Rossi: Needing Generators that can be Built by Thousands, Millions

Many people have recommended to Andrea Rossi new kinds of technology that can work with the E-Cat — mainly for electrical generation. Rossi has often said he is willing to buy and test units to see how they operate, but he always puts in the proviso that he needs to work with units that are finished products, and manufacturing-ready, i.e. not prototypes. For example, readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics have suggested the Cyclone Engine and the Green Turbine (both micro turbines that are designed to run off waste heat) as suitable for working with E-Cats, but these are not apparently well developed enough for Rossi’s consideration. He explained recently:

Franco:
We did not find any of such companies able to offer a generator at a competitive price and with the industrial structure necessary to manufacture thousands ( let alone millions) of items. As I always said, we are not interested to participate and finance the development of a start up in that field, but we are interested only to buy products already industrialized, at prices that must be competitive with the classic generators. We did not find any so far and obviously we did not buy prototypes at unsustainable prices, in view of an industrial application, coherently with what I have already said.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

This response, mentioning thousands and millions of units, suggests that he and his partner are looking at large scale production — and that so far, they are not finding any production-ready units that are capable of competing with ‘classic generators’ — presumably large-scale turbines that are currently used in electricity generation. If we are thinking about electrical generation, it seems to me then, unless suitable technology can be employed on a small scale, that Rossi and co. are still going to be starting out concentrating on industrial-level power production.

  • BorregoBum

    Once the E-Cat is on the market I think that companies that can make economical generators will spring into existence. It’s funny how that works out. 🙂

  • malkom700

    Apparently traditional technology fully meets the needs of ECAT because Rossi does not need to deal urgently with this question. That’s not his problem but the problem of others.

    • Fortyniner

      As you say – no urgent need, particularly so if Rossi et al. are looking primarily at a ‘retro-fit’ market such as newish coal-fired generators that are being forced to close down as a part of the ‘green’ agenda. In addition, there is the possibility that the ‘partner’ may already be in the power equipment manufacturing field and so could already have this part of the equation covered. Either way, the large-scale industrial market could easily absorb all likely production capacity for decades.

      I think that quite simply, Rossi is hedging, as he doesn’t want to admit that the domestic units he ‘promised’ are in fact a dead duck. He has said time and again that small units could only ever be made and sold after thousands of hours of safety data had been accumulated for industrial units to allow safety certification, and he has no reason whatsoever to be looking at kilowatt-scale steam or Stirling engines at this point. As many people have pointed out, while he may be able to protect his IP when his CF boilers are in power stations, this would be next to impossible if ‘domestic’ units ever hit the shelves.

      In between there is a vast market for military generators, marine propulsion units, locomotives, distributed power systems and so on in the 10-100 MW range that will need to be fulfilled before small portable units even get a look in. And then there is the disruptive aspect of such ‘domestic’ devices (including small vehicle propulsion) to the profitability of the existing energy cartels, which alone will almost certainly ensure their non-appearance. For our sanity’s sake, it is probably best to forget this possibility altogether, and just hope that our grandchildren may get to see such things.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        This is roughly how I see thing too, 49’er. Home units are a dead end for now. Logically, the easiest way to upgrade the power grid would be to develop and use drop in reactor replacements like the tiger ecat. Rossi already said that adding ecat’s will raise output combining 1 MW tigers should easily give you 10 or 100 MW reactors, maybe more. I suspect most of the current development at Rossi and Partner is focused in this area.

        No need for an energy converter either, because the steam turbine is already there. By walking this path, you don’t kill off the energy grid providers either which is a stable way to introduce cold fusion to the world. Prices may not drop as dramatically as they could, but pollution should go down fairly quickly which alone should be worth it.

        As soon as the orders start to come in for replacement reactors, he can leave the further development and refinement of the tiger type reactors to his partner and concentrate on other development paths such as direct electrical power. As chief technical scientist that would be the logical thing to do and his available resources should multiply by whatever he wishes now that the big money is coming in.

        • Leonard Weinstein

          The 1 MW e-cats are not hot-cats, and thus not suitable for steam electric power generation. They are only suitable for heating. For power generation, you need at least about 400 C steam. and the hot-cats with COP 6 or so. This is not shown yet. The product (as shown) is far from suitable for power generation. High temperatures at high COP’s may be developed, but not yet. However, there are lower temperature processes that directly mainly use heat and/or water rather than mainly electricity to cool (think gas powered coolers, or swamp coolers), and combining heating, cooling, and hot water, you would need much less electric generation, especially for homes and businesses. LED lighting, also cuts electric needs. The solution can be a mix of technologies.

          • Fortyniner

            The original-type 1MW units were obsolete from the moment the first ‘hot cat’ was demonstrated, and I doubt that any development work has been carried out on this design concept since then (despite HydroFusion’s continuing ‘offer’ of a pilot plant deal). The COP is just too low to compete with gas heating, given the initial asking price and the certainty that better systems will be along shortly.

            As the originally proposed domestic units were based on this technology, they automatically died with the container units, as there will never be any body of field data for this type of reactor and hence no possibility of safety certification. ZZZ was referring to what have been unofficially referred to as ‘tiger’ cats – second or third generation multi-stage hybrid or hot cat technology.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Thanks 49’er. I was indeed referring to the 1MW (or more) hotcat reactor, also known as a “tiger” ecat. It’s not clear (to me) what the capabilities of this reactor are, though we do know that it uses hot cat’s so up to 600C should be possible. It is speculated that it is developed to be a reactor drop in replacement consisting of several units of each 1 MW or more.
            Though I don’t know much about that reactor, I suspect that most of the current development is focused on it.

  • malkom700

    Apparently traditional technology fully meets the needs of ECAT because Rossi does not need to deal urgently with this question. That’s not his problem but the problem of others.

    • As you say – no urgent need, particularly so if Rossi et al. are looking initially at a ‘retro-fit’ market such as newish coal-fired power stations that are being forced to close down as a part of the political ‘green’ agenda. In addition, there is the possibility that the ‘partner’ or a subsidiary may be in the power equipment manufacturing field and so could already have this part of the equation covered. Either way, the large-scale industrial market could easily absorb all conceivable production capacity for decades.

      IMO, Rossi is quite simply hedging, as he doesn’t want to admit that the domestic units he once ‘promised’ are in fact a dead duck. He has said time and again that small units could only ever be certified as safe after thousands of hours of data had been accumulated for industrial units, and the fact is that he has no reason whatsoever to be looking at kilowatt-scale steam or Stirling engines at this point. As many people have pointed out, while he may be able to protect his IP when his CF boilers are in power stations, this would be next to impossible if ‘domestic’ units ever hit the shelves.

      In between there is a vast market for military generators, marine propulsion units, locomotives, local power stations and so on in the 10-100 MW range that will need to be fulfilled before sub-MW and eventually domestic/portable units even get a look in. And then there is the disruptive aspect of such ‘domestic’ devices (including small vehicle propulsion); the threat to the profitability of the existing energy cartels will on its own almost certainly ensure their non-appearance indefinitely. For our sanity’s sake, it is probably best to forget this possibility altogether, and just hope that our grandchildren may get to see such things.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        This is roughly how I see thing too, 49’er. Home units are a dead end for now. Logically, the easiest way to upgrade the power grid would be to develop and use drop in reactor replacements like the tiger ecat. Rossi already said that adding ecat’s will raise output combining 1 MW tigers should easily give you 10 or 100 MW reactors, maybe more. I suspect most of the current development at Rossi and Partner is focused in this area.

        No need for an energy converter either, because the steam turbine is already there. By walking this path, you don’t kill off the energy grid providers either which is a stable way to introduce cold fusion to the world. Prices may not drop as dramatically as they could, but pollution should go down fairly quickly which alone should be worth it.

        As soon as the orders start to come in for replacement reactors, he can leave the further development and refinement of the tiger type reactors to his partner and concentrate on other development paths such as direct electrical power. As chief technical scientist that would be the logical thing to do and his available resources should multiply by whatever he wishes now that the big money is coming in.

        • Leonard Weinstein

          The 1 MW e-cats are not hot-cats, and thus not suitable for steam electric power generation. They are only suitable for heating. For power generation, you need at least about 400 C steam. and the hot-cats with COP 6 or so. This is not shown yet. The product (as shown) is far from suitable for power generation. High temperatures at high COP’s may be developed, but not yet. However, there are lower temperature processes that directly mainly use heat and/or water rather than mainly electricity to cool (think gas powered coolers, or swamp coolers), and combining heating, cooling, and hot water, you would need much less electric generation, especially for homes and businesses. LED lighting, also cuts electric needs. The solution can be a mix of technologies.

          • The original-type 1MW units were obsolete from the moment the first ‘hot cat’ was demonstrated, and I doubt that any development work has been carried out on this design concept since then (despite HydroFusion’s continuing ‘offer’ of a pilot plant deal). The COP is just too low to compete with gas heating, given the initial asking price and the certainty that better systems will be along shortly.

            As the originally proposed domestic units were based on this older technology, they automatically died with the container units, as there will never be any body of industrial field data for this type of reactor and hence no possibility of safety certification. ZZZ was referring to what have been unofficially referred to as ‘tiger’ cats – second or third generation multi-stage hybrid or hot cat technology.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Thanks 49’er. I was indeed referring to the 1MW (or more) hotcat reactor, also known as a “tiger” ecat. It’s not clear (to me) what the capabilities of this reactor are, though we do know that it uses hot cat’s so up to 600C should be possible. It is speculated that it is developed to be a reactor drop in replacement consisting of several units of each 1 MW or more.
            Though I don’t know much about that reactor, I suspect that most of the current development is focused on it.

  • SellUsUnits

    100 degrees Celsius or hotter is a very happy place for a Piston Engine. A classic piston steam engine is about 30% efficient. Electrical generation is almost 100% efficient, Electrical conversion to line voltage is 95% efficient. So COP 6 is about 194% output to input ratio.

    Over COP 6 and you are just riding the gravy train.

    Merry Christmas! I have my classic steam piston engine already picked out.

    Mr. Rossi, sell us single hotcats for industrial use. I will tie mine to a piston steam engine for electrical generation. I will fill fields with them over time.

    At your originally quoted cost, it would double the investment twice a year by selling the electricity back to the utility. 1, 2, 4, 8, ,16 ,32, 64 128. Notice that I would be buying the 1 MW unit scale in four years. Please Mr. Rossi. Sell single Hotcat units for industrial use.

    • bachcole

      I’m sorry, I couldn’t get past the “Electrical generation is almost 100% efficient” part. Given that gross mistake, nothing else in the comment will mean anything. Electrical generation is at best more like 35% efficient.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I think he means that converting mechanical work to electricity can be almost 100% efficient, and that’s true. However, another thing is that 100 C heat doesn’t give anywhere near 30% heat-to-mechanical efficiency. Ideal Carnot efficiency (T2-T1)/T2 between 100 C and 30 C is 19%.

        • Buck

          PJ, I don’t understand your math. (100-30)/100= 70%

          • Pekka Janhunen

            One must calculate in kelvin: (100-30)/(273.15+100)=0.18759

          • Buck

            Thank you.

          • Frechette

            Nothing wrong with the math. Total efficiency is equal to the product not the difference of the individual efficiencies.

        • bachcole

          Oops, I mixed up heat–> electricity with mechanical–> electricity. Sorry about that.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            You are thinking of heat to electric conversion whereas I referred to converting bulk mechanical movement (such as rotating shaft) to electricity. See e.g. http://www.jcmiras.net/jcm/item/93/ which indicates that small hydro project efficeincies can range from 93% fo 97%. Bulk mechanical movement doesn’t have entropy and thus is not limited by Carnot. The only losses are technical ones such as friction.

          • bachcole

            Wise analysis of my response. Thank you for not slamming me for being mistaken. Oh, I forgot, it is mostly Americans who slam each other for being mistaken.

          • Frechette

            A hydraulic turbine or water wheel is not a heat engine and therefore not subject to the limits of the Carnot cycle in terms of efficiency. Potential energy of the water that is the hydraulic head is converted into kinetic energy which is then converted into mechanical energy by the water wheel and thence to electrical energy through the electrical generator. Each conversion step has an associated efficiency. The total efficiency is simply the product of the individual efficiencies. Since no thermal energy conversion is involved the Carnot cycle does not apply. The same can be said for fuel cell or battery in which chemical energy is converted directly into electricity.

        • Frechette

          No steam engine approaches the ideal Carnot cycle. It assumes isothermal and isentropic expansion. Also it does not include such practical considerations as boiler efficiency. The Carnot cycle is the maximum theoretical efficiency that is used as a touchstone to compare against a practical engine. Actual steam engine efficiency is derived from the drop in steam enthalpy determined by state of the steam entering and exiting the engine. Standard steam tables provide a simple graphical method to come up with this change in enthalpy.

    • Fortyniner

      Big low-pressure steam piston engines would probably be best suited to direct mechanical propulsion in situations where durability and reliability are important and weight is not an issue. The most obvious application matching these criteria is probably commercial marine propulsion. Perhaps a clever design engineer could come up with replacement cylinder heads for existing types of big oil engines, that would allow their conversion to steam? Unfortunately, finding space for boilers, condensers etc. in an existing ship might be a problem.

      Naval architects would probably want the greater power output of turbines, which would require much hotter and more highly pressurised steam, i.e., much the same criteria as for electrical generators.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Just too easy to duplicate (steal).

  • SellUsUnits

    100 degrees Celsius or hotter is a very happy place for a Piston Engine. A classic piston steam engine is about 30% efficient. Electrical generation is almost 100% efficient, Electrical conversion to line voltage is 95% efficient. So COP 6 is about 194% output to input ratio.

    Over COP 6 and you are just riding the gravy train.

    Merry Christmas! I have my classic steam piston engine already picked out.

    Mr. Rossi, sell us single hotcats for industrial use. I will tie mine to a piston steam engine for electrical generation. I will fill fields with them over time.

    At your originally quoted cost, it would double the investment twice a year by selling the electricity back to the utility. 1, 2, 4, 8, ,16 ,32, 64 128. Notice that I would be buying the 1 MW unit scale in four years. Please Mr. Rossi. Sell single Hotcat units for industrial use.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Your knowledge of piston steam engines is way off. Small piston steam engines operating at about 150 C input ( to a cooling level of 50 C) would be about 6% NET efficient. Very large piston steam engines at about 300 C input would approach 15% at most. You need to look at the thermodynamic cycles and effective input and output temperatures to get the maximum possible, and the NET does not come close (the 30% is typical of the maximum possible efficiency of recovering the IDEAL thermodynamic energy, which itself is typically 20% to 40% of the input energy, depending on temperature, so the final NET efficiency is 6% to 15% of input energy).

      • Of course you are correct, but when the heat source is as inexpensive to run as Rossi claims, efficiency becomes relatively less important, while heat ejection becomes relatively more so. No problem if large amounts of cold water are to hand, but ejection to air (in the absence of gaseous exhaust) will add complexity, weight and cost and also further reduce overall efficiency due to auxiliary energy needs (e.g., for fan motors).

        • Leonard Weinstein

          If you are willing to live with low efficiency, you could use thermoelectric, which is comparable to small piston steam, but much simpler. However, you miss the point that a COP would have to be >20 to generate even enough electric power to power the e-cat at that low efficiency. A multistage e-cat can possibly get that large, but this has not been demonstrated. A better approach might be hot-cat (400 C) with a Stirling cycle generator, which can approach the 30% Net and allow COP of 6 to work.

    • Roger Bird

      I’m sorry, I couldn’t get past the “Electrical generation is almost 100% efficient” part. Given that gross mistake, nothing else in the comment will mean anything. Electrical generation is at best more like 35% efficient.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I think he means that converting mechanical work to electricity can be almost 100% efficient, and that’s true. However, another thing is that 100 C heat doesn’t give anywhere near 30% heat-to-mechanical efficiency. Ideal Carnot efficiency (T2-T1)/T2 between 100 C and 30 C is 19%.

        • Buck

          PJ, I don’t understand your math. (100-30)/100= 70%

          • Pekka Janhunen

            One must calculate in kelvin: (100-30)/(273.15+100)=0.18759

          • Buck

            Thank you.

          • Frechette

            Nothing wrong with the math. Total efficiency is equal to the product not the difference of the individual efficiencies.

        • Roger Bird

          Oops, I mixed up heat–> electricity with mechanical–> electricity. Sorry about that.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            You are thinking of heat to electric conversion whereas I referred to converting bulk mechanical movement (such as rotating shaft) to electricity. See e.g. http://www.jcmiras.net/jcm/item/93/ which indicates that small hydro project efficeincies can range from 93% fo 97%. Bulk mechanical movement doesn’t have entropy and thus is not limited by Carnot. The only losses are technical ones such as friction.

          • Roger Bird

            Wise analysis of my response. Thank you for not slamming me for being mistaken. Oh, I forgot, it is mostly Americans who slam each other for being mistaken.

          • Frechette

            A hydraulic turbine or water wheel is not a heat engine and therefore not subject to the limits of the Carnot cycle in terms of efficiency. Potential energy of the water that is the hydraulic head is converted into kinetic energy which is then converted into mechanical energy by the water wheel and thence to electrical energy through the electrical generator. Each conversion step has an associated efficiency. The total efficiency is simply the product of the individual efficiencies. Since no thermal energy conversion is involved the Carnot cycle does not apply. The same can be said for fuel cell or battery in which chemical energy is converted directly into electricity.

        • Frechette

          No steam engine approaches the ideal Carnot cycle. It assumes isothermal and isentropic expansion. Also it does not include such practical considerations as boiler efficiency. The Carnot cycle is the maximum theoretical efficiency that is used as a touchstone to compare against a practical engine. Actual steam engine efficiency is derived from the drop in steam enthalpy determined by state of the steam entering and exiting the engine. Standard steam tables provide a simple graphical method to come up with this change in enthalpy.

    • Big low-pressure steam piston engines would probably be best suited to direct mechanical propulsion in situations where durability and reliability are important and weight is not an issue. The most obvious application matching these criteria is probably commercial marine propulsion. Perhaps a clever design engineer could come up with replacement cylinder heads for existing types of big oil engines that would allow their conversion to steam? Unfortunately, finding space for boilers, condensers etc. in an existing ship might be a problem.

      As Pekka points out, even piston engines will need rather more than 100C to obtain reasonable efficiencies, but that should not be a problem using ‘hot cat’ reactors. In this application, the ‘cold’ end of the Carnot range might be as low as a few degrees C, assuming seawater cooling/condensation of exhaust steam. Naval architects would probably want the greater power outputs available from turbines, which would require even hotter and more highly pressurised steam, i.e., much the same criteria as for electrical generators.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Just too easy to duplicate (steal).

  • menos50

    This could just as easily be a ruse to obfuscate his true situation. There is no excess capacity of tens of thousands of steam driven motors in the worlds manufacturing scheme right now.

    Cyclone Power is pursuing their own LENR venture with Purdue University staff, Morgodo’s MYT engine is foundering due to his inability to work with anyone else or the design problems not made public and the Sterling folks out of AZ that were doing solar folded their tent a couple of years back.

    No one not even the small engine people have tens of thousands of unit capacity waiting to sell at a cheap price. But give me a real ECat and I can be generating power in less than a month from scratch.

    If he is real, he or his investors could simply buy the patents and manufacturing capacity of the Sterling company out of AZ. They have hundreds in operation in the desert and they work.

    Rossi’s real problem is the retail consumer approvals from UL and CSA. He could get around this with a leasing system, but then he would have to give up some significant control and price to pay for the leasing operation and profitability of that function., which he is reluctant to do.

  • Sean

    Well there are a lot of live steam enthusiast like me who build steam engines some compounds and some Stirling engines. Now it is not efficient but can easily drive an alternator. And the left over steam can heat your house. Perhaps we can get all we need from one ECAT. I am seriously thinking of an ECAT inside my 7 and 1/4″inch gauge locomotive 4472 (Flying Scotsman.) I am almost up to boiler stage on the build. What a great demo that will be for ECAT, when I pull 40 people along the track.

    • Upvoted simply because I share the enthusiasm for model steam engines (but don’t aspire to anything quite as grand as a 7 1/4″ ‘Scotsman’!)

      • Sean

        Good for you Fortyniner. Steam is alive for sure. It built our industrial revolution. Now ECAT.
        Just worked out that I would need a temperature of 350 degrees Fahrenheit for the 120 PSI needed to run this locomotive. I wonder which ECAT to order. The normal one or the Hot Cat. Decisions decisions.. Of course I hope to get my Ecat first. You guys will have to line up. Come on Rossi, we are lining up like the Boxing day sale. Make 2014 an ECAT Year.

        • Noooo, please! A steam loco, even a model one, has got to have a fire of Welsh steam coal at its heart, and to leave a lingering cloud of fragrant grey smoke behind it when it moves. Anything else would be a pale imitation.

          Maybe one day we’ll see CF/steam locos in places where rails can’t be electrified, such as large tracts of the US, Canada, Australia, and the BRICS countries but unfortunately, here in W. Europe I think the featureless electrically driven tubes will continue to reign supreme for as long as railways survive.

          • Sean

            Ok Fortyniner your right. Steam my loco with welsh coal. But I like your CF/steam loco idea. CN & CP would certainly welcome it. Todays BBC news:- UK pays £92.50 per megawatt. Europe pays £37.94. BIG RIP OFF. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25390456

  • bachcole

    Notice that Rossi’s sticking with generators that are already on the market is NOT the behavior of a scam-artist. Scam arts ALWAYS go for the idealistic, pie-in-the-sky choice. They like to get marks all excited about wide-eyed, oh-gee-whiz idealism.

    But this point will go right past skeptopaths because skeptopaths are dense when it comes to human beings and soft/social evidence.

  • Roger Bird

    Notice that Rossi’s sticking with generators that are already on the market is NOT the behavior of a scam-artist. Scam arts ALWAYS go for the idealistic, pie-in-the-sky choice. They like to get marks all excited about wide-eyed, oh-gee-whiz idealism.

    But this point will go right past skeptopaths because skeptopaths are dense when it comes to human beings and soft/social evidence.

  • Roger Bird

    Notice that Rossi is going for the practical, down-to-Earth solution, not the possible, idealistic solution. This is NOT the behavior of a scam-artist. The scam-artist ALWAYS likes to get his/her marks excited about idealistic, oh-gee-whiz-wow solutions. I know from painful experience.

    Also notice that this datapoint and others of soft/social evidence will fly right over the heads of skeptopaths because skeptopaths are oblivious to soft/social evidence, just as they are oblivious to human beings.

    • Roger Bird

      Sorry about the double post. The software misbehaved.

  • Buck

    Does anyone know whether Rossi & Partners have spoken to Kockums, a subsidiary of ThyssenKrup about their Stirling engines?

    The recent news of tension between China, S. Korea, Japan, & USA brought out into the open an item that would normally have been of little interest. This news item also helps to explain Mitsubishi’s interest in LENR.

    Japan recently launched its newest sub of the Soryu class, a type of submarine even quieter than US nuclear submarines. In recent ‘live wargames’, the aircraft carrier USS Reagan was ‘sunk’ by a Swedish AIP sub.

    Built by Mitsubishi and Kawasaki, this AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) submarine is powered by a Kockums Stirling engine, enabling subsurface running for weeks at a time, a capability normally associated only with nuclear powered subs. Kockums has been developing their Stirling engines since the 1960’s.

    I would like to think that Kockums & ThyssenKrup has the industrial capacity to initially produce 1000’s and the financial capacity to ramp up to 1000k’s of engines produced with an extremely high quality.

    LINK>> http://japandailypress.com/japan-launches-newest-submarine-kokuryu-amid-party-atmosphere-0438960/
    LINK>> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/sssoryuclasssubmarin/
    LINK>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine
    LINK>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion
    LINK>> http://www.kockums.se/en/products-services/submarines/stirling-aip-system/the-stirling-engine/

    • Fortyniner

      I’m a bit mystified by the acronym AIP for ‘air independent propulsion’, when the MPE is a pair of diesel engines. Presumably the auxiliary Stirling engines add efficiency and provide ‘silent running’ capability – but what is the ‘air independent’ heat souce that drives the Sterling engines during fully submerged operation? Or maybe it’s just getting a bit late in the day for proper comprehension…

      • Buck

        49r, I’m with your. However, what ever the current source might be, I doubt it is any where near as efficient as the potential of a LENR H Gas-Nickel reactor.

        • Fortyniner

          Quite so.

          Btw, the Naval Technology link suggests 6MW max output from the Stirling engines when submerged, so maybe somewhere a little under 20MW of heat input required. Whatever the power source, dumping the waste heat to seawater cooling would leave a pretty obvious heat signature I would have thought.

          • Buck

            Since the system is a ‘life & death’ technology, I expect they are addressing that to the extent possible. They have been aware of the phenomena since the creation of nuclear submarines with the ‘always on’ heat source.

            Also, the Naval Tech link indicates the 6MW max is from at least the four Stirling engines. Therefore, 1.5MW for each.

          • Fortyniner

            Yes – I wonder how nuclear subs deal with heat ejection? I suppose the obvious answer is dilution – to take in many times the amount of cooling water needed so that the ‘exhaust’ is only fractionally warmer than the surrounding water.

          • GreenWin

            A closed coolant system in silent run mode seems plausible. Also, carefully modulated heat radiators can disguise the signature to look like random heat islands, biomass, or geologic anomalies. I’d worry more about side scan sonar and magnetometer sensors.

          • GreenWin

            Here’s a UK-based Stirling maker that once focused on nautical sector but in recent years has removed those products from public internet – now focus is on home applications. http://www.whispergen-europe.com/stirling_en.php?fm=stirling&fp=The%20Stirling%20Engine

          • Buck

            GW, this looks like a beautiful unit just waiting for a LENR reactor module.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            It’s air independent since it has LOX tank. The heat signature issue exists, but is less severe than for nuclear sub whose reactor cannot be throttled quickly.

          • Fortyniner

            Ah, thanks. Simple as that.

    • Doktor Bob

      Buck, Thyssenkrup focus on Sterling Engines for submarines.
      Are you suggesting that Rossi is building a Fusion Sub? Hmm 🙂

  • Buck

    Does anyone know whether Rossi & Partners have spoken to Kockums, a subsidiary of ThyssenKrup about their Stirling engines?

    The recent news of tension between China, S. Korea, Japan, & USA brought out into the open an item that would normally have been of little interest. This news item also helps to explain Mitsubishi’s interest in LENR.

    Japan recently launched its newest sub of the Soryu class, a type of submarine even quieter than US nuclear submarines. In recent ‘live wargames’, the aircraft carrier USS Reagan was ‘sunk’ by a Swedish AIP sub.

    Built by Mitsubishi and Kawasaki, this AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) submarine is powered by a Kockums Stirling engine, enabling subsurface running for weeks at a time, a capability normally associated only with nuclear powered subs. The Stirling engine appears to drive a 750kW generator. Kockums has been developing their Stirling engines since the 1960’s.

    I would like to think that Kockums & ThyssenKrup has the industrial capacity to initially produce 1000’s and the financial capacity to ramp up to 1,000,000s of engines produced with an extremely high quality, off-the-shelf technology. The associated commercial sector subsidiary is called RiPasso Energy.

    Any engineers out there capable of determining the Watts required to move a sub at about 5.5knots subsurface?

    LINK>> http://japandailypress.com/japan-launches-newest-submarine-kokuryu-amid-party-atmosphere-0438960/
    LINK>> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/sssoryuclasssubmarin/
    LINK>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine
    LINK>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion
    LINK>> http://www.kockums.se/en/products-services/submarines/stirling-aip-system/the-stirling-engine/
    LINK>> http://www.ripassoenergy.com/efficient.html

    • I’m a bit mystified by the acronym AIP for ‘air independent propulsion’, when the MPE is a pair of diesels. Presumably the auxiliary Stirling engines add efficiency and provide ‘silent running’ capability – but what is the ‘air independent’ heat source that drives the Sterling engines during fully submerged operation? Or maybe it’s just getting a bit late in the day for proper comprehension…

      • Buck

        49r, I’m with you. However, what ever the current source might be, I doubt it is any where near the potential of a LENR H Gas-Nickel reactor.

        • Buck – quite so. Assuming it isn’t already – Mitsubishi Industries may have their first ‘test bed’!

          Btw, the Naval Technology link suggests 6MW max output from the Stirling engines when submerged, so maybe somewhere a little under 20MW of heat input required. (Whatever the power source, dumping the waste heat to seawater cooling would leave a pretty obvious heat signature I would have thought.) As you implied in your initial post these engines hitched to hot cat boilers would be a good match to industrial generation requirements, and to many other applications such as locomotives and surface ships.

          • Buck

            Since the system is a ‘life & death’ technology, I expect they are addressing the heat plume effect to the extent possible. They have been aware of the phenomena since the creation of nuclear submarines with the ‘always on’ heat source.

            Also, the Naval Tech link indicates the 6MW max is from at least the four Stirling engines. Therefore, 1.5MW for each.

          • Yes – I wonder how nuclear subs deal with heat ejection? I suppose the obvious answer is dilution – to take in many times the amount of cooling water needed so that the ‘exhaust’ is only fractionally warmer than the surrounding water.

          • GreenWin

            A closed coolant system in silent run mode seems plausible. Also, carefully modulated heat radiators can disguise the signature to look like random heat islands, biomass, or geologic anomalies. I’d worry more about side scan sonar and magnetometer sensors.

          • GreenWin

            Here’s a UK-based Stirling maker that once focused on nautical sector but in recent years has removed those products from public internet – now focus is on home applications. http://www.whispergen-europe.com/stirling_en.php?fm=stirling&fp=The%20Stirling%20Engine

          • Buck

            GW, this looks like a beautiful unit just waiting for a LENR reactor module.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            It’s air independent since it has LOX tank. The heat signature issue exists, but is less severe than for nuclear sub whose reactor cannot be throttled quickly.

          • Ah, thanks. Simple as that.

    • Buck, Thyssenkrup focus on Sterling Engines for submarines.
      Are you suggesting that Rossi is building a Fusion Sub? Hmm 🙂

  • Curbina

    If MHD plasma electric generation research would’nt have been stopped in the 60’s

    Damn. 67% efficiency was expected.

    • Frechette

      Siemens has a binary cycle turbine in operation with a 61% efficiency in Germany. It’s a large machine not your run of the mill micro turbine.

  • Curbina

    If MHD plasma electric generation research would’nt have been stopped in the 60’s

    Damn. 67% efficiency was expected.

    • Frechette

      Siemens has a binary cycle turbine in operation with a 61% efficiency in Germany. It’s a large machine not your run of the mill micro turbine.

  • Kola

    I find it difficult to believe the design of a new LENR boiler for existing steam turbines would be a multi year project.

    • Roger Bird

      But the testing should take a very long time, since, as I said to you before, this is a heat source never experienced before in the history of world.

      But also, this is not just a coal burner. We have no idea what is involved with the catalyst. If it is a RF signal, it could get tricky if the boiler is changed.

      • Kola

        We disagree on a couple of points:

        From my reading I understood there was an understanding such that a LENR had been designed that was both reliable and safe to operate.

        Second, I agree testing of new products needs to be complete and independently verified. However, I do not believe it needs to take a long time.

        • Roger Bird

          There are still people here, including myself who have not seen any reason to believe that Rossi has control of the E-Cat, as in turning it on and off at will. I have seen no evidence for that. And in fact in the Levi 2013 report, the first test was unstable and melted itself to death. It may be cute and very impressive, but it is unstable.

          With regard to testing for a long period of time, testing 100 E-cats for a week does not equal testing 1 E-cat for 100 weeks. I found that out for myself when I calculated that 13 Ceragems (a therapeutic massage bed) going failure free for three years did not equal the one Ceragem that I bought that failed after 5 years. Failures aren’t just random; sometimes they happen because the machine wears out over time.

        • Omega Z

          “both reliable and safe to operate”

          This is a subjective term. In a Lab/Research, Good.
          To be released on the World as a product has a whole different set of Rules, Regulations & Requirements.

          A Failure rate of 1/10 or 1/100 may be fine in the Lab. More zeros in a marketable product. And Only additional R&D can determine the Fail Rate.

  • Fortyniner

    Upvoted simply because I share the enthusisam for model steam engines (but don’t aspire to anything as grand as a 7 1/4″ ‘Scotsman’!)

    • Sean

      Good for you Fortyniner. Steam is alive for sure. It built our industrial revolution. Now ECAT.
      Just worked out that I would need a temperature of 350 degrees Fahrenheit for the 120 PSI needed to run this locomotive. I wonder which ECAT to order. The normal one or the Hot Cat. Decisions decisions.. Of course I hope to get my Ecat first. You guys will have to line up. Come on Rossi, we are lining up like the Boxing day sale. Make 2014 an ECAT Year.

      • Fortyniner

        Noooo, please! A steam loco, even a model one, has got to have a fire of Welsh coal at its heart, and to leave a lingering cloud of grey smoke behind it when it moves. Anything else would be a pale imitation.

        Maybe one day we’ll see CF/steam locos in places where rails can’t be electrified, such as large tracts of the US, Canada, Australia, and the BRICS countries but unfortunately, here in W. Europe I think the featureless electrically driven tubes will continue to reign supreme for as long as railways survive.

        • Sean

          Ok Fortyniner your right. Steam my loco with welsh coal. But I like your CF/steam loco idea. CN & CP would certainly welcome it. Todays BBC news:- UK pays £92.50 per megawatt. Europe pays £37.94. BIG RIP OFF. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25390456

  • bachcole

    You’all might want to review this just so you don’t get discouraged. Funny thing is that nothing is included on the list that is not yet accepted by mainstream science. So the list maker still uses mainstream beliefs as his standard. For example, although Halton Arp was prestigious enough to have a catalog of stellar objects named after him, he is not included because his ideas about astronomical distance is not yet accepted. His career got such a hit that he had trouble getting a job in the good ol’ USA, the land of the brave (him) and the home of the free (not us).

    Also notice that many of these dudes later became Nobel Prize winners. And even more amazing, at least one was accepted all of a sudden when he did get a Nobel Prize; now that is what you call cowardice on the part of mainstream “science”.

    http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

  • Roger Bird

    You’all might want to review this just so you don’t get discouraged. Funny thing is that nothing is included on the list that is not yet accepted by mainstream science. So the list maker still uses mainstream beliefs as his standard. For example, although Halton Arp was prestigious enough to have a catalog of stellar objects named after him, he is not included because his ideas about astronomical distance is not yet accepted. His career got such a hit that he had trouble getting a job in the good ol’ USA, the land of the brave (him) and the home of the free (not us).

    Also notice that many of these dudes later became Nobel Prize winners. And even more amazing, at least one was accepted all of a sudden when he did get a Nobel Prize; now that is what you call cowardice on the part of mainstream “science”.

    http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

  • Frechette

    The Cyclone engine is not a steam turbine. It is a piston engine. What is unique about it is that it does not require oil for lubrication but uses water. This makes it simpler in that the oil does not need to be replenished nor is a traditional oil separator needed. Also for low power applications a piston engine is superior to a steam micro turbine. Managing the losses is considerably less expensive.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      The lack of oil lubrication could also be the Cyclone’s downfall. I can’t visualize long-term continuous duty without oil lube.

      • Frechette

        As long as the water remains in the liquid state lubrication is assured just like any hydrodynamic bearing.

  • Frechette

    The Cyclone engine is not a steam turbine. It is a piston engine. What is unique about it is that it does not require oil for lubrication but uses water. This makes it simpler in that the oil does not need to be replenished nor is a traditional oil separator needed. Also for low power applications a piston engine is superior to a steam micro turbine. Managing the losses is considerably less expensive.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      The lack of oil lubrication could also be the Cyclone’s downfall.
      Long-term continuous duty without oil lube, sounds farfreched.

      • Frechette

        As long as the water remains in the liquid state lubrication is assured just like any hydrodynamic bearing.

  • bachcole

    But the testing should take a very long time, since, as I said to you before, this is a heat source never experienced before in the history of world.

    But also, this is not just a coal burner. We have no idea what is involved with the catalyst. If it is a RF signal, it could get tricky if the boiler is changed.

    • Kola

      We disagree on a couple of points:

      From my reading I understood there was an understanding such that a LENR had been designed that was both reliable and safe to operate.

      Second, I agree testing of new products needs to be complete and independently verified. However, I do not believe it needs to take a long time.

      • bachcole

        There are still people here, including myself who have not seen any reason to believe that Rossi has control of the E-Cat, as in turning it on and off at will. I have seen no evidence for that. And in fact in the Levi 2013 report, the first test was unstable and melted itself to death. It may be cute and very impressive, but it is unstable.

        With regard to testing for a long period of time, testing 100 E-cats for a week does not equal testing 1 E-cat for 100 weeks. I found that out for myself when I calculated that 13 Ceragems (a therapeutic massage bed) going failure free for three years did not equal the one Ceragem that I bought that failed after 5 years. Failures aren’t just random; sometimes they happen because the machine wears out over time.

      • Omega Z

        “both reliable and safe to operate”

        This is a subjective term. In a Lab/Research, Good.
        To be released on the World as a product has a whole different set of Rules, Regulations & Requirements.

        A Failure rate of 1/10 or 1/100 may be fine in the Lab. More zeros in a marketable product. And Only additional R&D can determine the Fail Rate.

  • Fortyniner

    Of course you are correct, but when the heat source is as inexpensive to run as Rossi claims, efficiency become relatively less important, while heat ejection becomes relatively more so. No problem if large amounts of water are to hand, but ejection to air (in the absence of gaseous exhaust) will add complexity, weight, cost and auxiliary energy requirements.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      If you are willing to live with low efficiency, you could use thermoelectric, which is comparable to small piston steam, but much simpler. However, you miss the point that a COP would have to be >20 to generate even enough electric power to power the e-cat at that low efficiency. A multistage e-cat can possibly get that large, but this has not been demonstrated. A better approach might be hot-cat (400 C) with a Stirling cycle generator, which can approach the 30% Net and allow COP of 6 to work.

  • dbg

    I don’t think I’ve seen this particular example here…

    “This is the project of Jochen Mannhart of the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research and colleagues at Stanford University and the University of Augsburg: creating a so-called thermionic generator that achieves efficiency high enough to be useful. Their work is described in the free, open access Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy.”

    http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/with-thermionic-generation-the-steam-age-draws-to-a-close

    • Omega Z

      Solid State. No Moving parts. Longevity. This is the best option if 40% efficiency can eventually be achieved.

    • GreenWin

      Interesting find. At 40% conversion efficiency this thermionic system would be a great boon to LENR. The authors of the paper say it needs a lot more R&D. But their paper explains the principles they work with (directing electron clouds into current flow) so other researchers may pursue the ideas. The work at Stanford is supplied under a DOE contract at the Stanford National Accelerator laboratory – placing their work in public domain.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Nirvana’s “Power Stick” is claimed to lose only 6% up the chimney. Nirvana claims to directly produce electricity from natural gas through a thermo-acoustic process. I don’t know if an ecat could replace the natgas. Is the natgas used for heat or detonation?

        http://www.nirvana-es.com/news_pr120913.html

        • GreenWin

          I was wondering when NASA’s work in thermo-acoustic Stirling was going to go commercial. This is a fantastic new method for converting heat to electric at the 30% efficiency threshold. The natgas provides the heat – the T differential supports acoustic wave tuned electrically. Will repost more details in the Always Open thread. No moving parts makes this breakthrough.

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    It looks like Andrea Rossi and partners are also developing a home version of the ECAT. For industrial versions (> 1 MW) and sufficiently high temperatures, you will be able to find plenty steam-based generators. A few month ago I proposed to mr Rossi to buy a home hot water boiler with an integrated Sterling generator of a few KW electrical, which is commercially available in Europe. AR replied it was too expensive. I thought it can be used to make a standalone ECAD independently running of any energy source. Their aim is obviously not to prove LENR. I wonder what they really aim for.

    • Fortyniner

      You are right that Rossi and associates have no need or desire to prove LENR. Their aim, like that of any commercial enterprise, will be to maximise returns on investment. Their options appear to be to either sell industrial scale LENR reactors, boilers or complete generator sets, to lease them, to sell electricity or to lease the IP.

      Maximum return has a time component, i.e., the time until competition makes a dent in profitability, so I would expect the last option to be out on security grounds, but otherwise it will be a matter of commercial judgement. My bet, at least initially, would be on leasing of retro-fit boilers, but they might equally well buy up and convert obsolete coal power stations and sell LENR-generated electricity if the ‘partner’ is a large enough entity. That way the technology, as well as all profits, stay completely ‘in house’ and no third party involvement would be required. As no-one could compete on costs until they acquire their own CF technology, they could simply embark on a predatory path of buying up competitors as they inevitably fail, and converting their kit to CF.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Good analysis. There are plenty of coal plants for sale cheap.

        http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443696604577645713658834228

        • GreenWin

          Indeed, there is a “fire sale” going on in coal power plants. Recent bankruptcy for Edison Mission Energy put their 4.3GW on sale at bankruptcy prices. Oddly, a promoter of distributed energy and off-grid generation bought the whole lot.

          • Buck

            A wild thought grounded in nothing came up with the idea that NRG Energy could be Rossi’s partner.

            The idea does not fit with much of what has been speculated about Rossi’s partner . . . essentially that the partner has significant R&D and Operational Engineering Design capabilities and resources.

            The main reason the idea of NRG Energy being the partner has appeal is due to David Crane’s outspoken strategic view of the future. LENR would absolutely put NRG onto an unbeatable growth trajectory.

          • GreenWin

            Buck, doubtful, but Crane sets the table for the entire industry IMO. Some will hear the call, others will not.

          • Buck

            GW, I agree. I do look forward to learning the partner’s name

      • Buck

        49r, I couldn’t agree more on placing one’s bet on this scenario. It addresses all the concerns I can think of from every stakeholder (aside from the Fossil Industry’s wish that LENR drop dead). It also appears to be the absolute simplest path to LENR implementation as one can choose to focus solely on the retrofitting of the boilers and skipping all the other issues like sourcing engines.

        One twist though. The leasing option achieves two important goals. First, it co-opts the Power Generation industry into the LENR framework and presumably helps with Governmental hurdles. Second, it conserves cash for expansion in existing power plant retrofits, R&D, Governmental liaison efforts, etc..

        • Fortyniner

          Here in Europe LENR should also in theory attract quite significant subsidies as a ‘low carbon’ generating technology. In the UK, there is continuous propaganda aimed at convincing the oiks that nuclear fission is a ‘green’ technology (obviously ignoring any suggestions re. cradle to grave energy audits that include building and dismantling the things, and processing the waste) so CF should easily qualify. I’d be willing to bet that in this case the goalposts will be moved pretty quickly though.

          • Buck

            LENR just needs to become a viable alternative with a commercially viable reactor with a strong backer like Elforsk &Vattenfall. Then the chips will fall where they may and we get to be in the ringside seats.

    • Job001

      Given cheap electrical power, an electric water heater is simple and economical. Expensive Sterling generators are not justified since the LENR heat is cheap so the least expensive generator that delivers required power is the best choice. Makes sense.

    • Omega Z

      The Problem is that NOTHING on the market is economical for home Electrical Generation. Even if Rossi gave you a Free E-cat. Even if they had a COP>20.

      The Problem is home scaled Generating systems are to low efficiency & to short lived. One system I’ve looked into- $25K to $30K installed.
      Functions only part time. 6-8 hours a day with a 10 year life span. At least that’s their Goal. Not there Yet.
      Used 24/7, these systems would last only about 2 years. Requires a service tech check about twice per year.
      Do the Math. Note that with the present efficiency levels, Most of that Electricity will be used to Run the E-cat with little left over for your use. If Any.

      There’s new Technology on the Horizon, but likely not available for several years. If Rossi & his partner bring this technology to the market, Others will likely jump into the fray & advance these other techs, But still, it will be several years before they will even come close to being Economical for in home use.

    • Omega Z

      The Problem is that NOTHING on the market is economical for home Electrical Generation. Even if Rossi gave you a Free E-cat. Even if they had a COP>20.

      I have always been under the Impression that Stirling engines were efficient. Maybe that depends on what you compare them with. On average of 20% in my Opinion is not Efficient. Especially with the E-cat needing 15% plus just to operate itself.

      The Problem is home scaled Generating systems are to low efficiency & to short lived. One system I’ve looked into- $25K to $30K installed
      Functions only part time. 6-8 hours a day with a 10 year life span. At least that’s their Goal. Not there Yet.
      Used 24/7, these systems would last only about 2 years. Requires a service tech check about twice per year.
      Do the Math.

      There’s new Technology on the Horizon, but likely not available for several years. If Rossi & his partner bring this technology to the market, Others will likely jump into the fray & advance these other techs, But still, it will be several years before they will even come close to being Economical for in home use. We’ll have to wait for other tech to catch up.

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    It looks like Andrea Rossi and partners are also developing a home version of the ECAT. For industrial versions (> 1 MW) and sufficiently high temperatures, you will be able to find plenty steam-based generators. A few month ago I proposed to mr Rossi to buy a home hot water boiler with an integrated Sterling generator of a few KW electrical, which is commercially available in Europe. AR replied it was too expensive. I thought it can be used to make a standalone ECAD independently running of any energy source. Their aim is obviously not to prove LENR. I wonder what they really aim for.

    • You are right that Rossi and associates have no need or desire to prove LENR. Their aim, like that of any commercial enterprise, will be to maximise returns on investment. Their options appear to be to either sell industrial scale LENR reactors, boilers or complete generator sets, to lease them, to sell electricity or to lease the IP.

      Maximum return has a time component, i.e., the time until competition makes a dent in profitability, so I would expect the last option to be out on security grounds, but otherwise it will be a matter of commercial judgement. My bet, at least initially, would be on leasing of retro-fit boilers, but they might equally well buy up and convert obsolete coal power stations and sell LENR-generated electricity if the ‘partner’ is a large enough entity. That way the technology, as well as all profits, stay completely ‘in house’ and no third party involvement would be required. As no-one could compete on costs until they acquire their own CF technology, they could simply embark on a predatory path of buying up competitors cheaply as they inevitably fail, and converting their kit to CF.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Good analysis. There are plenty of coal plants for sale cheap.

        http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443696604577645713658834228

        • GreenWin

          Indeed, there is a “fire sale” going on in coal power plants. Recent bankruptcy for Edison Mission Energy put their 4.3GW on sale at bankruptcy prices. Oddly, a promoter of distributed energy and off-grid generation bought the whole lot.

          • Guest

            A wild thought came up with the idea that NRG Energy could be Rossi’s partner.

            The idea does not fit with much of what has been speculated about Rossi’s partner . . . essentially that the partner has significant R&D and Operational Engineering Design capabilities and resources.

            The main reason the idea of NRG Energy being the partner has appeal is due to David Crane’s outspoken strategic view of the future. It is fair to say that Rossi and Crane have similar visions of the future. LENR would absolutely put NRG onto an unbeatable growth trajectory.

          • GreenWin

            Buck, doubtful, but Crane sets the table for the entire industry IMO. Some will hear the call, others will not.

          • Guest

            GW, I agree. I do look forward to learning the partner’s name

      • Buck

        49r, I couldn’t agree more on placing one’s bet on this scenario. It addresses all the concerns I can think of from every stakeholder (aside from the Fossil Industry’s wish that LENR drop dead). It also appears to be the absolute simplest path to LENR implementation as one can choose to focus solely on the retrofitting of the boilers and skipping all the other issues like sourcing engines.

        One twist though. The leasing option achieves two important goals. First, it co-opts a % of the Power Generation industry into the LENR framework and presumably helps with Governmental hurdles. Second, it conserves cash for expansion in existing power plant retrofits, R&D, Governmental liaison efforts, etc..

        • Here in Europe LENR should also in theory attract quite significant subsidies as a ‘low carbon’ generating technology. In the UK, there is continuous propaganda aimed at convincing the oiks that nuclear fission is a ‘green’ technology (obviously ignoring any suggestions re. cradle to grave energy audits that include building and dismantling the things, and processing the waste) so CF should easily qualify. I’d be willing to bet that in this case the goalposts will be moved pretty quickly though.

          • Buck

            LENR just needs to become a viable alternative with a commercially viable reactor with a strong backer like Elforsk, Vattenfall, NRG Energy. Then the chips will fall where they may and we get to be in the ringside seats.

    • Job001

      Given cheap electrical power, an electric water heater is simple and economical. Expensive Sterling generators are not justified since the LENR heat is cheap so the least expensive generator that delivers required power is the best choice. Makes sense.

    • Omega Z

      The Problem is that NOTHING on the market is economical for home Electrical Generation. Even if Rossi gave you a Free E-cat. Even if they had a COP>20.

      The Problem is home scaled Generating systems are to low efficiency & to short lived. One system I’ve looked into- $25K to $30K installed.
      Functions only part time. 6-8 hours a day with a 10 year life span. At least that’s their Goal. Not there Yet.
      Used 24/7, these systems would last only about 2 years. Requires a service tech check about twice per year.
      Do the Math. Note that with the present efficiency levels, Most of that Electricity will be used to Run the E-cat with little left over for your use. If Any.

      There’s new Technology on the Horizon, but likely not available for several years. If Rossi & his partner bring this technology to the market, Others will likely jump into the fray & advance these other techs, But still, it will be several years before they will even come close to being Economical for in home use.

    • Omega Z

      The Problem is that NOTHING on the market is economical for home Electrical Generation. Even if Rossi gave you a Free E-cat. Even if they had a COP>20.

      I have always been under the Impression that Stirling engines were efficient. Maybe that depends on what you compare them with. On average of 20% in my Opinion is not Efficient. Especially with the E-cat needing 15% plus just to operate itself.

      The Problem is home scaled Generating systems are to low efficiency & to short lived. One system I’ve looked into- $25K to $30K installed
      Functions only part time. 6-8 hours a day with a 10 year life span. At least that’s their Goal. Not there Yet.
      Used 24/7, these systems would last only about 2 years. Requires a service tech check about twice per year.
      Do the Math.

      There’s new Technology on the Horizon, but likely not available for several years. If Rossi & his partner bring this technology to the market, Others will likely jump into the fray & advance these other techs, But still, it will be several years before they will even come close to being Economical for in home use. We’ll have to wait for other tech to catch up.

  • GreenWin

    Interesting find. At 40% conversion efficiency this thermionic system would be a great boon to LENR. The authors of the paper say it needs a lot more R&D. But their paper explains the principles they work with (directing electron clouds into current flow) so other researchers may pursue the ideas. The work at Stanford is supplied under a DOE contract at the Stanford National Accelerator laboratory – placing their work in public domain.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Nirvana’s “Power Stick” is claimed to lose only 6% up the chimney. Nirvana claims to directly produce electricity from natural gas through a thermo-acoustic process. I don’t know if an ecat could replace the natgas. Is the natgas used for heat or detonation?

      http://www.nirvana-es.com/news_pr120913.html

      • GreenWin

        I was wondering when NASA’s work in thermo-acoustic Stirling was going to go commercial. This is a fantastic new method for converting heat to electric at the 30% efficiency threshold. The natgas provides the heat – the T differential supports acoustic wave tuned electrically. Will repost more details in the Always Open thread. No moving parts makes this breakthrough.

  • Quantum

    For the time being the most immediate, feasible and cheapest entry opportunity into an E-Cat market would be the provision of chaep and ecologically clean heat for industrial as well as for home heat generation. CF heat generation could save billions of barrels of heating oil per annum and pay off any investment within a short period.

    Generation of electricity by a steam process or any other thermal cycle would be a highly attractive but technologically much more demanding future option, however not urgent at this time.