Hot-Cat would occupy 3 cubic meters. (Or 3,000 Liters.) Is that correct?
That is a significant volume reduction as the Industrial E-Cat has a volume of ~37.4 cubic meters.
This is without including turbo-generating (Carnot Cycle) equipment. Note that it is estimated that replacing a steam power plant with a S-CO2 one could lead to a 20-30X volume reduction.
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
Dear Steven N. Karels:
As I said, we aree not designing such plant, yet. We can’t know the dimensions until we have to produce real designs.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
To build a 1GW electrical production with an a typical efficiency of around 45% will require around 2200 1MW eCat units. While the eCat volume is large, the remainder of the plant will be the majority of the land area for things like the turbine, the cooling tower, and the infrastructure.
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
I agree with you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Yona:
The total volume should be around 3,000 cubic meters, not counting all the other components of the Carnot cycle. But this is an assumption. We didn’t design such a plant, yet.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
What you think will be the volume of 1GW plant (I assume not like 1000 1MW plants, but much less)?
Thanks
…and I add that it is a good thing for investitors,because the price of energy will fall down gradually.
If we consider that only in Italy are consumed 280.000 GWh/year from fossil fuel and energy buyed from foreign countries(nuclear),we understand that transition will be gradual.It will depends on types of plants that will be builded,but it will be gradual anyway. I think.
Regards G G
Dear Yona:
Yes, with 1,000 modules of 1 MW each.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Is it possible to build 1GW plant?
Thanks
Dear Stefano:
Thank you for your suggestions, we will think about them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear dr Rossi
Thank you for your answer. Still more question to convince you on photovoltaic panels.
Think a hot cat with a carnot engine. half of the effective e.p. produced will go into the driver. If you add pv panels with batteries you can automize the mansgement of the hotcat driving with batteries recharged by pv when they are full or by the carnot engine when they are low. You could maximize the energy production in a total renewable way being completely unpluged from the grid .
Regards.
Dear K. D.,
1. Concerning Mr. Keshe: I didn’t discuss nor defend his technology, and I even wrote I did not yet investigate it, but I only referred to the way he introduced his technology.
2. You wrote: ‘It absurd to think, that E-Cat will eliminate other sources of energy as coal or oil, what also Mr.Rossi says. But it might be helpful to use those sources of energy by better way.’
My answer: I think I roughly agree, and I also knew that from the beginning, because this is what I recently wrote :
Kind Regards.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Yes, you are right. With the US Partner we are ready for a mass production in relatively short term.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi,
The article below (from The Economist) is about energy resources and trends in the European Union.
(See link below.)
In the USA, cheaper natural gas has an increasingly large share of the energy market, while Europeans now use more coal, less gas and, in Germany, less nuclear energy.
As described in this article, the Energiewende (Energy Transformation) in Germany, and energy use trends in the rest of Europe seem to be going in the wrong direction. Probably not the direction that most people would prefer.
As the inventor of this new Energy source, you know the Industrial E-Cat and its cousin the Hot-Cat have to be made ready for mass production. The human efforts and material resources needed to develop the first 10 systems will need reinforcements to produce the first 10,000 systems and the first 100,000 systems etc.
I hope I will find a way to help.
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance
Mr. Daniel De Caluwé and others.
This website is about of new kind of energy in progress of R&D by Mr.Rossi and his company.
You should understand from the experience of last two years, that Mr. Rossi is doing, what he said he will do.
Don’t mix it with some crooks like Mr. Keshe in Belgium or other one in USA John Rohner of Inteligentry.
Mr. Keshe for many years, plays on naive believers of his fantastic theories.
His real product are some speeches for which he cashes $1000.00 per chair.
I don’t comment about deposits he was taking for space flies into orbit and to the moon.
Or some kind reactors he promised to deliver in March of 2012, never done.
Probably he, same way as Defkalion dreamed to profit from Mr. Rossi discovery.
The other guy, Mr. Rohner is prospering by taking nonrefundable fee for application, to apply for for rights to buy licence, to have the right to develop non existing technology.
The real secrets of his business is, in using proper way the language of the law.
For readers with production capability, it is permissible to think where and how, the E-Cat can be useful in theirs production.
It absurd to think, that E-Cat will eliminate other sources of energy as coal or oil, what also Mr.Rossi says.
But it might be helpful to use those sources of energy by better way.
And dreamers about of the free energy should understand that there is no free energy.
Because there are some expenses to use of free energy, as it is with using, Sun light and gravity by wind mills, PV panels or hydro-power plants.
Dear Karl-Henrik Malmqvist:
I am sorry to have to answer to you that it is impossible to get temperatures equal to 0°K, let alone below zero °K, as you surely will be able to understand going through a Physics manual; see also “Absolute Zero” on Wikipedia.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Stefano:
PV have the problem that they depend on the weather, this is why are not fit for our purposes.
Apart this issue, they are the same as other e.p. sources.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven,
sorry,I made a mistake,my post was addressed to Mr. Fibb.
Kind Regards G G
Dear Dr. Rossi
Your last answer on the possible usr of photovoltaic panels worries me. In fact if the pv panels get not convenient for the ecat I assume that you mean that you need a very large number of panels that are expensive. But if you need a large number of panel this means that you also need a large amount of energy for the electric driver. Perhaps I misunderstood your words. But according to the calculation of the power neededfor the driver it should be enough a small set of panels with costs quite low. Since pv energy is free the total energy produced by ecat will be available completely for the costumer. Please explain more about the not convenience of using pv panels for driving. Thank you very much.
Dear Pietro F.:
Wrong: I already explained that it is just a matter of certification.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Buongiorno sig. Rossi,
colgo nelle sue recenti risposte una maggiore cautela riguardo l’ingresso sul mercato dell’ecat. Forse la sua consociata americana teme che tale tecnologia, nell’immediato, gli possa causare una perdita/annullamento dei contratti nel settore energetico tradizionale e quindi preferisca gestire questa transizione tecnologica allungandone i tempi di presentazione.
Grazie
e buon lavoro.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
1. In his recent message, Fibb wrote :
Reading this, one could ask the question if the present worldwide economic system, with its focus on exaggerated (and deadly) competition, really serves the people of the world???
2. As a citizen of Flanders (Belgium), I recently was informed by the (very alternative and futuristic) work of M. T. Keshe, who has his headquarters in Belgium, but appears to have problems with the Belgian government at the moment. (One of the problems is that they forbid the use (and demonstration) of his reactors in Belgium).
At the moment, I did not yet investigate the work of Mr. Keshe, so I don’t know if he really has what he claims he has, but I was positively struck by the way he introduces his new technology: He first did it by informing and sharing his technology to the governments of the world, and now he also addresses the people of the world via his website, so that his technology is open to everyone, and can be developed in a co-operative spirit.
3. When I compare your approach (via the sometimes evil market) with that of Mr. Keshe, we have to take into account that:
i) If Mr. Keshe really has what he claims he has, than his technology is potentially very dangerous (it can be abused in very wrong ways by evil people, making very dangerous weapons with it), but this is not the case with your solution, so you could work via the market, while Mr. Keshe is forced to do it by informing governments and sharing his technology with the people.
ii) The intellectual rights (IP) of Mr. Keshes’ inventions are already protected by his approved pattents, while you are still awaiting approval of your patents by the authorities. So, therefore I do understand that you could not work like Mr. Keshe, even when you wanted to.
4. At the moment, the Japanese already plan to build new (ordinary thermal or breeding) nuclear reactors, and in many other countries, governments intent to build new big coal fired power plants, so one could ask if your technology, that the world needs very much, comes quick enough to influence better decisions in these countries? Because, although you (and your team) work very hard, wouldn’t the introduction of the E-cat into the market be much quicker when you allowed all companies in the enery business to build and further develop E-cats, respecting your IP rights? Of course, I know, in that case, you need pattent-approval first.
5. Nevertheless and beside these considerations, and also because I know you have a good and very much needed solution, I wish you and your team a lot of success in 2013 and further on!
Kind Regards,
Ir. Daniel De Caluwé
Flanders, Belgium
Giovanni,
I think the essence of my concern is that cyber attacks on eCats will occur. The eCat firmware must be so hardened that none of the attacks can be successful.
This could be done by not allowing internet access to eCats, but at the increased maintenance expense of losing easy access to the eCat. Perhaps for an industrial eCat with trained technicians, this is possible. If eCats are so reliable that they never fail — allowing for the six month or so fuel change-out — then no internet access would be needed.
So, Dr. Rossi, keep your software engineers in check and don’t let them run off and do something you might regret.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Today I came across an article about negativa absolute temperatures from the Max Planck Institute.
“At zero kelvin (minus 273 degrees Celsius) the particles stop moving and all disorder disappears. Thus, nothing can be colder than absolute zero on the Kelvin scale. Physicists at the Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich and the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching have now created an atomic gas in the laboratory that nonetheless has negative Kelvin values. These negative absolute temperatures have several apparently absurd consequences: although the atoms in the gas attract each other and give rise to a negative pressure, the gas does not collapse – a behaviour that is also postulated for dark energy in cosmology. Supposedly impossible heat engines such as a combustion engine with a thermodynamic efficiency of over 100% can also be realised with the help of negative absolute temperatures.”
http://www.mpg.de/6776082/negative_absolute_temperature
In order to achieve negative temperatures heat has to be added. Maybe this can be a part of the explanation of LENR.
best regards,
Karl-Henrik Malmqvist, Sweden
Dear Stefano:
The ssm is made for about the 50% of the operation time. The distribution of the ssm in time depends on many factors. The COP is 6.
About PV panels: not convenient for us.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi
I still need to ask about the ssm. How long will last the drive in the market apparatus? Every how long time the drive will be needed to be turned on? Is the drive mandatory for safety reasons or for making the ecat working? Can the ecat work in ssm for longer than 3hrs? The Cop is 6 or 10? One important suggestion: link the electric drive to photovoltaic panels and perhaps your cop will be infinitive!
Regards
Dear Steven Karels,
I think that in a perfect world should be governments to protect this technology,but in 23 years of history about cold fusion we have seen that this is not a perfect world.We could think that in industrialized countries with few energy resources it could be possible,but oil intererests are strong everywhere so we should not make illusions.
So,Dott Rossi,I suggest a well armored container with a lot of security systems and a notary’s seal (or another public officer).In this way you could prove the different between a malfunction or a sabotage.
Regards G G
TO THE READERS OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS:
TODAY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED THE INTERESTING ARTICLE “FORMULAS FOR MAGNETIC MOMENTS OF PROTON AND NEUTRON” , by Sergey P. Efimov (Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow (Russia).
JONP
Dear Fibb:
Thank you for your suggestions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steve Karels makes some great points about security and the potential ruthlessness of the opposition. Mr. Rossi, your potential market is much bigger than even the existing energy market (greenhouses in Antartica). Your entering a battle worth trillions of dollars per year. The opposition has deep pockets and a MASSIVE vested interest in the status quo, and could start 100 million dollar campaigns to discredit you and/or your products. FUD is the name of the game, or worse… sabotage. Please be careful and prepare for the worst. Seek progressive allies in government that you can count on, as many bought-and-paid-for politicians will be at the service of their fossil-fuel-energy overlords your technology will overthrow.
Dear Robert Tanhaus:
1- yes
2- we consider 20-30 years
3- yes
Thank you for your precise attention.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
earlier you said, that leonardo corp will produce the core and others will produce the e-cats.
(1) I guess, that has changed now with your new partner and he will produce them?
(2) Where you able to find out something more about the maximum lifetime of the reactor core (warm cat) without to change it. I don’t mean the fuel but the core structure lifetime.
(3) Have you made enhancements to the warm cat lately you can speak about? (faster to high temp.; smoother heating caractaristics…)
On the Hydrofusion page ( http://hydrofusion.com/ecat-technology ) I read again the following:
ECAT Fuel (Ni-H) in Comparison with oil:
Costs 1/1000 of Oil – (Cost less than transportation cost of oil)
Energy Density > 100 000 x oil
Power Density > 100 kW/l
Reserves 10 billion years – oil 150 years
No emissions, no pollution, no noise.
1 liter Ni-H 2 000 000 liter oil
The ECAT will revolutionize energy production as we know it. On top of the favorable Fuel Facts the ECAT features:
Low Operation and Maintenance Costs (the modular design admits minimal maintenance)
Minimal Fuel Transport Cost (only 2 refuelings/year under continous run)
Zero Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Zero Noise (only noise from auxilliary products <50dB)
You said that you will release the your theory this year and the first non military plants will go in operation.
I'm sure this year will be very interesting for all of us!
Best regards,
Robert Tanhaus
Dear Steven Karels:
You are perfectly right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
My point I was attempting to make was that your units will undoubtedly have remote monitoring, diagnostics and, perhaps, reprogramming capabilities. There must be sufficient security safeguards so that the users can only access optional control settings, the maintenance level personnel can access more indirect features and the providing company can access/modify the operating program. All changes must be recorded and time-stamped as to when and who (individual IDs) made them.
Your adversaries will attempt to destroy or malfunction an eCat to serve their ends. Your firmware must be as safe as a top secret military system, perhaps more so, as your corporate enemies have much greater resources and incentives to see your systems fail.
Your software staff must take this into account or your product will be perceived as a failure or instable or dangerous. To your competitiors, this will be a life and death struggle unleasing the dogs of corporate war. My prediction — I hope and pray your are ready for the battle.
Dear Steven Karels:
We are manufacturing plants for Customers. If they are competitive, they will prosper, otherwise they will not. I think they will. If they work properly or not will clearly emerge in the factories where they will go in operation.
That’s all.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Depending on the degree of success and problems you have with the first dozen or so major energy producing plants (hot water or high temperature steam) will greatly affect the rate that other energy technologies are abandoned or fall into disfavor. So I would suggest that the actual ‘truth” will be between Fibb’s prediction and your projection of an integrated marketplace.
With modern information systems, the rapid release of positive and negative information will dramatically affect the financial community’s acceptance or rejection of Rossi LENR technologies. I would see China rapidly switching from coal-based electrical power production to LENR if LENR is widely accepted. Likewise in other parts of the world to a slower extent.
For this reason, it is imperative that your plants work flawlessly, safely and have safeguards from intentional disruption/malfunctioning. You only have one chance to make a good first impression.
Dear Fibb:
All the energy sources will be useful in an integrated and differentiated system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you for your answer Ing. Rossi,
With all due respect, I anticipate that even when you have as few as 15-25 industrial ecat plants being “integrated”, there will have already begun a resultant significant change in financial markets – at least in the direction that money flows. e.g. I doubt very much that China will continue to invest billions in tar sands projects in Alberta. New investments in the nuclear and renewable power industries will also be wiped out. This will leave a lot of investors, large and small reeling. All I can say is good luck. I look forward to the upheaval as the eventual outcome will be a sustainable and prosperous future for mankind. As it stands now, without LENR, we are speeding towards a virtual cliff.