Rossi: Natural Gas E-Cat Needed For Electricity Production (For Now)

Following up on a post on the Journal of Nuclear Physics yesterday regarding his hopes for a natural gas driven E-Cat, Andrea Rossi commented further today. Peter Fosberg stated in a new post that “I have yet to hear Rossi say that he can produce electricity with good enough efficiency. Do you have other information? I agree that the Rossi effect is in its infancy, and will likely be improved a lot over time.”

Andrea Rossi commented in response:

We are working on this issue; as you say, the E-Cat will be improved a lot over the time. I think that to to gain a strong efficiency for the production od electric power we need to use gas instead of electricity, for the reasons you correctly explained in your comment yesterday. If we take in consideration the results of ITP and integrate them with the ratio 3:1 = thermal energy: electric energy, we can see that there is still a COP >1, but we are pursuing more strong effect.

It seems likely to that Industrial Heat’s work towards commercial plants at this point is done for the purpose of providing heat rather than electricity — where they can find a way for customers to realize energy savings sufficient to make investments in E-Cat plants make sense economically.

I expect R&D for this technology to be continuous, and as with every technology we use today to be improved over time. I am sure we’ll see efficient electricity production from E-Cats (or similar from competitors) at some point, but it’s going to be necessary to be able to crawl, then walk, before running.

  • BroKeeper

    My understanding I am taking from all this is a stable E-Cat cannot exceed much over COP=3 with a load. Meaning if it is used strictly as heat amplification with three times the output over input will be sufficient for any factory to save one third of its energy costs, a huge advantage when speaking of MW generation. Now with the consideration of using cheaper gas verses a current electricity source will provide an even greater COP savings over electricity, perhaps greater than 4. I think this would make the customer very happy and create a very positive PR for the E-CATs future especially when they exceed COP>6 for electricity.

  • georgehants

    Admin, you write —-
    “I expect R&D for this technology to be continuous, and as with every
    technology we use today to be improved over time. I am sure we’ll see
    efficient electricity production from E-Cats (or similar from
    competitors) at some point, but it’s going to be necessary to be able to
    crawl, then walk, before running.”
    You seem I am sure by accident to have failed to point out that the “crawl, walk and running” is at present confined to the very few small independent hero’s like Mr. Rossi et al.
    Do you think it would be worth pointing out that after a 25 year gestation with main-line and academic science, the baby of Cold Fusion has not even been born, but strangled at birth by proven malicious corruption and closed-minded incompetence.
    I am sure you would like to be sure that this is clearly recorded on this Website.

  • Gerard McEk

    This is exactly what I assumed yesterday. If an Ecat can run on natural gas (with some Electro Magnetic help?) then it is also possble to drive an Ecat directly with the heat of another Ecat. For that you need an airflow system with automatic valves to select either cold or hot air as inlet for an Ecat. If an Ecat becomes too hot you switch over to cold air inlet and if too cold,you switch it to the outlet of a previous Ecat. One Ecat can deliver enough heat to drive three to four following Ecats and you can chain this further. If the first one would be electrical heat controlled of say 2 kW, and Ecats have a COP of 4, the output is 8 kW. The four Ecats can drive 16 following Ecats and these 64 Ecats etc. In other words you simply multiply the COP by the number of following Ecats. The only thing you need is a big fan, a complex airflow system to control each individual Ecat.
    I am aware that a mechanical airflow control as complex as this will not live long, but I am sure it is feasible. The COP of the system will be (85 Ecats) will be around 60, more than enough to produce electricity!

    • US_Citizen71

      A liquid would be better than using air. Liquids hold more heat than a gas allowing for quicker heating or cooling of the next stage. Also I believe the technology for liquid controls is more developed and the valves more robust. Your basic ideal should still hold true.

      • Fortyniner

        Alternatively (and simpler in engineering terms) multiple reactors could be housed in bores through a solid thermal mass such as a block of cast iron or stainless steel, with separate coolant bores running close by each reactor. By regulating coolant flow (water, oil, PEG etc.) through the bores, correct operating temperatures could be quite easily maintained. Additional through-bores could be used to pre-heat the block using gas burners (start up).

        • georgehants

          Sounds like an old Lister to me.

        • Gerard McEk

          I like that design and have been thinking about this, but I cannot see how you can start this. Maybe you heat the wole thermal blockand make all Ecats active and then control them usung the liquid flow. Again the question is what liquid? Lead (up to 2024 C) or sodium (up to 1155 C)?

          • Fortyniner

            “Maybe you heat the wole thermal block…” Yes, that’s what I had in mind – the complete assembly being vertically orientated, and thermally insulated within an outer casing.

            Three or four gas-fired bores with internal baffles, located very close to the reactors, would pre-heat the block adjacent to them to operating temperature. Once the reactors were operating, coolant would be admitted to bores placed a little further away from the reactors, at a flow-rate designed to take heat away at the same rate it is produced.

            Coolant temperature could be considerably lower than the reactor operating temperature, as a stable thermal gradient would be established in the metal of the block. By extending the block some distance below the upper reactor zone, even low temperature pre-heating in the vertical bores would become possible.

            With proper design, water could be directly evaporated in the coolant bores, then superheated in the upper (reactor) zone before exiting the block, or alternatively a primary coolant such as molten metal, e.g., lead, tin or aluminium, or molten salts as suggested by Mike Henderson above, could circulate through bores in a more compact thermal mass, and carry heat to an external heat exchanger.

        • BroKeeper

          I have seen a engineering design of a heat exchanger block with parallel hot and cool ports configured for only 3D printing. Seem to be very efficient.

      • Gerard McEk

        I agree, but what liquid can e used over 1000 deg. C? Hot cats may not start below 1000 C.

        • US_Citizen71

          I was thinking of lower temperature applications. Mineral oil would work for the low temperature applications like what the current 1MW plant would be used in. With enough stages 2kW of electricity could produce 1MW worth of heat. Beyond that higher temp fluids that are still easy to work with could be used for power. You just end up using lower efficiency turbines or the equivalent so you compensate for it with more initial stages. Sort of the BFI approach at LENR power generation.

    • Gerard McEk

      Some addition I also proposed in the past: If it is trough that Ecats can also be controlled by heat only (which I doubt, you probably need some EM field), then you can insulate the Ecat and control it with a heat-flow out. You can generate electricity, because it should be self sustaining however the energy output will fluctuate due to the control. (10kW Ecat can provide about 2 kWe and 8 kW heat if you do it small scale).

  • BroKeeper

    We don’t know any more than what AR said above using the ITP report example of 3:1. Of course higher is better.

  • Hi all

    On the matter of massive miss statements by some commenters about COP.

    The first independent tests of the Hot-Cat showed greater than COP 6.

    In this second test it has been clearly stated the HotCat was not run in full power and below capacity and without the pulse mode that was found to increase COP.

    So why do people thinking this time it was run at full power?

    I quote from the Lugano report page 7 paragraph 6, :

    “After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W. Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W.

    We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, despite the fact that we had been informed that the reactor was capable of operating under such conditions for as long a time as necessary. That power input mode, however, would have caused significant temperature increases during the brief intervals of time in which power was fed to the reactor. Moreover, the emissivity of alumina is temperature-dependent: this would have made all calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of the acquired data difficult.”

    Sometimes I think people need to actually read the report and the inventors statments before commenting!

    Kind Regards walker

    • LCD

      Tactic used by pseudoskepts, more noise you have to wade through

  • bfast

    “I am sure we’ll see efficient electricity production from E-Cats (or similar from competitors) at some point, but it’s going to be necessary to be able to crawl, then walk, before running.”
    Yes! Yes! Once an LENR technology gets into commercial production, deniability will be gone. Once deniability is gone, money will flood into LENR as if by a fire hose. Development will happen fast from that point. The device first revealed will look like a model T compared to the devices that are available 10 years on.

  • jonnyb

    This is a smart move as gas is very cheap and abundant at the moment. Anything that improves the efficiency further will be a major step forward. In my mind these guys know exactly what they are doing.

  • Hi all

    In reply to Thomas Clarke

    Innuendo is not fact, it is implied statements, without a jot of evidence, made by those who lack the courage to say what they imply because they know they will get sued for lying.

    These are the facts and are supported by evidence:

    The professors who performed the test said the energy for this low power test was COP 3.2, it is there in the report for anyone who dares to read it.

    Page 1) the Abstract:
    “New results are presented from an extended experimental investigation of anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube operating at high temperatures. The reactor, named E-Cat, is charged with a small amount of hydrogen-loaded nickel powder plus some additives, mainly Lithium. The reaction is primarily initiated by heat from resistor coils around the reactor tube. Measurements of the radiated power from the reactor were performed with high-resolution thermal imaging cameras. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. Data were collected during 32 days of running in March 2014. The reactor operating point was set to about 1260 ºC in the first half of the run, and at about 1400 °C in the second half. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. T”

    Once again a fact; the CEO of Industrial Heat stated:
    “We built the reactor, but we shipped it over to Switzerland,”

    Different interpretation of data are allowed in science but failure to put your eye to the telescope and deliberate lies are pathological science and need to be rooted out.

    Kind Regards walker

    • GreenWin

      Clarke has now proven himself a transparent path o, desperate to introduce FUD in the face of Elforsk’s recent additional endorsements of LENR and Rossi’s E-Cat. Why fight so desperately against a private company spending private funds to develop a benevolent solution?

      Readers here have to understand that just as clever defense attorneys focus on swaying a jury by introducing even a tiny sliver of doubt – this is the role of JTRIG-type shills pretending to be “skeptics.”

  • Hi all

    The use of Gas or electric in LENR is the equivalent of the battery and starter motor on an internal combustion engine, or the diesel generators in Nuclear Power Plant used to operate moderator rods. In neither case can they operate without them.

    It is a fairly simple concept that initiation and control of any energy system is done from an external energy supply. We started doing this with friction between two sticks or striking a flint with a meteor rock and feeding the fire with wood we used our energy to chop and gather. Does that mean fire does not work because it requires our energy to start it and control it?

    Really some people need to go back to school.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Omega Z

    Note that it also wasn’t run in the Self Sustain Mode(SSM).

    This was so as not to complicate the calculations any more then they are. Using an Alumina reactor makes it difficult.