United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

Read the whole US Patent
Download the ZIP file of US Patent

40,511 comments to United States Patent US 9,115,913 B1

  • Walter Oggioni

    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    I studied carefully this paper
    and I discovered that the formation of the coherent charge clusters that generate the zero point energy is reached inside the plasma if the critical electrons density threshold is reached.
    Did I understand well ?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for your information,
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Some additional facts on the Tesla Semi
    1. Battery System is an 800 VDC system.
    2. Standard range uses 600 kW Battery system.
    3. Longer range version uses a 1 MW Battery system.

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The following is known (from open reports):
    1. The Tesla Semi has delivered 100 Semis to Pepsico and the Pepsico Semis are in daily use.
    2. There are open orders for the Tesla Semi of 4,000 units.
    3. 2025 production is expected to be 10,000 to 15,000 units.
    4. by 2027, annual production is estimated to be 30,000 units.

    The major uncertainty for possible Tesla Semi purchasers is the lack of Semi charging infrastructure. The Tesla Semis require a different supercharger than the Tesla cars.

    If eCat technology was added, the Semi infrastructure issue goes away.

    The Tesla Semi is large enough to accommodate a 100 kW eCat SKLep NGU unit. If you make the product (and it really works), they will come.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    On the Tesla Semi posting — the questions were rhetorical. I answered the questions myself through the subsequent analysis.

    I see no substantial difference in charging an EV automobile battery system on a racetrack with charging a Tesla Semi during its normal driving schedule.

    If each Tesla Semi requires a 100 kW eCat charging system, then each Tesla Semi would require 1,000 100W units. If Tesla sold 1,000 of these eCat-equipped semis, your 1 million 100W sales objective figure would be realized.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for your insight; I am not able to answer your questions before experimenting specifically this sector of market,
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    The Tesla Semi is now on the roads. It features an electrical efficiency of 2 kW-hrs per mile. US Commercial Driving regulations require no more than 13.5 hours of driving time per 24-hour period – 1/2 hours of a mid-drive break + 10 hours away from the vehicle.

    The average speed for interstate trucks is reported to be about 60 miles per hour (mph) on long interstate travel. The fastest section of interstate has a speed limit of 75 mph while most interstate routes have a speed limit of 70 mph or lower.

    The Tesla Semi is offered with a 300-mile range or a 500-mile range battery system.

    The Tesla Supercharges cost $0.26 USD per kW-hr.

    So, I pose the questions:

    1. What level of eCat technology onboard the truck would be required so that no supercharger charging would be required?
    2. What pay-back time will be required in savings to equal the acquisition cost of the eCat equipment?

    Onboard battery capacity: for the 300-mile range – 600 kW-hrs; for the 500-mile range – 1,000 kW-hrs of battery capacity

    Energy required: 13.5 hours * 75 mph * 2.0 kW-hr/mile = 2,025 kW-hrs

    Assume 24 hours charging time per day (i.e., continuous charging) = 2,025 kW-hrs / 24 hours = 84.375 or about 85 kW output.

    Assume a 100 kW output is provided and that it is 90% efficient in charging yields an effective rate of 90 kW.

    At the end of 14 hours of travel (13.5 hours driving plus 30-minutes of break time), the energy consumed will be 2,025 kW-hrs – 14 hrs * 90 kW = a deficiency of 315 kW-hrs, which is covered by the onboard battery systems (600 kW-hrs or 1,000 kW-hrs).

    During the non-driving times (10 hours), the onboard battery is fully recharged.

    If the eCat was not present, the 2,025 kW-hrs supercharging would cost 2,025 kW-hrs * $0.26UUSD per kW-hr = $526.50 USD per day.

    At 100 kW output and $2.50 USD per Watt, the equipment cost will be $250,000 USD. It would take 474.8 days of operation to breakeven. Assuming 4 days per week of usage, this equates to about 120 weeks or less than 3-years of operation. The 4-days per week is in keeping with the 60/70 rule that limits total driving time per week.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for your suggestion,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Not the fundamental operations, but the evolution of the theoretical insight, matured through the experimental activity, the eventual analysis and discussions made by our Team..
    Warm Regards,

  • Harry

    Hi Dr Rossi,

    I hope you don’t mind me asking, but does the paper http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
    explain the fundamental operation of all E-Cats dating back the the ordinal water heater ?

    Many thanks,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Yet Another Application of eCat technology

    Luxury Electric Boats

    There are a number of boat manufacturers that are offering luxury electric boats and yachts.

    They are limited in electric range. Some have solar, hydrogen, or fossil fuel augmentation to charge the batteries to increase range.

    An eCat solution could be used to either:

    1. provide full charging for all electrical needs, giving unlimited range, OR
    2. provide power for non-electric motor – lighting, airconditioning, etc. Which could be used to charge the onboard batteries when excess capacity is available.


  • Andrea Rossi

    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    ELVIRA Jean Claude:
    I think that all the energy source that do not need fossil fuels must be exploited in an integrated system,
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Open Discussion on use of eCat SKLep NGU for Solar Panels

    There has been much discussion on the use of NGUs with currently installed solar panels and what the best configuration would be. The two “camps” are: direct illumination by light energy coming from the NGU unit(s); and supplementing the solar panel produced electrical energy by NGU unit(s).

    In either case the electrical energy would be received by conversion equipment that normally converts the solar panel DC energy into more useful AC power.

    There are at least two types of conversion units: Micro-Inverters and String Inverters.

    Micro-Inverters (e.g. Enphase IQ7 or IQ8) receive DC power from one solar panel. They work in parallel with similar micro-inverters units on a string of solar panels, usually under 13 solar panels, and they tie directly to the electrical grid, through a circuit breaker. Multiple strings can be run in parallel as needed. Each micro-inverter can accept a maximum DC voltage of 50 VDC or less and they will operate with the solar panel until its DC voltage drops below some level (typically around 18 VDC).

    In the micro-inverter configuration, the solar panels are usually mounted on a rack structure and the solar panel output cables connect to the micro-inverter which is mounted beneath the solar panel. Another cable runs between adjacent micro-inverters carrying the AC power.

    String Inverters (e.g. Tesla Solar Inverter) receive DC power from a serial string of solar panels. The string inverter has a maximum input voltage around 500 VDC. The DC current is determined by the lowest current coming from any one solar panels in the string (e.g., due to shading. etc.).

    In the string inverter configuration, there are multiple solar panels, usually on a rack system, and the solar panel DC cables are connected to each other in a serial manner, with the ends of the string connecting to a junction box with wiring going to the string inverter usually located in another location (e.g., a garage or basement).

    In both of the above types of inverters, each inverter does MPP – Maximum Power Point tracking. The inverter adjusts its input parameters to maximize the total power received (V x A).

    The specifications for the SKLep unit indicate a maximum serial connected voltage limitation of 240 VDC.


    The SKLep NGU appears to be capable of outputting either DC electrical energy, or optical energy, or, perhaps, both. We know from the SKLep specifications that a single module can nominally produce 12 VDC with sufficient amperage to produce 10W and they may be combined in series and parallel, up to the maximum serial output voltage. What we do not know is what it the output of the optical energy (light) in terms of power, temporal characteristics (flickering), and its spectral content.


    Assume an existing array of solar panels which we wish to augment using SKLep NGU technology.

    In a micro-inverter configuration, the NGU unit(s) would need to be near the solar panel, likely mounted beneath the solar unit, and supported by the racking system. This would require personnel to disassemble the solar installation, lifting the solar panels, and installing the necessary units, and then re-installing the solar panels, etc. This would be required for each solar panel.

    In a serial inverter configuration, the NGU unit(s) might be installed at the string inverter location. Likely, a DC-to-DC isolation power supply would be required because of the 240 VDC limitation on the SKLep units. Some form of diode protection would be required so that NGU-generated energy does not flow to the solar panel string (at night). In this option, it might be more cost effective to get rid of the solar panel input and run the serial inverter only from the SKLep generated power.

    In this approach, I suggest that some type of bolt-on box containing the NGU units is placed over each solar panel with a reflective mirror over the solar panel. With a crane or similar support, the units could be placed over each solar panel without disassembling the solar panel array. The solar panels would simply be continuously illuminated. They would provide continuous power to their respective micro-inverter or serial inverter.

    The assumption is that the NGU produced optical energy is equal to or less than that which would be provided by direct sunlight. If it was greater, than the conversion equipment might be damaged or, at least, work with less efficiency.


    If the Optical approach works, it is easier to implement and can be employed regardless of whether the electrical conversion is a micro-inverter or a serial inverter.

    If the Optical approach does not work, then two variants of units would likely be required. One for the serial inverter configuration and another type for the micro-inverter configuration.

    For new systems, the direct NGU feed to serial inverters and to not deploy solar panels seems to be the best solution. But given the task of supplementing existing solar panel systems, the Optical approach looks the best.


  • ELVIRA Jean-Claude

    Bonjour Dr ROSSI

    Je me permets de vous poser une question…En France notre gouvernement prévoit de construire des centrales nucléaires EPR …Le processus ECAT pourait-il remplacer avantageusement ce projet sur un le plan financier, écologique et performances?…
    Ce serait une très bonne nouvelle pour mon pays et le monde entier…dans l’attente d’une réponse , je vous adresse mon soutien et mes encouragements à vous et à toute votre équipe…

    Jean-Claude ELVIRA ancien sidérurgiste qui vous suit depuis bien longtemps.

  • Andrea Rossi

    Yes, the theoretical bases through the evolution of the Ecats, are their common denominator,
    Warm regards,

  • Robert

    Dr Rossi
    In the paper
    you describe an experiment with the Ecat supporting the theoretical foreword described in paragraphs 1-6.
    Is still valid that experimental model, even after the development of the Ecat NGU ?

  • Anonymous

    Dr Rossi,
    I read the paper
    that in the theoretical process at the base of the Ecat there is also the involvement of the Casimir effect: is it still so ?
    Thank you if you can answer.

  • Andrea Rossi

    No, just follow the Gospel: give to Caesar what is of Caesar and to God what is of God,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Thank you for your Nikola Tesla’s links,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels:
    Thank you for the information,
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    There is an all-electric seaplane, called the P2, built by Equator Aircraft out of Norway. It is an experimental class airplane. It uses a 97-kW electric motor, but the cruise demand is 60-kW. It has a cruise speed of about 200 km/hr. It currently uses 15 kW-hr capacity batteries.

    While it has a cargo capacity of 220 kg (including the weight of a pilot and passenger) it could be flown by a pilot only. 60 kW of eCat SKLep NGU (100 W) will require 600 units which would weigh about 150 kg. Some weight could be reduced by removing 1/2 of the 15 kW-hr batteries.

    The electric version of the P2 aircraft has a range of 200 km. An eCat equipped airplane could have unlimited range. A possible flight might be from St Johns in Canada to Ireland – about 3,200 km. At 200 km/hr, a flight would take about 16 hours.

    see https://equatoraircraft.com/Prototype.html

  • Sam

    Audio reinactment of Lost interview text
    Nikola Tesla.


  • Sam

    Hello DR Rossi
    A Tribute to Nikola Tesla.
    A Celebration of his Life.



  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Raffaele Bongo,

    I agree with your posting. I would suggest using mirrored surfaces to form an optical resonate cavity with the solar panel inside. With a usual solar panel conversion efficiency of around 20%, the amount of light needed from the SKLep NGU unit(s) will be about 1,500W for a 300W electrical output. I would suspect that adding the mirrors will slightly increase the conversion efficiency of the solar panel.

    Use the NGU unit to flood light into the cavity and bounce the light around until all is absorbed by the solar panel. What does not get converted into electricity will be realized as heat.

    Using the optical cavity approach loses the contribution from sunlight but reduces or eliminates light pollution. Then the solar panel and its electrical conversion units – inverters, etc., will be fully utilized all the time.

  • H.Lindemann

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    Nikola Tesla was a member of the socialist group “Socialists of America”.
    Albert Einstein was a member of the Socialist International.
    Both professed to be socialists and to socialist ideas.
    Are you also politically active?
    Best regards

  • Raffaele Bongo

    Hello Mr. Karels
    What is certain is that the light used comes directly from the reactor. I can’t see Dr. Rossi doing the stupid thing of going through a blister.
    If we return to the development of Ecat, we remember that the latter emits much more light than heat and electricity. Later, Dr. Rossi offered us a $25 lamp capable of providing 10,000 lumens of light, or around 80 W.
    If we take this lamp and put a dozen of them on a solar panel we more than double the quantity of light because it works 24 hours a day for 250 dollars.
    In the longer term we could imagine confining the light with mirrors so that the vast majority of the light is converted.
    Best regards

  • Brian Cullen

    To All,
    Would I be correct in saying that the Ecat NGU will amplify any incoming power source, solar or otherwise, and run in self sustain mode if for example there is no light or wind available. Therefore, the combination of renewables and Ecat generate more energy together than either can on their own. Also, combining the Ecat with established systems avoids complexities, costs, and bureaucracy bottlenecks, in terms of sending Ecat power to the grid vs designing additional proprietary software and tech to do so. Patiently waiting for the upcoming presentation – enjoying speculating in the mean time.
    – Brian

  • Andrea Rossi

    Karl-Henrik Malmqvist:
    Thank you for your insight,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Everything is made by a teamwork, none of us could be “just him”,
    Warm Regards,

  • Jaroslaw Bem

    To the all attendees:

    I see that, some people on this Journal not understand how the Ecat SKL NGU works.
    The datasheet ECAT SKLep SSM Power Cell presented on:
    clearly say that, 10 W ECAT SKLep SSM Power Cell generates energy in the form of current.
    It gives DC current with power of 10 W with voltage ( 0 V – 12 V ) and current ( 0 A – 0.8 A )
    The new version of Power Cell Ecat SKL NGU will probably have changed operating parameters. It will be presented by LEONARDO CORP. on:
    In my humble opinion, the cooperation of the Ecat SKL NGU with any photovoltaic installation or wind turbine will consist in directly connecting it to the inverter. This is the most efficient way.

    Dear Andrea, I hope I’m not wrong.

    Best regards,
    Jaroslaw Bem

  • Paul

    Hello Mr. Rossi.
    In a recent response to Ron Stringer, you said the E-cat NGU can be adapted to many situations, like batteries, generators, etc. Can the e-cat be adapted so that a simple power meter can measure its power output? If so this would be a slam dunk demo assuming a qualified party performed the testing. The solar idea seems to add too much complexity. If you haven’t noticed, I believe everyone is telling you this. Do you have a member of your team suggesting this solar pathway or is it just you?

  • Karl-Henrik Malmqvist

    Dear Andrea,
    If I remeber correctely you said for one of the earlier E-catversions that there is a relation between direct light output and electric output. More direct light output means less electric output and vice versa.
    The E-cat SKL used for the electric car project was optimized for electric generation. Then you discovered some undisclosed problem.
    I assume that part of the output electricity is fed back and used for driving the e-cat electronics.
    By optimizing the E-Cat SKL ngu for direct light and using a photovoltaic cell there is no galvanic connection between the output and the input. Maybe this is part of what solves the undisclosed problem.
    Best Regards,
    Karl-Henrik Malmqvist

  • Andrea Rossi

    Ron Stringer:
    The Ecat SKL NGU can be adapted to all these situations.
    As I already said, we will disclose exhaustive information at the presentation of the product,
    Warm Regards,

  • Ron Stringer

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    The new “solar” aspect of the NGU is generating a lot of confusion. I am sharing some of it!
    On 11 November, I asked you this question,
    “can this amplification effect be extended also to other power sources, for example a) wind turbines, b) batteries, c) DC generators, d) AC generators??
    You responded, “Yes”.
    Do you confirm the accuracy of this?
    I am not seeing how light shining on a panel is an effect that can be extended to these other generation modalities! Is it more complicated that this?

  • Andrea Rossi

    Claudio Varotto:
    Thank you for your kind attention to our work.
    We take advice of your considerations.
    In our website
    and in our pre-order form
    we explained when we will start the massive production and eventually the deliveries.
    How the Ecat SKL NGU will work in solar systems will be explained in detail when we will introduce the product.
    What we can disclose so far has been already published in our websites.
    Warm Regards,

  • Claudio Varotto

    First of all, I would like to apologize to those who frequent the blog for the length of the text but I consider this necessary for the correct understanding of the proposed structural scheme as well as for any linguistic errors due to my unfortunately poor knowledge of the English language.
    Good morning Doctor Rossi; I have been following the presentations of the results of your studies and your blog for about 12 long years and unfortunately for too long now I have been waiting for a positive outcome of these presentations with the marketing of the final product also since I have contributed to increasing the list of pre-orders of Ecat modules by people I know and therefore I feel a sort of co-responsibility towards them.
    Until a month ago I fully shared your choices regarding the commercial strategy to be pursued; (also the hypothesis of implementing the production of electricity from pre-existing photovoltaic structures with the integration of your Ecat modules): the diffusion of photovoltaic systems is in fact undoubtedly much greater than the current number of electric vehicles in circulation.
    This was until a few weeks ago, that is, until the intention to use the electrical energy produced by the Ecat modules to illuminate the panels already installed, and thus inducing them to produce electricity during periods of inactivity due to insufficient solar lighting, became clear.
    Forgive me for being frank but I think some of your team are advising you rather poorly.
    I won’t dwell on theoretical calculations of overall returns which are already very well expressed in the latest posts appearing on your blog, but as an electrical engineering expert I strongly advise you to change your plans, which are poorly suggested, to seriously consider a much better strategy which does not detract from the purpose of using pre-existing structures but which would allow full use, without conversion losses, of the power of the Ecat modules and at the same time extend their life expectancy.
    I’ll give you a very simple example:
    The vast majority of photovoltaic systems are composed of strings of panels connected to each other in various ways (in parallel and in series) to be able to use the entire system even in conditions of partial shaded areas or locations on differently oriented roof pitches (east – west ).
    Given this element, by analyzing the system we would ascertain areas with very different power production with even significant undervoltages.
    This situation is normally managed by blocking or anti-inversion diodes which prevent the power of the fully operational panels from being transferred to those in the shaded areas.
    Well, without unnecessarily complicating the structure by acting on all the existing panels, it is possible to place alongside the structure (connecting it in parallel) a set of Ecat modules with an appropriate configuration in series between them (customizable output voltage) to create a sort of further virtual string which therefore, with a voltage adequate to the characteristics of the already operational charge regulator, would be configured as a string in the shade when there is sufficient solar lighting, inhibiting the activity of the Ecat modules and then activating them at dusk when solar production is affected a flex.
    The production of electrical energy by the inverter and/or battery recharger would be uninterrupted and with the obvious advantage that with the application of simple voltmetric and amperometric relays that control the voltage and intensity coming from the solar panels, the modules could also be completely turned off Ecat in the presence of sufficient sunlight to then reactivate them if the “solar” power reaches a minimum settable threshold.
    The result of this configuration would lead to advantages (extended life expectancy) for both the solar panels and the Ecat.e modules and the creation of the application described would be much simpler than the configuration that emerges from reading the blog posts of the last few days. Please Doctor Rossi, I have put a lot of effort into pre-ordering your modules; do not disappoint my expectations with abstruse configurations which, I am sure, would not find favor with people who would view with great distrust applications that involve radical changes to their systems; What I have described to you would involve:

    1 – a limited modification to the existing one
    2 – a clear, strong increase in energy production even for small plants
    3 – an increase in the life expectancy of the components
    4 – a strong simplification of maintenance
    5 – a clear greater media impact during the demonstration of your product
    BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS GREAT OPPORTUNITY (and personally I am among these)
    The system described in this case would assume to all intents and purposes the role of a
    photovoltaic complex also for those who do not have space or orientations favorable to the
    installation of the actual panels.

    If you find what has been described interesting, please reply to this email of mine and, if appropriate in your opinion, authorize me to describe the illustrated hypothesis in your blog which, I repeat, is very simple and effective.
    I thank you for your attention and extend my best wishes for a new year full of satisfaction and happiness to you personally and to all the blog’s visitors. I cordially greet you.

    Claudio Varotto

  • Andrea Rossi

    Lucy Wang:
    1. There is no problem
    2. How exctly the Ecat SKL NGU will work will be described at the introduction of the product; all I can say now is that it will suit any kind of solar panes design presently distributed in the world.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Claudio Varotto:
    Thank you for your opinions and suggestions: please resend to this blog your comment in English,
    Warm Regards,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Steven Nicholes Karels,
    As I already told you, we will disclose these particulars at the introduction of the product,
    Warm Regards,

  • Steven Nicholes Karels

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    It appears to me that there is much confusion in regards to the use of SKLep NGU technology and solar panels.

    Your Q&A section seems to talk of the NGU providing electrical power to the solar panel electrical equipment (e.g. inverters, etc.)

    But I understand you said that the NGU will provide light to the solar panel.

    I can understand the use of NGU-provided electrical power to supplement the solar panel energy going to its inverter.

    But the use of light generated by the NGU, either directly or indirectly, does not appear to be economically viable.


    1. Do you plan on using light generated by the NGU(s), that illuminates the solar panel, as the means of supplementing output power?
    2. Do you plan to use electricity generated by the NGU(s) to supplement the electrical energy output by the solar panels that goes to the inverter?
    3. Can both of the above techniques be used simultaneously?

  • Lucy Wang

    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    a large number of photovoltaic projects are just starting.
    So that the owners know that they are not making a mistake now, I need to ask you:

    1. If the PV panels are installed on the ground at an ANGLE as is customary, will there not be a problem in the future with installing the E-Cat so that they can shine on them? Or is it better to install them perpendicular to the ground?

    2. Is one piece of 100 W E-Cat sufficient to illuminate one 500 W PV panel or will the E-Cat be able to light bi-directionally on the front side of one panel and simultaneously on the back side of the other (bifacial) panel?

    With Best Regards


  • Claudio Varotto

    Buongiorno Dottor Rossi; seguo le presentazioni dei risultati dei suoi studi e il suo blog da circa 12 lunghi anni e purtroppo da ormai troppo tempo attendo un esito positivo di queste presentazioni con la commercializzazione del prodotto finale anche dal momento che ho contribuito ad incrementare di molte unità la lista dei preordini di moduli Ecat ad opera di persone mie conoscenti e perciò avverto verso costoro una sorta di corresponsabilità.
    Sino ad un mese fa condividevo integralmente le Sue scelte in ambito di strategia commerciale da perseguire; ( anche l’ipotesi di implementare la produzione di energia elettrica di strutture preesistenti fotovoltaiche con l’integrazione dei suoi moduli Ecat ): la diffusione di sistemi fotovoltaici è infatti indubbiamente molto maggiore dell’attuale numero di veicoli elettrici circolanti.
    Questo sino a poche settimane fa e cioè sino a quando apparve chiara l’intenzione di utilizzare l’energia elettrica prodotta dai moduli Ecat per illuminare i pannelli già installati inducendoli quindi a produrre energia elettrica nei periodi di inattività per insufficiente illuminazione solare.
    Mi perdoni la franchezza ma ritengo che qualcuno del suo team la stia consigliando piuttosto male.
    Non mi dilungo su calcoli teorici di rendimenti complessivi già peraltro molto bene espressi con gli ultimi post apparsi nel Suo blog, ma da esperto elettrotecnico Le consiglio caldamente di modificare i propri piani, mal suggeriti, per prendere seriamente in considerazione una strategia di gran lunga migliore che nulla toglie al proposito di utilizzare strutture preesistenti ma che permetterebbe di utilizzare appieno, senza perdite da conversione, la potenza dei moduli Ecat e contemporaneamente allungarne la speranza di vita.
    Le faccio un semplicissimo esempio:
    La stragrande maggioranza dei sistemi fotovoltaici è composta da stringhe di pannelli variamente collegate tra loro ( in parallelo ed in serie ) per poter utilizzare l’intero sistema anche in condizioni di parziali zone in ombra o dislocazioni su falde del tetto diversamente orientate ( est – ovest ).
    Dato questo elemento, analizzando il sistema accerteremmo zone con produzione di potenza molto diverse tra loro con sottotensioni anche importanti.
    Questa situazione è normalmente gestita da diodi di blocco o antiinversione che impediscono il riversamento della potenza dei pannelli pienamente operativi verso quelli delle zone in ombra.
    Ebbene, senza complicare inutilmente la struttura agendo su tutti i pannelli esistenti, è possibile affiancare alla struttura ( collegandolo in parallelo ) un insieme di moduli Ecat con una opportuna configurazione in serie tra loro ( tensione di uscita personalizzabile ) per realizzare una sorta di ulteriore virtuale stringa che quindi, con una tensione adeguata alle caratteristiche del regolatore di carica già operativo, si configurerebbe come una stringa in ombra quando esista una sufficiente illuminazione solare inibendo l’attività dei moduli Ecat per poi attivarli all’imbrunire quando la produzione solare venga a subire una flessione.
    La produzione di energia elettrica da parte dell’inverter e/o ricarica batterie sarebbe ininterrotta e con l’evidente vantaggio che con l’applicazione di semplici relè voltmetrici e amperometrici che controllino tensione e intensità proveniente dai pannelli solari si potrebbero anche spegnere completamente i moduli Ecat in presenza di luce solare sufficiente per poi riattivarli qualora la potenza ” solare ” arrivi ad una soglia minima impostabile.
    Il risultato di questa configurazione porterebbe a vantaggi ( allungamento speranza di vita ) sia per i pannelli solari che per i moduli Ecat.e e la realizzazione dell’ applicazione descritta sarebbe molto più semplice della configurazione che traspare dalla lettura dei post del blog degli ultimi giorni. La prego Dottor Rossi, mi sono impegnato enormemente nei preordini dei suoi moduli; non deluda le mie aspettative con configurazioni astruse che, ne sono certo, non incontrerebbero i favori delle persone che vedrebbero con molta diffidenza applicazioni che comportino modifiche radicali ai loro impianti; Quanto Le ho descritto comporterebbe:

    1 – una limitata modifica all’esistente
    2 – un evidente, forte incremento della produzione di energia anche per piccoli impianti
    3 – un aumento della aspettativa di vita dei componenti
    4 – una forte semplificazione della manutenzione
    5 – un evidente maggior impatto mediatico durante la dimostrazione del suo prodotto
    sono tra questi ) Il sistema descritto in questo caso assumerebbe a tutti gli effetti il ruolo di un complesso fotovoltaico anche per coloro che non
    dispongoao di spazi o orientamenti favorevoli alla installazione dei pannelli veri e propri.

    Se ritiene interessante quanto descritto La prego di rispondere a questa mia mail e, se opportuno a suo giudizio, autorizzarmi a descrivere nel suo blog l’ipotesi illustrata che, ripeto è molto semplice ed efficace.
    La ringrazio per l’attenzione e porgendo i miei migliori auguri per un nuovo anno denso di soddisfazioni e felicità La saluto cordialmente.

    Claudio Varotto

  • Klas

    to All:

    I fully agree with Jorge and suggest everyone carefully read the FAQ for increased insight into
    the application of NGU into an existing solar system.


  • Andrea Rossi

    I agree,
    Warm Regards,

  • Jorge

    I read on
    the answers to the questions in the section Q&A.
    Quite interesting, from them we can figure out how we can expect the Ecat NGU will make its job,

  • Andrea Rossi

    Yury Evdokimov:
    Thank you for your suggestion,
    Warm Regards,

  • Yury Evdokimov

    Dear Andreya Rossi,
    The solar battery conversion efficiency is 20%. LED conversion efficiency is about 60%. Therefore, the overall conversion efficiency of the chain “ECat + LED + solar panel* will be equal to 0.2×0.6 = 0.12. Thus, as a result, only 12% of the electrical power of the ECat will be added to the power of the solar panel.
    Therefore, it is advantageous to directly add the electrical powers of the ECat and the solar panel.
    Best regards,
    Yury Evdokimov

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

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