3

Power Technology magazine published a 2019 article *Neutrino energy: harnessing the power of cosmic radiation.

It describes a new energy technology - making solar panels, but for neutrinos instead of light.

In principle, harvesting neutrinos as an energy source is similar to that of a traditional photovoltaic (PV) solar cell. Neutrinos are not captured; instead a portion of their kinetic energy is taken and converted into electricity.

The Neutrino Power Cell is made of layers of silicon and carbon, which are applied to a metallic substrate with surgical precision so that when neutrinos hit them, it results in a resonance. Neutrino Energy discovered how to build such a cell that could convert the optimal level of resonance into resonating frequency on an electrical conductor, and then capture this energy.

[...]

Scientists at Neutrino Energy’s Berlin branch are working on the first technical devices that will be powered by neutrinos.

The technology company has a web-site: Neutrino Energy

This, on its face, seems to be really sketchy.

Can anyone provide a good source to debunk or confirm these claims?

  • 2
    Welcome to the new visitors to Skeptics! This is going to be a difficult question to answer. It is one thing to have a firm intuition that every part of the claim is complete bunk, but another thing to be able to provide references. (Possibly the best we can hope for is quoting experts in the field rejecting the claims; yes, appeal to authority is a poor argument, but we are unlikely to get better.) Note that we don't accept pseudo-answers in comments here. – Oddthinking Dec 12 '19 at 0:30
7

It's simply garbage. Schubart is selling snake oil to people who understand less about neutrino physics than he does.

Note that we have a number of big particle detectors built today for the express purpose of detecting neutrinos streaming in from space and measuring their properties.

These devices have to be huge because the chance that a neutrino will interact with any one atom in the detector on its way through it is about one in 10 to the 36 power. This is an incredibly tiny probability, and so just to have a good chance of "seeing" a single neutrino requires either a huge number of atoms in your detector (of order ~10^36) or that the neutrino stream you wish to detect must be extremely intense (of order ~10^36 neutrinos/sec/square cm).

Neither condition is true in the context of Schubart's claim.

(Note also that the neutrino detectors currently in use consume lots of electricity to operate which means that it takes hugely more power just to run the detector than the energy content of the neutrinos it detects.)

  • 1
    This answer is absolutely correct --- the claim is garbage because neutrinos are hard to catch --- but the asker specifically asks for sources that they can direct their students towards. I'm about to migrate the question to Skeptics, which has stricter requirements for citations in answers than we do here at Physics; hopefully that community will give you some time to edit some links into your answer. – rob Dec 11 '19 at 22:47
  • 1
    Welcome to Skeptics! As suggested by the comment above, we don't accept assertions here - all significant claims must be referenced, or this answer will be deleted. – Oddthinking Dec 12 '19 at 0:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .