by Marco Lelli
As it is well known a recent series of experiments, conducted in collaboration between CERN laboratories in Geneva and the Gran Sasso National Laboratory for Particle Physics, could have decreed the discovery of the transmission of a beam of super-luminal particles.
Experimental data indicate that the distance between two laboratories (approximately 730 km) was covered by a beam of neutrinos with an advance of approx 60 nanoseconds with respect to a signal travelling at the relativistic limit speed c (which takes a time interval of the order of 2,4.10-3 s to perform the way).
Neutrino beam starts from CERN and after travelling 730 km through the Earth’s crust, affects lead atoms of the OPERA detector at Gran Sasso laboratories. Production of neutrino beam is due by the acceleration and collision of protons and heavy nuclei. This event produces pions and kaons, which then decay into muons and νμ.
The initial energy of neutrino beam is 17 GeV and its composition is almost entirely due to νμ.
Publication of the OPERA experimental data immediately got a deep world mass-media echoes: the possible confirmation of the results of the experiment seems to imply an explanation leading to change our current thoughts about theory of relativity and, therefore, the intimate space-time nature. In this assumption c may not be considered a speed limit on the quantum scale investigation.
In this paper we try to show how the uncertainty principle and the oscillation in flavor eingenstates of neutrino beam may provide a possible explanation for OPERA’s data.
Our research assumes two basic hypotheses.
First approximation: approximation in number of flavor eigenstates (and then in mass eigenstates) within is supposed to play neutrino oscillation.
We consider this oscillation between two flavor eigenstates. Then we assume that each component of the neutrino beam can be described by a linear combination of two eigenstates of flavor. These two eigenstates are: μ flavor (the flavor of neutrino beam generation) and τ flavor.
Oscillations in this two flavor was already observed in first half of 2010 within the same OPERA experimental series.
Although, as it is known, the neutrino oscillation cover three mass eigenstates for its complete description, we assume here an approximation for dominant mass of neutrino τ, which reduces the description of neutrino propagation in a linear combination of only two mass eigenstates.
In this approximation we can now describe the propagation of each neutrino produced at CERN as a combination of two mass eigenstates as follows:
Flavor and mass eigenstates are related by a unitary transformation which implies a mixing angle in vacuum similar to Cabibbo mixing angle for flavor of quarks:
then
Second approximation: we suppose that propagation of neutrino beam is in vacuum. The propagation in vacuum is determined by the temporal evolution of the mass eigenstates
We can consider valid this assumption, at least in first approximation, because matter interacts in particular with νe and less with νμ and ντ.νe weakly interacts with matter by W± and Z° bosons while νμ and ντ only by Z° bosons. So the principal possible effect consists in a massive transformation of νe in the |νμ› eigenstate.
Considering the small number of νe in starting beam we can neglect this effect.
Assuming that in the initial state only νμ are present in the beam, through a series of elementary steps, we can get
then we can obtain the probability
In the approximation mμ « Eμ we can write
and finally the transition probabilities between eigenstates of flavor
νμ beam produced at CERN propagates as a linear superposition of mass eingestates given by the following relation
This superposition generates an uncertainty in propagating mass neutrino that grows over time and is equal to
This uncertainty in the mass eigenstates of the neutrino implies an uncertainty in the energy of propagation.
Given the relativistic equation
taking the momentum of propagation p=cost, the uncertainty linked to neutrino mass eigenstate is linearly reflected in an uncertainty in the propagation energy:
Therefore we have
Following the uncertainty principle we have
so the uncertainty (12), about the value of νμ energy of propagation, causes a corresponding uncertainty in its time of flight between the point of production and the point of arrival.
This uncertainty is expressed as follows:
In OPERA case available experimental data are:
Assuming sen²2θ12=1, in analogy with the value attributed to Cabibbo quark mixing angles, and a value for Δm12 ≈ 10-²eV ≈ 1,6.10-²¹ J we have
then
(14) shows that the advance on the propagation of neutrino beam, detected in the execution OPERA experiment, is between the range determined by the uncertainty principle.
The advance Δt is then interpreted by the uncertainty principle and the neutrino flavor oscillation during propagation. This oscillation implies an uncertainty in the neutrino propagation energy, due to the linear superposition of its mass eigenstates, which affects the uncertainty of its flight time.
According to this interpretation, therefore, the results of OPERA experiment, if confirmed, would represent not a refusal of the condition of c as a relativistic speed limit, but rather a stunning example of neutrino flavor oscillation according to physics’s laws known today (uncertainty principle and speed limit c).
The range indicated in (14) depends on the competition of two factors. On one hand, the intrinsic nature of inequality of the uncertainty principle, on the other our fuzzy knowledge of Δm12 between mass eigenstates of neutrinos with different flavors.
One of the most convincing experimental proofs of flavor neutrino oscillation is the lack of solar electron neutrinos measured experimentally respect to the theoretically expected flow.
OPERA, as well as other tests, was designed to observe possible flavor oscillation in a neutrino beam running along the earth’s subsurface. Any oscillation can be found by observing a change of flavor in a fraction of neutrinos in the arrive.
However, if this happens, neutrino mass eigenstate is described by a linear superposition of mass eigenstates of pure muon neutrino and tau neutrino.
This condition generates an uncertainty on the propagation energy, which translates into an uncertainty on the flight time.
This is directly proportional to the total flight time and the square of the difference between the mass values of the different flavors of neutrinos, while it is inversely proportional to the total energy of the beam.
In this interpretation, therefore, the advance of the flight time of the neutrino beam with respect to the velocity c, far from being a refutation of the relativistic speed limit, is a good demonstration of neutrino flavor oscillation.
So we could use the advantage Δt in an attempt to determine, more accurately, the value of Δm12.
On the other hand, examples of physical effects equivalent to a super-luminal propagation of particles are considered in other fields of contemporary theoretical physics. Hawking effect about the emission temperature of a Black Hole is, under this respect, a very significant example.
Cosmic neutrinos flavor oscillations. We can now consider what could be the value of the advantage Δt respect to the time of flight of c in the case of neutrinos coming, for example, from a SuperNova explosion.
In this case the average energy of neutrinos νe is of the order of 10^7 eV and the time of flight, for example in the case of SuperNova 1987a, of the order of 10¹² s.
Under these conditions we have
and it is conceivable that it may start a continuous sequence of oscillations in mass eigenstates.
The logical consequence of this situation is a superposition of two equally probable mass eigenstates.
We lose the information of to the initial state of the emitted neutrino along the way.
So the uncertainty in mass eigenstates exists with respect to the state of arrival of the neutrino and a mixing of mass eigenstates with the same probability equal to ½.
In this hypothesis we have
therefore an advantage Δt of approx six orders of magnitude lower than in the OPERA case.
Interpretation of the principle of uncertainty used above. The uncertainty principle is commonly intended as an aid to explanation for the impossibility of determining, by observation, contemporarily the position and momentum of a physical system, with absolute precision, because the one excludes the other.
Assuming this interpretation the uncertainty principle could explain , in the case of OPERA, a set of measures centered on an advance Δt=0 with a spread on the obtained measurement results in the order of (14).
In contrast, the experimental measurements provided by OPERA appears to be centered on a value of Δt ≈ 60 ns in advance respect to the time of flight of c!
Which explanation is therefore possible to give to the application of the uncertainty principle to justify the consistency of the data provided by OPERA with the fundamental laws of physics known today?
The most coherent interpretation seems to be as follows: the temporal evolution of the neutrino mass eigenstate introduces a temporal evolution in the state of total energy that interacts with space-time producing a reduction of the time of flight. This interaction has to be coherent with the uncertainty principle.
Energy gained or released by neutrino, during oscillation, must be released or gained by space-time, according to the principle of conservation of energy.
A more accurate explanation will require the introduction of some new hypotheses.
We suppose below that space-time possesses a quantized structure. We define a fundamental 1D string element that has the dimension of a length or a time. This fundamental element is a 1D vector in the 2D string wolrdsheet: we call this element the quantum of space-time.
To each 1D of space-time is associated a 1D energy-momentum vector (the total energy associated to a quantum of space-time) that is related to the module of the 1D quantum of space-time with a relation of constraint that we define below.
To introduce the basic unit of space-time we introduce the Polyakov 2D string action and we proceed to its quantization finding the 1D elementary quantum of space-time
Now we want to consider (17) in the limit n -> 1. The infinitesimal parameters dσ and dτ take the meaning of physically limit movement along, respectively, the spatial direction and temporal direction of the 2D string worldsheet.
We can call these limit movement as follows
Ω^x e Ω^0 take the meaning of quantum of space-time in space direction and time direction in the 2D string worldsheet.
Therefore, in this case, to each spatial direction of the elementary string element corresponds a temporal direction that, in a Minkowski’s manifold, is orthogonal to the space direction. The relation (18) binds the module of the element of string along the spatial direction with respect to temporal direction, in the case of a Minkowski’s manifold, and have the values lp and lp/c.
Double differentiation
appearing in (17) must now be rewritten taking into account that in a Minkowski’s manifold, for relations (18), we can write
then
Since it is possible to show that 2D string worldsheet action of Polyakov coincides with Nanbu-Goto action
given the relation
and because we have
In a Minkowski’s manifold we have:
Relation (23) was obtained in a Minkowski’s manifold: it is therefore valid in a region of space-time in which the action of gravitational energy is negligible. Under these conditions (23) defines a relation of constraint: the product of the 1D length of the fundamental string element (the length of the module of the quantum of space-time) and the 2D energy-momentum vector of 2D string worldsheet associated with this element is constant and equal to Planck’s constant.
2D energy- momentum vector Eν thus defines the expectation value of energy of empty space that corresponds to the amount of energy needed to increase string length of an element of length lp along ν direction.
Similarly we can define Eν as the 2D energy-momentum vector associated with the increase of a quantum of space-time along ν direction. For these reasons, in a Minkowski’s manifold, (23) takes the form:
valids in each quantum of space-time.
Calculation of the anticipation Δt in the time of flight. (24) can be written taking into account variations in the 2D string worldsheet fundamental element:
multiplying the two members is obtained the variational relation of least action for the elementary 2D string worldsheet:
so we have
and then
From (28) we obtain (13) and the result (14). In (28) the term is an appropriate constant of integration that take in to account vacuum fluctuations of energy of magnitude for the system under investigation.
Conclusions. Conducing our analysis in 2D we quantize the 2D Polyakov string worldsheet action, obtaining a constraint relation that relates 2D energy -momentum vector and the module of 2D elementary string element (the quantum of space-time).
We have therefore assumed that the neutrino flavor oscillation interacts with the energy associated with each element of the 2D worldsheet string (or the space-time) exchanging energy. This exchange is obeying the law of conservation of energy.
This kind of interaction does not require any hypothesis of fifth force, and may, on the contrary, be assumed of gravitational type, in the sense that the energy due to the neutrino mass eigenstates interacts with the energy of the elementary string element with an easy phase overlapping, just as it is with a gravitational mass.
We can therefore assume that neutrino, through the temporal evolution of its mass eigenstates, exchanges energy with space-time. This exchange causes a change, a contraction in the length of the 2D fundamental string element. Integration of this contractions along the path of neutrino flight produces as a result the observed advantage in the time of the flight.
The energy associated with each elementary quantum of 2D string worldsheet in a Minkowski’s manifold corresponds to the energy of empty space-time, ie the vacuum energy of the gravitational field in absence of gravitational source. The target of a forthcoming work will be to show how this vacuum energy is able to produce effects phenomenological equivalent to hypothesis of dark energy and dark matter under certain conditions.
Basing on the assumptions here introduced the same uncertainty principle, from first and irreducible principle of physics, assumes the rank of derived condition through (25) – (28) by a more fundamental principle that is (23).
References:
[1] B. M. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. Usp., 26 (1983) 1087.
[2] L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D, 17 (1978) 2369.
[3] S. P. Mikheev e A. Yu. Smirnov, Il Nuovo Cimento C, 9 (1986) 17.
[4] S. Braibant, G.Giacomelli, M. Spurio, Particelle ed interazioni fondamentali, Springer, 2010.
[5] J. N. Bahcall, “Neutrino astrophysics” (Cambridge, 1989); http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb
[6] http://www.arcetri.astro.it/science/SNe/sn1987a.jpg
[7] H. A. Bethe e J. R. Wilson, Astrophys. J., 295 (1985) 14.
[8] G. Pagliaroli, F. Vissani, M. L. Costantini e A. Ianni, Astropart. Phys., 31 (2009) 163.
[9] V. S. Imshennik e O. G. Ryazhskaya, Astron. Lett., 30 (2004) 14.
[10] W. Baade e F. Zwicky, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 20 (1934) 259.
[11] A.M.Polyakov, Gauge Fields and Strings, Harwood academic publishers, 1987.
[12] Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam, arXiv:1109.4897.
[13] F. L. Villante e F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. D, 76 (2007) 125019.
[14] F. L. Villante e F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. D, 78 (2008) 103007.
[15] M. A. Markov, “The Neutrino” (Dubna) 1963.
by Marco Lelli
Dear Mr. Rossi.
This info from Cern seems important.
http://alpha-new.web.cern.ch/
Please take care,
Br. Jouni
and … can anybody guess how much is the COP of a 15MWth(termal) E-cat-plant, in combination with a 15MWth Siemens turbine, and with an efficiency of 30% (self-sustained)??
2.5 Mw Output (electrical) / 0 Mw Input (electrical) = INFINITE electrical perfomance!
Thank you Mr Rossi.
PD.: thanks Daniel De Caluwé for your help explaining it
Dear Mr. Rossi,
A while ago, I ask about your test of your modules in series. You said that you have done it and it works. Today , you mentioned that it is more difficult. Can you explain where is the difficulty?
For example, if you allow the temperature increase of say ~10 deg per modules, I don’t see any difficulties using say 7 or 8 modules to raise the temperature to 100 C. You just adjust the water flow until the result is reached.
Now, for the big test, if you decrease the water flow until after the first few modules you already have 100 C, the the following modules will have to sustain higher pressure to keep the water from boiling but still increased its temperature up to whatever temperature a turbine will like to run from (after conversion to steam).
Just a though.
Dr Rossi,
1. In the MW plant, is every E-Cat automatous? That is, is every E-Cat fully independent with its own control unit?
2. If so, do the E-Cats communicate with each other in order to support each other when the need arises? Example: When an E-Cat is close to exiting the self-sustain mode and needs to be charged anew, does it put out a signal to the other E-Cats for help, and do they respond?
3. Must the E-Cats in the MW plant be turned off when refuelling every 6 months?
4. If so, will it be simultaneous (effectively shutting down the whole MW plant) or progressive (effectively leaving the MW plant running undisturbed)?
5. Will this be done manually by a technician, or are the E-Cats designed to load the fuel by themselves?
All the best,
Joe
Inductive/RF heating
The efficiency of inductive heating is probably low.
But if using diamagnetic capsule/enclosure – the ni-powder could be directly heated without heating the entire e-cat.
By using strong pulses the ni-powder could reach reaction temperature even with “cold” e-cat.
This would work out pretty fine if it´s possible to control the thermal coupling of the capsule.
An idea would be to have the ni-powder/ecat-capsule coupled with a layer of oil to the outer thermal exchange.
If you remove the oil – the thermal conductance to the ambient would be quite low with less energy needed to reach
reaction temperature.
Once reaction started, filling the coupling with oil would steadily increase the thermal coupling.
Which such setup you can decouple internal reaction temperature and external load temperature.
Additional, such “thermal cludge” would assist on controlling the e-cat.
rgds.
Caro Dott. Rossi,
in last days everybody in this website and other blogs is just arguing about e-cat power consumption (“too much”) and e-cat efficiency (“not enough compared to what expected”).
This is a pity. People do not realize any more the main aim of e-cat: no pollution (apart the one made in order to build it and the power to run it).
Take care always
All the best
matteo
Dear Mr. Rossi,
you wrote: “…The efficiency of inductive/rf heating is very low, as I tested…”
Of course, classical inductive heating is not too efficient.
However as some person (Frank) posted here in discussion some 8 months back,
in world exist prepared, tested, reliable and low-cost extreme breakthrough technology
called HephaHeat. This tech is fully operationally ready and has extreme high CoP.
CoP is something between 20 to 40.
Frank recommended this tech to You 8 months back including address, however Frank not wrote
here that folks behind this tech are exceptionally arrogant – they don’t talk even with customers
which they want. If You overcome this exceptional level of arrogance, your devices may have CoP
somewhere at 60 to 200 level overnight.
Their address again: http://www.hephaheat.com
I wish you good luck for the 15MW plant. The idea to use electricity made by a reactor to self-sustain himself is not new in nuclear technology. The ADS (Accelerator-Driven System) is a thorium sub-critical reactor where 1-2GeV proton beam is focused on lead-bismut cooled core. Such kind of system is much more expensive than an e-cat reactor and the core will became radioactive. The ADS is called “Energy-Amplifier” by Carlo Rubbia, italian nobel award of Physics, i wish good luck for Rossi’s “Energy-Catalyzer”.
Hold on! LavolaLe LavolaLe!
Dear Enzo Amato:
I understand perfectly that economic COP can be different fron energetic COP, and it is different along the different hours of the day, the different geographic locations, the different fare systems, the different kind of contracts…
You have cited an example where heat has a very low cost and electricity very high, but let me tell you that a machanic who is working with me in this very moment is paying for heat three times what you are saying and for electricity 2/3 of what you are saying.
I also would humbly dare to ask not to consider a 2.3 COP as if it is trivial. Please make some “epoche’ “.
Thank you for your kind attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Yes: the domestic E-Cats cannot sustain high temperatures, for example: no steam.
Warmest Regards,
A.R.
Dear Gustavo,
You are right, I did not understand. Sorry, but I have to answer to all in a very short time, so I make mistakes. Sorry.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Wolfgang Gaerber:
The efficiency of inductive/rf heating is very low, as I tested. If you hjave more adjourned info, please explain.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Marco:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Kev:
Yes, it is possible. Consider that we can put in parallel so many E-Cats we want, so once resolved the problem of reaching anough temperature to feed a turbine to obtain an efficiency of 30%, we can do anything, feeding with part of the electricity produced the E-Cats and selling the remaining electric and thermal power. If I am not wrong, that could be named “infinite energy”, couldn’t that ? We are working as beasts on this. Siemens gave us the key.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Helmut H.:
Thank you, very interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Daniel De Caluwe’:
We are working in that direction too.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Marco,
You are right, I was wrong.
Gustavo was right too.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Regarding Gustavo’s comment, I think that he thought of a 15MW E-Cat (Thermal) that requires 15/6=2.5MW electrical to work, producing 15MW thermal that inputed in a turbine would give 5MW electrical, with wich supply the E-Cat (once started) and then the excess power and heat could be used for other things.
@ Dr. Rossi,
1) You wrote: ‘Dear Gustavo:
Yes, but…how can I drive a 15 MW turbine with a 2.5 MW plant?’
I think Gustavo meant that with a 15MWth(ermal) E-cat-plant, in combination with a 15MWth Siemens turbine, and with an efficiency of 30%, you could produce 4.5MWel(ectric), from which you use 2.5MWel (= 1/6 of 15MWth) to feed your 15MWth E-cat plant. And this means that such a 15MWth E-cat plant (build with 1500 modules of 10kWth each), finally produces 2MWel netto, without the need to feed it with 2.5MWel from the grid, because this is done by the 15MWth E-cat-plant itself (via the Siemens turbine).
In this way, you could produce 2MWel netto, with a 15MWth E-cat plant, without needing electrical energy from the grid.
2) Although, in this way, a COP of 6 seems to be sufficient, I personally think that later, in a version 2.0, you better change the electrical heating (to maintain the reaction) by a thermal heating, heating the reaction chamber (with the Ni-powder inside it), with a fluid (water at higher pressure or steam or another fluid), that flows around the reaction chamber in a double-wall. You could do this by using a double-walled reaction chamber, where the Ni-powder is in the inside, and the heating fluid on the outside (flowing around the reaction chamber, between the two walls of the double-wall).
The advantage then is that you could use part of the thermal energy (that you produce with the E-cat), to sustain the reaction, and this without using electrical energy. So there probably are a lot of engineering possibilities to improve the efficiency of the E-cats?
Dear Ing. Rossi,
it was talked about the M10 connectors. Since i installed myself a wood-gasifier system with control and 2000 ltr. buffers i have become almost a plumber myself and i want to inform you of a problem about wood or coal heating systems and how it is solved:
In wood-heaters it must be avoided, that the incoming cold water is below ~65°C. Otherwise in the combustion chamber of the heater the air is condensing on the heat exchanger areas and in combination with the smoke aggressive substances are attacking the steel and destroying it.
Smoke is definately no problem with the E-Cat but since i don’t know, how the conditions for the heat exchanger within the reactor are, i wanted to mention this problem. Sometimes little things can cause big problems and big problems can be avoided easily, if they are discovered early.
You probably know about it anyway, but the problem with such heaters is solved with a short circuit and a valve between the flow (hot output of the heater) and the re-flow (“cold” water input). A three way valve mixes the hot water from the flow with the cold water from the reflow so that the resulting water-temperature that goes into the heater already is above the critical level. Long speech short: the cold water is pre-heated with hot water from the output.
Since we all hope that your units will have many, many years of operation, the threat of too high temperature gradients for a too thin, or too weak material in the highly stressed heat exchanger should not be overlooked.
Best regards,
Helmut
Dear Ing. Rossi,
Considering that a home-based E-Cat may not be ideally suited to all domestic situations. Is it possible (maybe within 10-20 years) that we could see large, muli-staged, self-sustaining E-Cat power plants that could replace nuclear power plants?
If built next to the existing nuclear reactor buildings, they could even maybe utilise the existing turbines/electicity distribution installations.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
One thing is not totally clear, can home ecat run with any power consumption granting a COP of 6 ? So that, for example, one can set it to produce 3Kwh thermal and ecat will consume 0.5 Kwh electric ?
All the best
Marco
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Have you ever thought about inductive/rf heating of the ni powder ?
This could help to reduce the thermal capacity and might simplify the design.
With such design you could introduce multiple chambers driven individually.
That would help to improve stability over the entire load range and might help
to bring the control power down.
Using such control scheme – it should be easier to realize a self sustained device.
Are there any “political” reasons to promote lower COP values ?
rgds.
Dear Mr. Rossi
I have said a 15 Mw steam plant with an input of 2.5 Mw can produce 2.5 electrical self sustained Mw
Thank you for all your work
Warm regards
Hi Andrea,
thank you for your answer. In the formula E = 6 x kWhe is of course true, but there is unfortunately the energy cost problem. Actually, for 1 KWh of electrical power you have to spend (here in Germany) about 24 eurocent. For 1 KWh of thermal energy (oil) the cost are of 92 eurocents/liter (=8,4 eurocents/KWh). Electrical power costs also 2,6 times oil power. In this case the (cost!) COP of the eCat is only 6/2,6 = 2,3. That is the reason why I think that the auto sustaining mode is critical for the success of the eCat. Will the home eCats have the possibility to work in this mode?
Saluti e tenga duro!
Enzo Amato
Andrea,
Until you robotize/(automate) production of 1 MW units and costs for the industrial models decrease, what are the advantages in buying a 1 MW plant that costs about $1.5M versus the cost of buying 100 – 10KW units @ about $800 per unit at a total cost of about $800K. Is there a size advantage, weight advantage, reliability advantage etc? Since the industrial version must have a much higher availability (e.g. 99% vs. about 10-20% for a home E-Cat) the industrial version has to have much higher standards.
Joseph Fine
Dear Tim Noakes:
We are using M10 now, I will pass your suggestion on to our hydraulic engineer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Joe:
1- a 1 MW plant is just an assembly of 100 10 kW modules
2- the max power we have per module is 10 kW
3- just under the melting point of nickel: if nickel melts, it is no more powder and immediately the E-Cat stops the operation. This is why it is intrinsecally safe.
4- at the melting point of Ni the output is zero, as explained in point 3. Below it, the energy produced is anyway 10 kWh/h.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Gustavo:
Yes, but…how can I drive a 15 MW turbine with a 2.5 MW plant?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Keith W:
I have learnt from your comment. We have to foresee an optional for these applications. Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Harold,
We must make electric power efficiently, otherwise we lose the advantage of the COP and the E-Cat makes no sense. The good new is that for the industrial plants, thanks to Siemens, I think we are very close to a wonderful stupendous thing. Wait and see.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Bob Norman:
You can put in parallel so many E-Cats you want. Series create troubles, not parallels.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Prof. Silvano Mattioli:
Why censor? Could the stupidities that are said about our work be turned into energy, we would be able to run all the high speed trains of Europe. Maybe they are a potential source of energy ( the stupidities, not the trains). They simply do not know what they are talking about, when touch our issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LfR37Z1YsvQ
SE ritiene il caso di pubblicare (censura comprensibile) le mando un LINK a cui sarebbe gradito un commento sul minuto 14 e successivi che La chiamano in causa … (Laser a raggi Gamma per innesco di ordigni nucleari tramite eccitazione di masse di uranio)
Silvano
Dear Mr Rossi
I plan on using several of your devices in parallel in a mobile application. Do you know of any reason I would have trouble in a shock and vibration application, as long as everything is secured properly.
Thanks,
Bob Norman
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Is it maybe possible to equip the E-Cat with a temporarily less efficient electricity generator as an in-between solution. So whenever the E-cat is not producing heat it still will produce some electricity as a kind of loop-back system where for each consumed electric kWH it also gives a percentage of electricity back.
So the average consumption than maybe can go down from 1.2 kWH towards 0.8 or less kWh and the E-Cat will also maintain its drive producing electric, meaning there would be no need to restart it again at 2.7 kWH.
And when the real solution comes available people can than recycle their low efficient ones for an upgraded high efficient version 2 electricity generating system.
For example I know that there are now also commercially available gas burners which produce electricity as well with a Stirling engine every time the gas-burner is activated.
Kind regards,
Harold
Dear Rossi
Previously you mentioned that the home e-cat will use the circulating pump of the existing heating system. It is common, at least in the UK but I imagine in other Euro countries too, to have a ‘combination boiler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_heating#Combination_boilers), that provides on demand hot water and heat for the central heating system.
These boilers are fully integral so it would not be possible to utilize the pump or motorized valves as they are within the boiler enclosure.
My question is, does the controller for your home e-cat provide controls for the circulating pump and opening and closing of the motorised valves to divert the closed heating loop to the hot water or central heating as required?
You have said that the 15 MW plant will be self-sustained utilizing part of the electric energy to drive the E-Cat modules and using the remainig thermal energy for heating.
Why don’t you think on a 2.5 MW self-sustaining electric plant with a Siemens 15MW turbine?
input 2.5 MW => E-Cat => Output 15 MW HEAT => turbine => 5 MW electric (30% efficience) ==> 2.5 to input + 2.5 MW remaining to output (more or less)
Dr Rossi,
1. What is the highest temperature that could be achieved in the reactor of the MW plant, just short of meltdown?
2. What would the output thermal power be at that temperature?
3. What is the highest temperature that could be achieved in the reactor of the domestic E-Cat, just short of meltdown?
4. What would the output thermal power be at that temperature?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I saw in a recent reply from you on this blog that the domestic unit has a M10 connections for the circulating water. I imagine that must mean no more than 8mm internal diameter for the water flow, allowing for fittings.
To get the required flow to remove the heat sat a fast enough rate from e-cat, isn’t there a risk that the central heating circulating pump may not raise sufficient pressure? In the UK, the circulating pumps often used raise only modest pressures, and 8mm diameter orifices will pose a substantial restriction.
I would have guessed something like M18 or 5/8″ BSP female would be safer…….
Dear Clauba,
This is a good question. If the water of the heating system, which is a closed circuit, is demineralized, it isbetter. Otherwise every 6 months is necessary a clean up.
Clearly, if the heat exchange surface is dirt the COP is affected, but not in substantial measure in 6 months, because we have put redundant heat exchange surface.
Good question, thank you.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Italo A.Albanese:
Thank you for your kind endeavour to help, but, as you know, we cannot give information regarding the operation of the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Two little suggestions for the next generation of e-cats.
1) Have you ever tried to use a nickel-chromium alloy instead of pure nickel? It should withstand a higher temperature, and could be used in a gas (better, hot air) turbine generator. E-cat jets, maybe?
2) If you substitute the metal powder with a porous block of Ni-Cr (made by sintering), you can heat it simply by passing a current in it. If you need pure nickel for e-cat reaction, the porous heat-resistant metal could be used as a scaffolding for a pure nickel layer.
Best regards,
Italo A.
Dear Mr. Rossi
What would happen to your 10 kW device if the residual limestone obstructing the space between the fins of the heatsink?
would reduce the COP?
if so …
we need your service? … or we need to change the device?
Best Regards
Dear Rob:
Other reason, confidential.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
You explained that it takes approx. 1 hour to start the E-cat process.
Why does it take one hour:
– due to low heat conductivity from heater to core?
– because the process has a slow avalanche response?
– other reason?
Dear Enzo Amato:
You must keep always in mind, when it turns to calculate the convenience of the E-Cat, the following formula:
E = 6 x kWhe
Wherein
E = thermal energy produced, expressed in thermal kWh (kWht)
kWhe = electric energy consumed, expressed in electric kWh (kWhe)
Of course you must consider that it takes 1 hour to turn on the E-Cat, so if you use the E-Cat only for few hours per day, the convenience of the E-Cat will be low.
Of course the convenience is different in the different situations: it depends on the usual fuel of the Customer, on his consume of heat, on the price of is location.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Franco:
1- yes
2- yes
We made thousands of trials, with all metals and many kind of gas and mixtures of the same.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
If You allow, I would submit You a couple of questions.
Many scientific articles have been published on LENR research. Majority part of studies have been conducted on Palladium-Hydrogen systems.
As know Your system is based on use of different elements anyway, just as curiosity:
a) Have the E-Cat been tested using mixed Nickel-Palladium powder?
b) Did You try E-Cat performance in case of Deuterium added to the Hydrogen gas loaded into the reactor?
Congratulation for Your valuable work.
Best Regards
Salve ing. Rossi,
will the home ecats ever work in self sustaining mode?
I think this would be very critical for the success of the system. If not, the cost saving to heat the house would be indeed very good (about 50%) but not astounding. For my house e.g. I spend at moment about 250 €/month for the oil. With the information I got here I would need about 16 KWh electric power per day (and no more oil). At the actual prices this is about 120 €/month. This is of course good, but I thought that it would possible to reduce the costs “near to zero”. With this money, I could theoretical heat the house today using ovens with wood (wood costs about the half of oil). To amortize the whole (estimated) installations costs of the new system I would need about 5-7 years.
Grazie per la risposta
Enzo Amato