Rossi on Increasing Power Using Hot Cat Clusters

Andrea Rossi has mentioned a little more about the latest Hot Cat configuration, which seems to have been built following the pattern in the 1 MW plant in which ‘synergy’ has been reached between reactors, thus increasing the overall COP of the plant.

He wrote in one comment:

The Hot Cat modules will too be assembled in clusters to increase the power.

Just to make sure I understood what he meant with this comment, I asked him:

When you say you arrange the Hot Cats in clusters to increase power, are you able to use one Hot Cat reactor to drive another, thus reducing overall energy consumption from the grid?

Rossi responded, “Yes”.

It’s still not clear how these clusters work, and I doubt Rossi will give too much detail at this point, but it seems that Rossi has figured out a way to get reactors to work together somehow — in what he calls a ‘synergistic’ way.

To me, the ability to combine reactors in a cluster seems to be quite a breakthrough for the E-Cat. We don’t know how many reactors comprise a cluster, but the idea of having a chain of reactors feeding one another has been discussed for a long time as a way to reach a very high COP.

If you can use one reactor that is already running at a modest COP, perhaps even running in self sustain mode, to stimulate a reaction in a separate E-Cat reactor — and perhaps there would be more than one reactor involved — the cumulative power needed to get multiple reactors going could be quite small.

Hot Cats run at temperatures high enough to create the high temperature steam needed for efficient electricity, so this apparent clustering breakthrough could be very important for Rossi’s goal of creating electricity competitively.

  • wpj

    I would assume that he is using one or two modules as a pre-heater so that less electrical energy is used to get the other reactors up to heat and to be sustained.

  • The “clustering” or the”mouse to cat” perhaps is what the “Rossi effect” is, more than a secret sauce for the kitty.

  • Agaricus

    There seems to be increasing convergence between mouse/cat LT reactors and ‘Hot Cat’ types, which may indicate that the two ‘types’ are just variations on a theme, differing perhaps in size and construction materials, but essentially similar in other respects apart from operating temperature.

    However, if Rossi is sitting in a control cabin all day nursing his LT pilot reactor – then who is doing this development work on HT eCats, and where is this taking place? About a month ago he said on JONP, “R&D on the Hot Cat is going on here where I am working with the 1 MW E-Cat”. His latest comment seems to be further evidence that hot cat development is taking place on the ‘customer’s’ premises, alongside the testing of the pilot plant.

    It seems unlikely if this is the case that the ‘customer’ is an independent entity, but rather some facility owned by either IH or a sponsor we haven’t heard about yet. More surprises yet to come I think.

  • builditnow

    How the cat and mouse could work:
    It could be that the cat part of the cat and mouse is a setup where the cat runs at a higher temperature than the mouse and provide heat to many mice (the mice providing the main source of energy output) in a controlled fashion via some working fluid (could be water / steam). That way all the mice can be given heat if they need it or be cooled if needed by mixing hot fluid from the cat with colder fluid. This way each mouse can be provided the temperature tailored to their particular needs.

    Additionally, the plant as a whole can have variable output power, the mice can be cooled down to reduce power or warmed up to increase power and in the meantime the cats can remain hot, ready to get the mice going to meet the to meet the varying manufacturing requirements. Hot fluid from the cats (water / steam) can be stored in a small vessel (boiler) ready for instant use.

    A similar setup could be made with Hot-Cats using air as the working fluid.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Given reports of a COP as high as 80, then this concept of using heat from some e-cats to provide heat to other reactors makes perfect sense.

      This plant only been running for what, 6 months? Already we seeing HUGE increases in COP in such a short time.

      I don’t think Rossi is that far off of from building a self sustaining plant – this suggests a near un-limited COP.

      Likely next gen reactors he builds will only need startup energy, but once going then only the control and “EM” stimulation system will consume power, but drive heat will be provided by the reactor.

      After ONLY a few months of plant operating, we are seeing “astounding” reports of COP – this suggests a amazing future for LENR!

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada
      kallal@msn.com

      • Axil Axil

        For some reason, Rossi cannot build a large cluster module. It must involve control of the . A reaactor with 5 cluster members would be a lot less expensize to build than a reactor that needs ton use 105 clustered reactor units.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          I agree!

          It will be interesting to see “which way” the size of the reactors goes.

          Do you make larger ones (like larger computers of past history).

          Or do you make smaller and smaller CPU’s and put them in a data center to create cloud computing? The computer industry has thus found many smaller CPU’s working together was a better scalable solution – but this ONLY occurred with the rise of cloud operating systems such as Azure that make this possible. Without such a cloud OS like Azure, then likely larger computers (and larger CPU’s) would be the current market choice. So the cloud revolution right now is occurring DUE to these cloud Operating systems that allow many CPU’s to work together.

          And same goes for LENR. I suspect it is too soon to tell which way LENR will go in terms of reactor size. So does one use “more” smaller reactors working together, or does one use larger reactors and less of them?

          I really don’t know “which” choice will win over time.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada
          kallal@msn.com

      • builditnow

        The end of COP?

        If you insulation a Hot-Cat and then use forced air to control the temperature of a hot-cat, you have infinite COP if the small amount of power for fans, control and EM stimulation is provided by a battery charged by a Thermoelectric Generator (Seebeck Effect) with a inverter to provide the correct voltage.
        Alternative, a hot cat converted jet engine driving a generator could easily have no need for supplemental power once started, could be called infinite COP as well.

        In both of these cases, COP does not make much sense any more, it will be more useful to measure the efficiency of converting the heat energy into electrical energy, or the temperature of the heat, the power, the cost per kW etc. Airbus offered a gas turbine with a 30% efficient conversion at 1000C. Ideal for hot cats.
        It could be likely that COP is a measurement of the past as soon as a Hot-Cat is used to generate electricity.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Yes, the death of COP for LENR – what a great day that will be!!!

          I much agree that COP may will soon be a non issue.

          I much thought that approaching that milestone would be a good many years away.

          I am now much of the view that not only can the heat from such reactors be used to drive the reaction, but such solutions are not that far away from being achieved. And it looks like Ross playing with these ideas already.

          I have to strain to not get over excited here, but this is starting to looking near too good to be true! Very exciting time to see this progression occur on a montly time line, not years at a time.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada
          kallal@msn.com

    • Axil Axil

      The driver reactor type (call it mouse) might provide chemical products as well as heat to the receiver reactor type. For example, the hydrogen might circulate around all the 100 or more reactors carrying lithium and other vapor products that the receivers needs to operate. Rossi might provide hydrogen via a tank feed as was done in his old style reactors. Hydrogen has a high heat transfer capability and would make a good primary coolant that can transfer heat to water via a heat exchange device.

  • Pietro F.
    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Pietro, do I understand correctly that this document identifies the name and location of the customer for the 1MW plant?

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        Actually, it sounds like the plant is in Miami. The address identified in Boca Raton is to an office building, and JM Products Inc. doesn’t seem to have any internet presence.

    • pg

      this is a great find. Someone li Nevanlinna on Cobraf could dig out much more info about it.

  • William D. Fleming

    Eventually there may be clusters of tiny fuel globules mounted on moveable mounts. The proximity of the globules would be variable. To speed the reaction, the globules could be brought together–to slow the reaction spacing could be greater.

    • Axil Axil

      There is evidence from the Lagano demo that the fuel is mobile. Any plan to fix the position of the fuel will not work because of the mobility of the fuel. Even in the MFMP tests, lithium coats the sides of the rector wall.

      • William D. Fleming

        OK, since the fuel is mobile there maybe could be a cluster of small reactors attached to a device which would vary the reactor spacing automatically depending on temperature. Just an idea.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Statistically all you need to do is have multiple units to average the temperature among them. There is no need to be elaborate moving them. The more nodes the more are in the mean assuming they maintain stability over 50%.

      Ten nodes at 60 % stability means six are in the optimal production zone at any time and four not, on average. The six maintain the temperature of the four and you have a total free ride. There is still the potential for infrequent statistical variation. In an extreme event only one could be optimal and nine could have below optimal output and they would all sustain until the moment passes and some come back into statistical balance. In the furthest extreme they could all be in a moment of simultaneous suboptimal output and the heaters kick in to ride out the moment of the statistical aberration.

      • William D. Fleming

        I see what you are saying, that statistically the cluster could be self-sustaining without motion because the cells would start to fade at random times, so with the right spacing and the right number of cells, there’d be enough active cells to keep the reaction going.

        But if the entire cluster started to get too hot, being able to separate the cells might be a way to prevent a meltdown.

        It’s so entertaining to espouse ideas and it doesn’t cost a dime. 🙂

  • BroKeeper

    Science has discovered Nature demonstrates the most efficient designs. As in the fission nuclear reactor
    control rod configuration of choice is the honeycomb. The staggered control rods evenly disperse
    radiation to it surrounding static core.

    The same configuration may be worth considering for an E-Cat plant design with similar staggered controlling mice evenly dispersing heat radiation to its surrounding six cats. If placed correctly each cat would be bordering three mice and each mouse surrounded by six cats with fluid/gas ports at the nodes for heat exchange. With this honeycomb configuration modules could be stacked contiguously. I believe this may be what Rossi is conveying when speaking of E-Cats synergy in cluster/modular form.