.
by
F Henry-Couannier
Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille
July 1, 2012
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Abstract
We investigate whether Dark Gravity theories (DG) with two conjugate metrics gμν and g‾μν =ημρ ηνλ gˆρλ where ημρ is supposed to be a background non dynamical and flat metric or an auxiliary field, actually predicted the occurrence of apparently superluminal propagations (from our metric side gμν point of view) such as the one recently reported by the Opera experiment. We find that indeed such theories could predict the order of magnitude of the superluminal velocity and even explain the apparent conflict with the SN1987 normal neutrino speeds provided the neutrinos are able to oscillate between the two conjugate metrics while propagating in a dense medium. We then explain the theoretical motivations and explore all possible phenomenological consequences of the field discontinuities naturally expected in some Dark Gravity theories. Since the Opera result was not confirmed, these discontinuities do not actually allow a propagation of neutrinos oscillating between the two conjugate metrics.
.
Read the whole article
Download the ZIP file
.
Mr Ashworth
I mean to see if the system is able to give more energy than it has when it starts,because it seems to me another version of magnetic engine(that cannot give more energy than the energy gave to start it).
Regards G G
Steven N Karels:
As you know, I do not give information about what happens inside the reactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
If there is no long term radioactivity within the eCat reactor after a run, does this therefore preclude the reaction using 58Ni + H -> Cu59 (half-life = 81.5 sec) which decays to 59Ni which is radioactive and has a very long half-life?
But you have said that the Ni + H -> Cu is a secondary reaction. Therefore, can we not conclude that some of the Ni isotopes, but not 58Ni, can change to copper? Comments?
Giovanni Guerrini, Regards your question did I try to get the machine to produce work. I presume you mean drive a generator. No I did not. I believe that for it to be able do that you would need a greater mass than a small rod. What I believe could be done is float a large treated rod on a bed of murcury inside a covered plastic dome in a desert where there is plenty of sunlight. This type of machine requires light. It also responds to the energy of a person when a person comes into close proximity or a source of heat. Regards Eric Ashworth
Bob:
1- we are trying to increase the power density
2- same as in 1
3- maybe
Warm regards,
A.R.
Andreas Moraitis:
Too soon to answer. We are making studies on this issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thanks, Steven — good point.
Carbon sequestration seems to be a very onerous way to cut emissions — much easier to do away with the carbon producing fuel source, and move over to the E-Cat.
So maybe government regulations will hasten E-Cat adoption.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Although it is a good idea to retrofit existing power plants with your technology, it would presumably take decades to realize this on a global scale. There will still be a huge number of conventional power plants in 20 or 30 years. Would you consider it possible to increase the efficiency of these plants by adding an E-Cat reactor system to the feedwater heater? If yes, you could offer a “plug and play” solution, which can be installed without the need for major modifications.
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Dear Andrea Rossi
1. Can you tell us whether the size of the ecat has remained the same or whether it increasing or decreasing in size for the same measured output?
2. Has the weight of the ecat remained the same or whether it is increasing or decreasing for the same measured output?
3. Have you found improved materials for components of the ecat which affect size or weight?
Thank you
Frank,
Im my opinion, the conversion to eCat technology for coal-firecd electricity production plants will be more driven by the need to upgrade the plants to meet carbon emission reduction requirements. These modifications are estimated to increase electricity costs by between 60% and 80% of current price.
So it is a complex problem and more than a simple cost of fuel saved averaged over so many years. The carbon sequestration technology is not mature and may not be so for another 10 or 20 years. Yet governments and consumers are demanding carbon emission reductions. I think this will be the driving force for LENR insertion into electricity plants.
Frank Acland:
To answer specifically to this question we need to complete the R&D and validation in course and, as you know, testing does not depend on me either for timing or for results.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
If an existing power station were to transition from coal power to hot-cat power, in your estimation, about how long would take for the investment to pay for itself?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
John L:
Because we are convinced that the market will demand also the retrofitting and because the safety certification of domestic utilization has not yet been granted. We cannot make only plans based on suppositions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N Karels:
You recall correctly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
A few years ago you stated that no radioactivity escapes the eCat and that the charge, after a reaction, is radioactive for only a short time period (minutes as I recall). Is this statement still true with your current eCat technology. Please clarify.
Andrea,
Given the distributable nature of LENR, why are you committing to retrofitting power stations and therefore the need of the expensive grid systems – expansion, maintenance… ?
Frank Acland:
1- to be studied and experimented
2- three-generation in the power generators field of application means production of electric power, heat and air conditioned.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
John Atkinson:
I like very much the South of the USA.
The following step , if the results of the R&D and validation will be positive, will be the industrialization of the manufacturing.
The timing will be as short as possible, as long as necessary to work well.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Orsobubu:
You got it, supposing I will be interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
>”Please allow me to teach to you an important, scientifically supported, evolutionistic bio-phylosophical principle”
hahaha this one is really good 🙂 !!
I hope that, when you will be less busy, you can spent your time touring the world for vacation and also a little bit addressing lectures and conferences, so many of us common people can meet you and hear incredibly interesting and amusing stories and lessons from your life experiences. Please never forget the world strongly needs your help and your words in the battle against nuclear fission and hot fusion too.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Let me first welcome you to the south. I live just outside of Atlanta Ga. in Newnan and have been following your extraordinary quest and perfection of the E-cat for several years.I can not wait until the day is upon us when the first e-cat is unveiled
for the whole world to see and use.
My question is, after the testing is hopefully finished in March and the review process vetted by the the team and published with a favorable review (assumed),say by September of 2014,what is you best guess as to what will follow? I realize you are apart of the R&D but surely you have some insight as to the next move–marketing,application and timing.
all the best John
Dear Andrea,
You wrote: “If we will be able to get positive results, the ranges of temperature will be enough high to allow gas turbines or very good efficiencies with the Carnot cycle, especially in co-generation or three-generation assemblies.”
1. Did you mean that if you get positive results, you will be able to use hot cat energy to drive turbines that are already installed in power plants (gas and coal)?
2. What is meant by ‘three-generation assmblies’?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Buongiorno ing. Rossi,
ritiene attuabile a breve termine (giorni, mesi?)un impianto ecat autosostenuto?
Buon lavoro
Hello ing. Rossi,
considered feasible in the short term (days, months?) a self-sustaining system ECAT?
good work
Pietro F.
Frank Acland:
I hope so.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
It seems plusible that the primary energy reaction within the eCat could be Hydrogen + Deuterium produces Helium-3 + 5.49Mev of energy. One of your previous reports indicated an eCat charge mass of 20 grams. This means there are sufficient H&D atoms including the 1:6200 D:H ratio to sustain a 10kW output for many months.
For example, an eCat continuously outputting 10kW for 6 months would generate 9.7E+17 Mev of energy which would require the combining of 1.8E+17 H&D pairs, under this proposed scheme. One gram of such a fuel would include about 3E+18 Deuterium atoms.
Dear Andrea,
It’s interesting that you mention retrofitting coal plants, since there were reports of Industrial Heat investors visited China last year, where coal power plants have been causing a lot of pollution problems. I would think that the Chinese would be happy to replace their coal power plants with hot cat generated electricity. Do you think this would be possible someday?
Best wishes,
Frank
Bernie Koppenhofer:
Yes, retrofitting coal plants in particular .
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Steven N Karels:
1- I cannot give information about our fuel
2- depends on the quantity and on the production system
3- same as in 1
4- confidential
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
It has been sometime since we discussed “fuel” preparation. A few questions:
1. Do you use natural Hydrogen (Deuterium is neither added nor removed)?
2. For a production situation, how long does it take to prepare the fuel (hours, days, weeks)?
3. To what level of Hydrogen loading is required to operate the eCats?
4. The Nickel powder obviously is coated with oxides when you receive it. How do you strip off the oxide layer?
Dr. Rossi, you said “temperature will be enough high to allow gas turbines or very good efficiencies with the Carnot cycle”. Many are speculating the logical market for the Hot Cat is retrofitting existing inefficient power plants, do you agree?
Andreas Moraitis:
The term cold fusion makes sense in reactions wherein there happens a fusion. In general, I think LENR is more appropriate.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Would you say that the term “cold fusion” – independently of what happens in the E-Cat – is still an appropriate description for some of the known effects?
Best regards,
Andreas Moraitis
Dear Hank Mills:
Please allow me to teach to you an important, scientifically supported, evolutionistic bio-phylosophical principle: “the mother of the imbeciles is always pregnant”. As you correctly write, I repeatedly wrote, said that we do not use radioactive materials of sort, do not produce radioactive materials of sort, but, nevertheless, you will always find an imbecile saying the contrary. Never mind.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I apologize for the cold fusion or LENR researchers who, despite your very clear statements, continue to propose that you utilize radioactive elements in the E-Cat. You have made it clear, a hundred times over, this is not the case.
Dear Researchers,
Andrea Rossi has made it clear there are no radioactive substances in the E-Cat. This includes beta emitters and Ni-63 becsuse they are radioactive. Please stop spreading false information that is totally opposite of what we know.
@ Mr Ashworth, Dott Gunglinski
Did you try to see if the machine is able to give work ?
Regards G G
Andrea Calaon:
You must put a distinction between measurement of energy and production of energy. Obviously for the industrial production of energy we need a heat exchanger of some sort. We are experimenting turbines as well as the classic Carnot cycle. We will publish the range of temperatures we are reaching in stable operarions as soon as the R&D and validation in curse will have been completed. If we will be able to get positive results, the ranges of temperature will be enough high to allow gas turbines or very good efficiencies with the Carnot cycle, especially in co-generation or three-generation assemblies.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
it has been some time since this question came first to my mind. It is about electricity generation with a gas turbine.
I will make a short introduction.
In order to raise the gas temperature up to 600 [C] for feeding the turbine you will probably need an array of cylindrical modules, among which the gas flows, so that only a tiny part of the heat is dispersed. If the surface temperature of the modules can reach more or less stably, let say 1000 [C], the amount of heat exchanged by radiation is far greater than that exchanged by convection. The amount of thermal energy that the modules can then transfer to the gas flow depends critically on the Infra Red absorption capability of the gas. The most common gases that can absorb efficiently infra red radiation are water and carbon dioxide. The absorption depends on the depth between the radiating surfaces, the partial pressure, … this is common reheating-furnace theory …
Now my question.
In working conditions (turbine plant running) the forced flow of colder gas that becomes warmer extracts an amount of energy that is far greater than the energy a single module could, alone in a room, “radiate to the ambient”; where the ambient is mostly dry and without CO2 (normal air).
Controlling the temperature in presence of prevailing radiation exchange (that depends on the fourth power of the temperature and is highly influenced by view factors) is much harder in “radiation to ambient” conditions than with a CONTROLLABLE intensely absorbing forced flow that crosses the array of modules.
Are you still testing and measuring the module capabilities in low heat flow conditions, namely, in the “radiation to ambient” conditions?
Due to the prevailing radiation heat exchange it is impossible to have stability of the modules in cases of absence of forced gas flow (gas heating system malfunctioning or something like it). In other words it is impossible to have modules with “passive” safety, like generation III nuclear plants. In an array the modules left without gas flow would anyway overheat if they were delivering full power.
My guess is that you should as soon as possible (may be you have already, …) start testing and optimize the modules in forced water vapour or carbon dioxide flow conditions, and use the forced flow as a means to control the temperature. It would be much simpler because the heat you can extract can rapidly change from 0 to the maximum amount.
Best regards and good luck!
Andrea Calaon
Wladimir, Regards comment 56 rpm. No I do not have a video but the experiment is very easy to duplicate. The rod was approx 8 inch in length and 1/4 inch in diameter. Mounted on spindle that was kept upright in an alluminum drinking water container. Weighted with sand to keep it upright and immersed in a container of water. The experiment was done in Queensland that gets a lot of sun. The rod was spun at red heat at I guess 3,000 rpm. It has an interesting magnetic field that can be mapped using iron fillings. My own feelings are that the Earth is composed of 4 dimensions/potentials like pendant drops with two powers at each end. One of the four sank leaving three. I must repeat, it does make for an interesting experiemnt that could lead into other areas of research. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Eric Ashworth wrote in February 16th, 2014 at 4:21 PM
In Australia the rod spun at approx 56 rpm., in Canada approx 14 rpm.
——————————–
COMMENT
Eric,
56 rpm is almost 1 rotation per second, which is very fast.
dont you have a video ?
regards
wlad
Herb Gillis:
As you know, I cannot give information regarding what happens inside the E-Cat, either in positive or in negative, so far.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir, I had never heard of the Figueiredo motor but I have investigated magnetism with regards the interaction of the exterior energy of the environment both in Canada and Autralia. In Australia there is far more exterior energy available. Here is a motor that anyone can make using a rod of any metal (steel being the best). Heat a metal rod to red heat and centrifuge it along its lenght until cold (I used an electric drill). Now you have a highly active magnet that responds to the energy of the environment (I call this type of magnet a centroid because of its displaced field in variance to its mass and by which it becomes centripetal in activity. Float spindle in water.You use a bottle weighted with sand to keep the spindle upright. Mount the rod so that it is able to spin in the same plane as when centrifuged. In Australia the rod spun at approx 56 rpm., in Canada approx 14 rpm. Depends on the time of year and available energy. You can mount multiple rods and run a wire from the north poles to the souths to simulate a ‘lay line’. The motor will rotate with nutation like the Earth. I found that where the energy enters the rod this was the north pole. The northern lights I think is due to fusion of this energy, where the energy exits the rod is the south pole which displays fizzed energy. Could the working of a magnet be due to the geometry of its field. The circumferential field is always longer than the internal diametrical and thereby locked into a state whereby the energy is compressing at the north and expanding at the south or you could say emptying and filling with unequal capacity of particles “g”/magnetrons. Anyway could be something to study to help understand environmental energy. Regards Eric Ashworth.
Dr. Rossi:
Do you think it might be possible to increase the energy output of an LENR device by increasing the concentration of those isotopes of either nickel or palladium which have a non-zero nuclear spin (ie. Nickel-61 and/or Palladium-105, respectively)? Have you every noticed any relationship between energy output and nuclear spin?
Kind regards; HRG.
Steven N Karels:
The use of hydrogen in the form of the deuterium isotope is well known and experienced, since F.P. experiment of 1989. Maybe that experiment can be considered, if true, an indipendent reproduction of the effect described in my patent of April 2008.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
The energy that would be coming from the Sun would have to be in discrete amounts since that is the way that energy is organized in Nature. Therefore, the primary influence that the Sun would have in neutron creation or decay would lie in the Sun’s providing these energy packets, which would also just happen to be neutral and contain the same energy as neutrinos or antineutrinos, to the p + e systems here on Earth. Logically, one of either neutron creation or decay would involve the absorption of these neutral leptons; the other would necessarily involve the release of neutral leptons. If each involved only the release of neutral leptons, the Sun’s influence could only be secondary (magnetic, gravitational, etc).
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I read about the results of an experiment of a NiH LENR reaction where they essentially doubled the excess power output but adding more Deuterium than what is found in natural Hydrogen. You might consider an experiment.
Steven N Karels:
About the theoretical limits: I meant that there is not a theoretical limit to the quantity of modules of E-Cats that can be combined to reach any power limit you need. I missed the fact that you wanted to know about a “single” E-Cat, sorry. My mistake.
About your questions:
1- a possibility yes, a reality no
2- yes
3- as a matter of fact, I do not see why so many modules cannot be combined in an assembly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I hope you can understand my misunderstanding…
I asked “Is there a theoretical limit on how large or massive a single eCat reactor might be?”
And you responded “No”, which I took to mean there was no theroetical limit.
Your later response clear states (I think) there is a theoretical limit to eCat operation.
You previously referenced a 100kW eCat reactor design
1. Is the 100kW eCat reactor still a possibility?
2. Could we expect the possibility of a 10MW eCat unit?
3. With such a unit and the previously envisioned 2.5GW thermal source, this could be implemented with an ensemble of 250 each 10MW eCat units to power a 1GW electrical power generation station. Do you see this as a possibility?
The Figueiredo Motor working in my experiments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er-BmzbeWec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCHXMktiNsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRAY_LY3q_c
Joe wrote in February 12th, 2014 at 5:41 PM
Wladimir,
Even if the neutrino and antineutrino were massless, they would still need energy given to them by the p + e system in order to be formed and to propagate.
But since each of the neutron and H atom have a fixed energy associated with them, a constant leak of energy from the p + e system as it fluctuates between neutron and H atom states is logically not allowed.
Energy may be allowed to leave, but energy must be allowed to enter as well in order to maintain the equilibrium of fixed energies. And energy that enters must necessarily be in the form of either a neutrino or an antineutrino that exists in the environment.
———————————————
Joe,
you are reasoning classically, by taking the system n=p+e as a closed system.
Such sort of reasoning is that same classical wrong way used by the academic physicists, who claim that cold fusion is impossible, because they use to consider a close system.
The system n=p+e is not closed.
And cold fusion is not a closed system either.
There is energy comming from somewhere outside of the system.
I think that such energy comes from the Sun.
The Figueiredo Motor works without any known source of energy.
See Figure 8 in the link bellow, and read the item 2, entitled gravitational influence
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_magnet_motors_work
I built a Figueiredo Motor some years ago, and I saw it working:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br3jqrhyzYQ
regards
wlad
Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you for your kind comment. Yes, the IP has been transferred to a team. I think I am no more indispensable, but surely I am useful. About what I will do eventually, it is too soon to think about that. So far I have no time for anything else.
Warm Regards,
A.R.