*by Marco Lelli*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our research assumes two basic hypotheses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

then

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

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

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

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

then we can obtain the probability

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

and finally the transition probabilities between eigenstates of flavor

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

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

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

Given the relativistic equation

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

Therefore we have

Following the uncertainty principle we have

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

This uncertainty is expressed as follows:

In OPERA case available experimental data are:

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

then

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under these conditions we have

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

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

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

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

In this hypothesis we have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can call these limit movement as follows

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

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

Double differentiation

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

then

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

given the relation

and because we have

*μν*we have indicated relation T

*μν =*Tη

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

In a Minkowski’s manifold we have:

*μ*or Ω^

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

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

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

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

valids in each quantum of space-time.

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

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

so we have

and then

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**References:**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*by Marco Lelli*

Dear Jim:

The charge has to be replaced every 6 operating months. To change the charge takes 5 minutes, plus the stop/start cycle ( 2 hours).

The recharge is every 6 mo (operative, not calendar), so that the Customers will make it when the cold season will be over.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

“Warm Regards”

Is that a reference to the heat generation of the LENR device? If so, very subtle!

Regardless, I was curious if, after 6 months, the refill charge can be inserted while the unit is running, or if the entire system has to shut down and cool off before replacing.

Also, in the same vein, is the 6 month between refills just a rough estimate, a suggested replacement point, or very much exact? I understood the e-cat would adjust it’s output based on demand. With higher output, wouldn’t the charge last shorter?

@ F. Guidi:

ecat.com is where you can place your orders.

Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi

I would like to pre order 10 eCats.

regards

WLAD

Dear F.Guidi:

Your pre-order has been accepted.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

You probably should just put a website up for accepting all the pre-orders of E-Cats you are recieving.

But until then, please book me for ten units.

Dear Occam:

Inserting carbon dioxide the E-Cat couldn’t work.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O Attualmente no e non cerco di insinuare nulla .In prospettiva e con opportune modifiche tipo l’aggiunta di un ingresso co2 , si potrebbe instaurare un ciclo chiuso di cattura-conversione(in metano)-alimentazione di un automobile per esempio . La co2 emessa sarebbe riconvertita in metano per alimentare il motore che l’ha prodotta (la co2).

Troppo complicato …

Saluti e buon proseguimento

Dear Tim:

It is easy to obtain with a by-pass. In seconds the E-Cat can be by-passed, if you need a fast decrease of heat exchange.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Occam:

The chemical reaction you reported has nothing to do with what happens in the E-Cat.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

La reazione di Sabatier, o processo Sabatier, è una reazione chimica in cui il diossido di carbonio reagisce con l’idrogeno, in presenza di nichel quale catalizzatore e in condizioni di temperatura ottimale compresa tra 300-400 °C e alta pressione, producendo metano e acqua. Occasionalmente viene utilizzato anche un catalizzatore a base di rutenio supportato su allumina, più costoso ma anche più efficiente. L’equazione chimica è la seguente:

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O

Secondo questa reazione l’e-cat potrebbe produrre metano ?

saluti Occam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

The Sabatier reaction or Sabatier process involves the reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures and pressures in the presence of a nickel catalyst to produce methane and water. Optionally ruthenium on alumina (aluminum oxide) makes a more efficient catalyst. It is described by the following reaction:

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O

Dear Dr. Rossi

Can you tell us how much the output of the 10Kw e-cat can be modulated?

Can it produce just 1Kw?

How long would it take to ramp from say 2Kw to 10Kw.

Thanks

Tim

Dear Stefano Libardi:

1- The E-Cat is absolutely safe, does not emit absolutely any kind of radiation in the room: we made thousands of hours of tests. You can install with absolute safety an E-Cat inside your room.

2- There will never be any kind of gamma emission, but our control panel will detect any kind of radiation anyway, and in case of detection of any kind of radiation above the background will stop the E-Cat. But, again we never detected radiations above the background outside the E-Cat ( Background radiation is the radiation you have in your room right noew, coming from the Universe).

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear SK:

Your pre-order has been accepted.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Mr. Rossi,

Would you care to jot me down for a pre-order of 2 eCats?

Thank you so much,

SK

Dear Andrea,

I have been following you with great interest for almost one year now.

I apologize in advance if you answered already these questions:

1) My heater , as many others I guess, is not located in the basement but instead is inside my apartment. Will it be possible to use an e-cat or not, due to safety reasons (gamma rays, …)?

2) Is it possible to apply a gamma rays detector that could immediately stop the reaction in case of accidental external emission?

Cari saluti dal Trentino

Stefano Libardi

Dear Gio:

Nanosolar is not our Partner. We are studying also couplings with solr panels, also if they are not our main focus.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dejan:

Your pre-order has been accepted.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Hi Dr.rossi

I want to preorder 2 unita’e-cat 10 kw.

Regards Dejan

Dear ing. Rossi

i read your reply to roberto curto.

Is nanosolar Your partner or are you developing a system combined with solar panel?

Cordialità

Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi

May I pre-order 1000 eCats?

Firstly I will ask to send me 5 eCats. After selling them, I will ask more 10, and after selling them more 20… more 40… etc.

regards

Wlad

Dear Maximilian:

I cannot stay in Italy for long periods, we are preparing the factory in the USA.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dott. Rossi ,vista l’attuale critica situazione climatica in Italia perche’ non invita i sindaci dei comuni colpiti dal gelo per una dimostrazione privata?Vista l’efficacia potrebbero dotare i propri comuni del suo apparato anche per affrontare questi momenti critici per la popolazione.Per lei sarebbe anche una buona pubblicita’.

Saluti

Maximilian

Dear Dejan:

Yes, you can pre-order an E-Cat. You will be put in the waiting list and in Autumn you will receive a precise offer: at that point you will be free to cancel the order or confirm it.

The price will be between 500 and 700 Euro, without optionals. The electricity will not be available for the first 1-2 years. The deliveries could start within one year (could, not will).

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Salve Dr. Rossi

Io volevo sapere se era possibile ordinare l’e-cat? io vado per la full optional E-Cat (riscaldamento, acqua calda, elettricità )volevo inoltre sapere quanto sarà il prezzo e piu o meno qaundo potremmo riceverlo?

Saluti Dejan

Dear Harold:

Pre-order accepted.

The price will be between 600 and 800 US$.

The E-Cat will be able to be applied to any existing heater.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Mr. Rossi,

So if I understand the recent developments all correctly, the E-Cat has now the following credentials:

1. can be integrated into a existing home heating system

2. has an optional cooling/air-conditioning system

3. could also be expanded with a electricity generating system when this comes available

4. has now the possibility to generate hot water on demand directly or can heat a (+200 liter) boiler

5. the E-Cat is not very big and can be placed anywhere in your house, as long as there is running water, electricity and the possibility to ventilate

6. needs reactor replacement every 6 months or 180 days

7. can be used for desalination

8. is safe, does not omit CO2 and/or radiation and has no other waste

9. costs only around U.S. $500.— for a 10kw E-Cat and around $10.— for a refill of the charge which van be recycled

10. Wow! 😉

Well I hope this sums it up pretty much, I already pre ordered one through ecat.com hope this is still valid or otherwise I pre-order one now as well (perhaps 2), anyway I am going for the full option E-Cat (Heating, Hot water, Cooling and Electricity when it is ready)!

Good luck with your industrialization, I perfectly understand how difficult it is.

Kind regards,

Harold

@Robert Curto

Indeed the demand could be very big. Imagine if they will use e-cat LENR device powered by Nanosolar printed CIGS (Copper, Indium, Gallium, Selenium) solar panel. Like e-cat it is a “Made in USA” technology and may be it could be the most cost effective and clean solution for energy and heating your house.

Dear Michael,

Please check your typing, because I didn’t receive any.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dr. Rossi, I think the demand for E-Cats is going to be overwhelming.

In the USA there are 80 million homes.

Who is not going to want

a Electric E-Cat ?

More then half of the homes will want two Heat

E-Cats.

Plus how many small business places are there in the USA ?

i think you will need a few hundred million.

What about the other 200

Countries ?

You will not have to Advertise.

Word of mouth will take care of that.

When someone buys a E-Cat

and they save a ton of money, they will tell everyone they know.

Then these people will do the same.

You ar going to need a lot of help.

What about a Company like

Apple ?

They are sitting on 100 Bilion dollars CASH.

They know how to operate a Plant in China.

Why don’t you ask for their help ?

In each Country you could get a large Company

in that Country, to be your Partner.

Because of shipping costs

you will need Partners in many parts of the World.

Keep up the good work.

Robert

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Dear Dr. Rossi,

Could you please respond privately to my email inquiries sent to info@leonardocorp1996.com.

I have sent two emails and otherwise I have been unable to contact you.

Thank you and best regards,

Michael

Andrea Rossi; I wish to commend you for the great deal of information and patience you have shown here, as you work toward mass production of the ECAT. I am amazed that you have progressed at this speed and look forward to being in the vanguard of use of the 10kw device on my farm.

As to the noise makers that want early, public, University testing and publication, I say BUNK!! My partners, in a business, had trade secrets that a local University wanted to study and publish as well as wanted us to pay them! At least in our case the study of the finished product was of no help to them to reverse engineer the product, and we would not let them into our factory.

Keep up the good work sir. I learn a little more here every week from the posts and comments, pg

Dear Franco Morici,

I am very sorry to disappoint you again, but:

1- I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor: as you have seen, many attempts of copies have been made, and, even if most of them are just clowneries with a mock up, as the ones of the …Kolions, some are dangerous, like NASA’s. We will be safe only when we will be on the market with our E-Cats at a very low price, due to the robotized production line we are setting up in the USA, but until then we have to be ermetically closed.

2- We do not give anymore any information about the work we do regarding our R&D program and about with which University we do it. This is to avoid the storm of inopportune contacts that arrive wherever we go to work, really annoying because in great part orchestrated by the Puppetteers through their puppets. The highest level of comicity has been reached very recently, when a Puppetteer wrote me saying that , after the genial interview released from a Primadonna to a puppett of his, the same Puppetteer offered himself as a friendly and for free “validator” after the University of Bologna cancelled the R&D contract with us because we couldn’t pay 500,000 Euros for their work to be done.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Good morning Ing. Rossi,

I would like to know if during Your tests, below the shield of the reactor, were measured non-ionizing electromagnetic emissions.

This general data does not seem to me to be stricly confidential and being this Blog also a scientific one, I hope that the answer, even if brief, will be different from answer:

“I cannot give information regarding the operation of the reactor”

If I have understood well, You intend (within short time) to delivery an E-cat unit to the Bologna or Uppsala University to allow they to perform tests (I suppose only the calorimetric measures), when will be delivered?

Kind Regards

Franco

Dear JYD13:

Thank you,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr. Rossi

I’ve seen this product, it seems very interesting to produce electricity 1 to 15 KW

http://www.greenturbine.eu/en/product.php

Bravo for your wonderful work

Dear Italo R.:

Absolutely not, because all the activity inside the E-Cat lasts in 20 minutes, and the shut down time is 1 hour. We have strong evidence of this made in thousands of measurements. This will be clearly understood when I will give open explication of the “effect” that is produced in the E-Cat.

Every E-Cat will be supplied with 2 refill charges, one inside, one for spare: after 6 months the Customer will make easily the extraction of the used refill and put the new one, sending back to our local Agent the used refill; we will recycle it and give a new spare to the Customer, so that after the next 6 months he will repeat the operation. We are making inventions by the day on our E-Cat, and covering all by due patents. Meanwhile the factory with the robotized line is becoming a reality. We are making a big job, here in the USA.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Ing. Rossi only one question, thank you:

When I change the charge every 6 months, the “old” one is inert (no radiations), I suppose, as you have written many times.

The question is this: Are there inside that charge some kind of isotopes whose semilife is some hours after having pulling it out?

Thank you.

Italo R.

Dear Luca Salvarani:

The Class is not watery!

Thank you, wonderful thing.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Ok boss! The translation:

Dear Andrea Rossi,

1a) I think you have already answered to this question but I’m not sure to undestand it properly: When you will release a second generation e-cats, so able to produce also electric power with a 30% efficiency, could you set up them (3,4 … all the necessary ones case by case) to work as a “system” in such a way that the user doesn’t need to buy the electric power (very expensive expecially here in Italy) necessary to get warm? A system that produces itself the electric power necessary to get warm (expect the one necessary to start the first reaction) could dramatically lower the e-cat’s operative cost so no more electric power bills to run it but only energy sticks! This set up would have another great advantage: you can mantain the reaction at a certain level, without continuously speed and slow it down to march user necessities: this would allow a greater efficiency and, most importantly, the opportunity to get money from warm surplus simply turning it into electric power and sell it to the grid at good price (like so called “renewables” usually do) dropping further the e-cat operative cost!

1b) In your previous answer you have spoken about an unexpected efficiency improvement: is it related to COP or to electric power conversion?

2) You consistently pointed out a COP 6. I would like to know how easily (from an economic, technological and time point of views) it could be improved and your opinion about the opportunity to do so.

I don’t have a technical backgroud so I hope not to say non-sense… Thank you very much for all your hard work and good luck! Please inform us as much as you can, because we are rally eager to know and to experience this relovution!

Dear Luca Salvarani,

I beg you to rewrite also in English your question, so that our Readers, mainly Anglophone, will understand what we say. I can give answers which translate the sense of the questions if the comments are short, otherwise in this period it is very hard for me because I have really not time. We are preparing the manufacturing of the million E-Cats, with the very high burden that it generates, we have to manufacture the 1 MW plants, all in the USA, while I have to fly across the World to prepare the network for the sales…please you translate, I answer, I promise.

Well, while writing this I understand that I am disappointing you, so now I answer translating for you, but in future, please, if the comments are more than 3 lines be kind, translate them in English.

Answers:

1- Yes, it will be possible to power the drives of the E-Cat in series, to increase the efficiency, of course when we will able to produce efficiently elecric energy. But I want to say you one thing: today we met a Partner in the USA who will allow a tremendous increase of efficiency of the system. The beautiful of this Country is that when you wake up in the morning you never know what will happen new during the day.

2- the improvement of COP will make sense only if it will not jeopardize the competitivity, you are right. Thank you very much for your kind attention,

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Jeff Smathers:

Your information is interesting. If I will receive real proposals for apparatuses able to work industrially and ready to be coupled with our E-Cats, we will immediately buy such apparatuses, to test them.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Eng. Rossi,

as always I am promoting your system and enjoy investigating possible variations that may help you and others with this wonderful development. Please review the following scientific paper regarding Heat Transfer improvements using hexagonal boron nitride nano-particles.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-nanoparticles-thermal-properties-oil.html

Research in the lab of Rice University materials scientist Pulickel Ajayan, which appears in the American Chemical Society journal ACS Nano, could raise the efficiency of such transformer oils by as much as 80 percent in a way that is both cost-effective and environmentally friendly.

Gentile Andrea Rossi,

1) Le rivolgo una domanda che le è già stata fatta ma di cui non ho ben capito la risposta, probabilmente perchè un po prematura:

una volta spiluppato l’e-cat di seconda generazione in grado sia di produrre calore sia di produrre elettricità con un efficienza di circa il 30% sarà possibile configurare un certo numero di e-cat (3,4… quelli che servono caso per caso) come un “sistema-unico” in modo tale che l’energia elettrica necessaria a produrre il calore venga autogenerata direttamente dall’e-cat (al netto di quella usata inizialmente per avviarli)? Questo tipo di configurazione abbatterebbe notevolmente il costo-operativo dell’e-cat in quanto non servirebbe più l’energia eletrica pagata a peso d’oro ma verrebbe autoprodotta quindi basterebbero le ricariche energy sticks.. Inoltre consentirebbe di “monetizzare” il calore in eccesso trasformandolo in energia elettrica da cedere alla rete a buon prezzo… sul modello usato per le rinnovabili, potenzialmente annullando i costi operativi stessi dell’ecat senza dover dover continuamente velocizzare o rallentare la reazione.

2) Lei ha detto che il COP di 6 potrà essere migliorato in futuro. Volevo capire quanto è difficile questo miglioramento in termini di tempo, costo economico e complessità tecnologica (i fattori che immagino lei prenderà in considerazione prima di farlo).. è cioè un miglioramento relativamente “economico” da ottenere o 6 è una sorta di limite superiore?

Non sono un tecnico e spero di non aver scritto sciocchezze.. Cmq la ringrazio molto e le faccio un grosso in bocca al lupo! Mi raccomando ci tenga aggiornati perchè siamo in molti a seguirla e siamo tutti impazienti di avere notizie!

Dear Massimo:

Interesting, but not immediate. Now we are focused on the immediate goal to supply electric energy by E-Cats.

Very interesting, though, to be studied.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Andrea Rossi, if the energy produced by the E-cat is mainly radiation, did you think about direct conversion of radiation into electricity?

There are some promising technologies based on nano structures that could be potentially suitable to produce electric energy having more efficiency than the classic thermoelectric Rankine Cycle

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13545

Maybe the nano structures mentioned in this article and the materials used in your E-Cat could be even combined into a single structure suitable to produce long-lasting batteries.

Wladimir Guglinski,

A re-introduction of the concept of aether into physics would eliminate conflicting conclusions caused by SR. When Einstein abandoned aether for his SR, he committed a fatal flaw in not recognizing that SR depended upon Lorentz’s gamma factor in order to work properly. The beta factor (v/c) that is found within the gamma factor points to a universal medium for which ‘c’ is its characteristic speed. Lorentz, of course, was a believer in aether, and complained that Einstein would not have been able to derive the gamma factor from the perspective of an aetherless universe, and that that fact alone should be sufficient to negate SR. It is understood that, to combine conflicting postulates within the same theory is illogical and will lead to absurd consequences, e.g. the Twins Paradox. A Lorentzian Relativity, with mathematical relations adjusted from SR, is the ultimate solution, and had been attempted by the late Thomas Van Flandern.

P.S. Concerning your theory, have you considered the phenomenon of perihelion advance? Planets do not only orbit around the Sun in a helical manner, but also have their elongated orbit rotate slowly and steadily, as well.

Dear Tim:

Too low efficiency.

Thank you anyway for your kind will to help.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Dear Dr Rossi,

I came across a turbine that might be useful for the home e-cat. (It’s hard to find 2-3 kW turbines!) It was designed for ORC but can be modified for steam’s higher temperatures, etc. The company that sells them does consulting so they would be able to help adapt it to the e-cat.

http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/ITmini.html

It is about 3 inches in diameter, has one moving part, and since it uses a magnetic coupling it is completely sealed.

According to my electric bill I rarely use more than 300 Kwh/month or 10Kwh/day. Even with a COP of 6, the turbine could generate enough electricity to power the e-cat and a house. To handle peek demand, you would have to have a battery or be connected to the grid, but you would end up sending more power to the grid than you use.

Dear Joe,

actually it is missing the aether in Einstein’s relativity, which is the absolute referential at rest regarding which all the motions must be related.