Rossi: ‘Consolidated’ 1 MW E-Cat Plant to Have Volume of 4 Cubic Meters

It seems quite likely that future owners of an industrial E-Cat plant may not need to have a shipping container installed at their site. Andrea Rossi has responded to a question on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the possibility of increasing the power density of the 1 MW plant in the future, and in response has provided information about how he sees the volume of future plants:

Andrea Rossi
October 17th, 2015 at 9:12 PM
Manuel Cilia:
The space in the container of this first industrial plant ha been made much larger than necessary because in fact inside this container there are 2 plants of 1 MW each, one for reserve; besides, here are spaces for to allow to work in it to make operations that are not necessary when the technology will have been consolidated; the real volume occupied bya 1 MW generator is m 2 of height, m 2 of length and m 1 of width, as you can see for a total of 4 cubic meters.
Warm Regards,

The current plant inside the shipping container has been a work in progress over the course of the current plant, as it seems that Rossi and his team have built a second set of larger reactors during their stay at the customer’s site. Having a 40 foot shipping container probably has been necessary to allow the team to do their work, and house all the reactors they have made.

A 40 foot shipping container has a volume of 67.7 cubic meters, which is more than ten times the volume of the 4 cubic meters Rossi is proposing here.

  • Owen Geiger

    Having a backup plant inside the shipping container was a good idea. And glad to hear it’s continually being improved.

    • Warthog

      That is what pilot plants are for.

  • Hi all

    So basically something four times the size of my house boiler
    could heat and power my whole street and the next 2 streets over. ~200 homes

    Kind Regards walker

  • Agaricus

    For comparison, a modern gas fired industrial condensing boiler (e.g., of 1 MW capacity will occupy 7-8 m2 plus flue arrangements, i.e., at least twice the volume of space.

    • ecatworld

      From what AR has told us here, could we extrapolate that a 100kW plant could be near to 20 x 20 x 10 cm, or a 10kW plant near to 2 x 2 x 1 cm? It probably won’t scale down exactly, but perhaps something close.

      • Frank, for a tenth of the power I would be reasonable maybe to divide the volume by 10, not the length scale (making the volume a thousand times smaller).

        • ecatworld

          Thanks, Mats — I thought I might have made an error.

          To make things simple I did the following calculations assuming the volume of the plant was a perfect cube. I hope this is correct now.

          Rossi says the 1 MW plant (low temperature) has a volume of 4 cubic meters.
          Cube root of 4 cubic meters (1 MW) would mean a cube with each side measuring 158 cm
          Cube root of .4 cubic meters (100 kW) would mean a cube with each side measuring 74 cm
          Cube root of .04 cubic meters (10 kW) would mean a cube with each side measuring 34 cm
          Cube root of .004 cubic meters (1 kW) would mean a cube with each side measuring 16 cm

          The Hot Cat would be different, but we don’t have info on the new E-Cat X yet

          • Agaricus

            Scaling this way will only work reliably if the sub-units remain the same size. Smaller sub-units would have different operating parameters and different (pro rata) outputs, due mostly to differing heat transfer characteristics and inevitable functional differences.

            Rossi says that the current 1 MW plant comprises 4 x 250 kW sub-units, so on that basis it is fair to assume that each 250 kW unit occupies 1 M3, including pipework, casings etc. If the sub-units are also divisible into sub-sub-units, then a similar calculation can be done again, BUT, I don’t think any assumptions can be made about shape, as the dimensions will depend on the size of the smallest operational sub-units (which could be, say, 2m long).

      • Stephen

        I wonder if this device or e-cat X can be scaled down and if so how much. If so what would be the impact the power output efficiency or the duration of the charge? Would it operate efficiently at scaled down power for long duration still?

      • Timar

        I’m affraid it is ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • nietsnie

    It was my understanding that the current test occupies 2 shipping containers: 1 for reactors and 1 for the computers that control them. Is that not right? Will the computers also fit inside the 4 cubic meters?

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • GE is getting away from the credit card and investment business and back into innovative engineering like they used to. After not having to pay any taxes (thanks to, I think the number is nine hundred lawyers) maybe they can afford digging out their old drawing boards. Hopefully CF powered projects like this are in their future Alan.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Kids and old farts (like me) enjoy seeing R/C jet airplanes fly. Maybe the R/C modelers could retrofit their turbojet engines with mini-cats. Maybe this is the way to bring LENR to the publicโ€™s attention.

        • Omega Z

          Oh Sure.
          You want to combine an impossible energy with an impossible to fly heavier then air craft.
          Next you’ll be talking of LENR spacecraft of which we all no the physics forbids. Witchcraft and Wizardry is afoot.

        • builditnow

          Ok, what about an LENR powered jet helicopter or quad that flies for a month straight, never landing, near a major city like San Francisco (lots of water to fly over) with plenty of lights, dragging a easily read sign that is brightly lit day and night. Pilots can switch out on the ground.

          The challenge could be the reliability of the moving parts, the weight and preventing deliberate interference with the remote controls and something like a 10kw hot cat.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            โ€œWe donโ€™t know nothin about no helicopter.โ€

          • radvar

            “Stand further away!” ๐Ÿ™‚

  • ecatworld

    Frank Acland

    October 18th, 2015 at 11:07 AM

    Dear Andrea,
    Would the projected size of 2 x 2 x 1 m for the industrial plant include the computer controls?

    Andrea Rossi

    October 18th, 2015 at 1:08 PM

    Frank Acland:
    Warm Regards

    • nietsnie

      Thanks for asking for me, Frank. I think that’s impressive because computer components don’t really like heat and there would be a mega watt hour’s worth of heat production just a few inches away. I wonder how he manages it?

      • Bob Greenyer

        – Flow rate
        – Input energy


      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        insulation…. obviously

      • Omega Z

        There is not a “mega watt hour’s worth of heat” in the container. It is constantly being moved out. There would be mega joules. The heat/temperature gradient/ drops quickly with a little distance. It wouldn’t take much insulation.

    • Omega Z

      Henry Rog October 16th

      Dear Andrea Rossi:
      What does anybody of Leonardo Corporation attend the Airbus meeting related to the LENR?

      Andrea Rossi October 16th

      Henry Rog:
      Yes, we have people attending.
      Warm Regards, A.R.

      • As I relayed on L-F there was the CEO of hydrofusion.

  • Agaricus

    As you say, it’s very likely that the main control system for e-cats deriving from the bench prototype comprises some kind of oscillating field driver, possibly quite powerful. In all probability it has always been out-of-phase EM driver input that accounted for the additional power used to control the reaction, not power for additional heating per se. Of course, any such input would result in heating by induction, which has probably always been an undesirable side effect of the ‘dampening’ field.

    If this is the case then (as you say) it’s difficult to understand how delicate digital circuitry could possibly operate in the vicinity of powerful EM fields. However, perhaps it is us reading this into Rossi’s statement. What he actually gives is a total volume, and he at no time says that this is all in one location.

    • nietsnie

      As regards the amount of power required for damping… At least in sound reinforcement, controlling feedback doesn’t necessarily require a powerful signal. It requires recognition of the frequency of the resonance and the cancellation of it before the energy invested in the renegade signal becomes too large to control. There are circuits in professional gear that have been created just for this purpose. It’s at least possible that, unlike a room, there is only one frequency that the LENR reaction is resonant with – which, in theory, would simplify things algorithmically. But, everything about dealing with the extremes of frequency involved would be challenging. You’d always be playing catch-up. Maybe, as a result, you would also always be in the position of applying the correction after the feedback had already become a larger problem – which would support your ‘powerful EM fields’ idea.

      All just wild speculation based on lack of information, creative impulse, and the rabid squirrel-like curiosity of a mind that can see the sunflower seeds – but doesn’t know how to get there – yet – of course.

      It hadn’t occurred to me that the 4 cubic meters aren’t necessarily all consolidated in one place. As you point out, Rossi doesn’t say that. Hobbits be tricksy.

      • f sedei

        Different degrees of heat will be required for different situations, Maybe dampening can be effected at the point of extraction through catalysts of a variety of compositions yet untried. It would seem likely Rossi or others are researching this. More research into types of possible catalysts is required.

    • Omega Z

      My View,
      Anytime you generate a magnetic field or RF, you generate heat.
      This would be beneficial to start the process as heat is necessary initially, but just a side effect beyond that when adding additional stimulation to continue the effect.

  • Jonnyb

    I would guess that some for of predictive/interpolation method would be better. If you can predict the possibility rather than just react via a passive feedback loop this should produce better results, especially at the very high frequency range where slew rates etc. come into great effect. The computing power needed would be very very fast and very very powerful. Do it in hardware if you can?

  • Omega Z

    “It’s hard for me to believe that he’s accomplishing COP of 30 – 60 using whatever harmonics happen to be available in his input signal at the given moment.”

    You may be misunderstanding-
    COP=30 – 60 is the reaction continuing by itself without any input.
    When the reaction starts tailing off, you apply more stimulation whatever that may be.(Frequencies, EMF’s or whatever.)

    • nietsnie

      I concede that I might might be completely mistaken. I make no claim to having the inside track. Plus, I haven’t gotten my hands dirty in experimentation at all – I’m here in the grandstand when I’m not off for more beer or hotdogs. But, consider that Mr. Rossi, with the best of intentions, doesn’t use English as his primary language. And additionally, that he has admitted to deliberately being cagey regarding the details of his technology – just to protect himself (and rightfully so, I say).

      Suppose that when he says that the reaction continues while the power is off he is actually referring to the power devoted to heating? And that a separate circuit altogether is responsible for governing the shaping of the reaction – in the same way that electricity is also being used for running computers, monitoring temperature, pressure, etc but is not being counted in the COP determination? When it fails – he turns the heat back on. In my mind, at least, that fits my idea of the difficulty of attempting to control feedback in the terahertz range with software and computers that operate in the gigahertz range: periodically the governor overcompensates and puts out the fire – and it has to be re-started.

      At this point, there’s not enough information available to know exactly what Rossi is doing. It’s the perfect opportunity to think creatively and try to imagine what that might be. Here in the grandstand – we’re just talking. I might be completely wrong – although I’d cheer if someone down on the field gave it a test, just to see.

  • US_Citizen71

    I doubt whether the EM signal is in the terahertz range since the element is separated from the fuel by a millimeter of steel. I would think the steel would stop a great deal of the signal if it was in the THz range. Thinner steel reflects the 12GHz signal used for satellite TV.

    • nietsnie

      That’s a very good point. Is it possible that the resonant frequency of the reaction is *not* in the terahertz range? That doesn’t make much sense to me considering that the waves are emanating within something the size of atoms and are produced by something the size of a nucleus… At the moment, at least, I don’t know how to combine those two pieces of information and come up with something inclusive.

      • US_Citizen71

        The resonant frequency for hydrogen is 1420MHz. My guess is Rossi uses a lower frequency harmonic of this frequency.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.