What if the 1 year E-Cat Test Succeeds . . . and No One Believes it? (CatInHat)

The following post was submitted by CatInHat

The Ecat is chugging away towards a hopefully successful 1 year test of the technology in a real-world installation.

But it occurs to me — what if the test succeeds but no one believes it? After all, one of the dominant reasons that the Lugano test was discredited in the eyes of many was due to the fact that Rossi may have been present during the extraction of the post-test samples, or may have actually helped extract the samples.

Compare that to the current situation. Rossi is spending 16 hours a day with the device, undoubtedly alone for a portion of that time. The skeptopaths will assert that he mucked with the measurements during his time with the device, or repeatedly carted in gallons of oil in a hidden Camelbak.

Or, they might point out that the device works, but you need a genius inventor to keep it running, which makes it too expensive to be a practical energy production device.

Let’s discuss possible responsed to such skeptical assertions, and what Rossi might do to increase the believability of the report if the test is successful.

CatInHat

  • I was thinking about this. I posted a similar hypothetical scenario about pseudoskeptics and what would cause them to change on a different page on this website. My beliefs are, basically, that the pseudoskeptics are probably not going to change with reason, and that it will be necessary to punish the pseudoskeptics before they will change their minds. Things like loss of money as a result of not using The E-Cat, peer pressure, and failure to be able to maintain certain types of jobs due to their strong disbelief in The E-Cat, among other possibilities, could be some of the possibilities that could punish the pseudoskeptics enough so that they will change their minds.

    • Owen Geiger

      Or cut off their paychecks…

    • GreenWin

      Pseudo and pathoskeps are already imploding from their own ______ (fill in blank). My favorite is hubris. 🙂

      • passerby

        Nah it’s just another job for them. You know that scandal about the oil industry paying PR firms to discredit global warming for the last few decades? Why wouldn’t they hire firms to work on other threats to their business model as well?

        After all when you look at the behavior of this very small, very vocal minority it is clear they have an agenda. Nobody spends hours every day trying to convince people not to be interested in something unless they stand to gain somehow, especially when they do this across many websites and accounts.

    • snowvoardphil

      I dont understand why pseudosceptic need to be “punished”. Asking for proof for any extraordinary claims is just the raisonable thing to do in this world, I think. Just because somebody asks good, legitimate questions doesn’t mean they are pseudoskeptics and that they should be “punished”. They just need more information to orient their belief. We are all skeptics in many areas of our everyday life and I think this is a good thing. It helps most of us to take better decision based on informatiin we find worth trusting.

      • Warthog

        “Asking for proof for any extraordinary claims is just the raisonable thing to do in this world,

        This is the standard argument of the pathological skeptics. In science, there are no such things as “extraordinary claims”…..there are only hypotheses and data. The idea that some claim is “extraordinary” is bovine excrement. Who decides what is or is not “extraordinary”? The meme “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” just gives the skeptics a fancy sounding reason to be skeptical….but it is NOT scientific. Indeed, it is anti-science.

  • Billy Jackson

    Everything comes down to numbers, if the company hosting the e-cat has a savings.. it will get out.. someway or another.. whether its the first company or the 10th.. and when they can start undercutting the competition due to cheaper manufacturing costs… others will follow.

    its no longer a case of “IF” .. its now just a matter of “when”

  • Tom59

    The key point is successful replication by several known institutions. This would eliminate any doubts even without proven theory. Then AR and LENR will have all the attention and money will be poured into research. Considering how far the mainly try- and-error approach has brought us already, more work based on research and theorie will multiply the benefits.

  • PappyYokum

    To me this whole “secret plant” in “secret location” and a “secret customer” situation is very odd. It does not inspire confidence. For years LENR has been 6 to 18 months away from a commercial product. Now this pilot plant is about five months from completing its testing phase. Yet, nobody knows what happens next. Rossi says it passed. The customer may not say anything. The public may not be informed what the plant was supplying steam for.
    And then we will be 6 to 18 months before a commercial product becomes available. Lather, rinse, repeat. It will be a bet between whether the Iranians get the bomb (also weeks away from happening for the last 30 years) or LENR hits the market.
    I get older every day.
    If a product hits the market, it will not matter if the skeptics believe Rossi or not. It will work or it won’t. No amount of clapping is going to make Tinkerbell real. A reality doesn’t depend on applause.
    Over a century ago a man claimed to have a machine that operated on a mysterious force. He demonstrated it and got men to invest in his invention. He was able to play the “in development” collecting investors’ money for his promised engine for the rest of his life. After the inventor died, his assistant discovered the prototype engine was connected to a hidden tank of compressed air via a hose and it was all a scam that had lasted for decades.
    If it works, make a product or show others how to reproduce what you are doing. Rossi claimed he was able to get folks at IH to recreate the effect with reactors he told them how to build. This is what I believe convinced them to invest in his work.
    This plant test period end in late winter 2016. Hopefully it will result in enough information being made public to not have to clap to keep LENR alive for another 6-18 months after that.

    • Billy Jackson

      Unfortunately Pappy this isn’t a situation that rushing to market will help. there are plenty of reasons for keeping the customer, location and plant a secret until the test ends.. mostly i can only think of negative influence from people outside of the testing site. The last thing they need is for the customer to get media attention it does not want..

      think of how they have twisted Rossi’s past and still to this day you get those who call him a scam artist/criminal/shyster rather than face the potential truth of this technology. now let that same media use that twisted view to paint a public image that tarnishes the host company and you will find that they will pull out of the test as they “review” the situation before proceeding further.

      we all need to realize this isn’t going to be fast. we are watching from the ground up visiting this site everyday following the news of Rossi and the e-cat. This is not normal for most technologies except for by those who are intimately involved in it. as such we are not seeing a “developed” technology coming to market that’s gone through all its trials and tests before we even catch a glimmer of it as john q public. No we get to watch a step by step process and that will include both failures and hopefully successes before it ever becomes available to us…

      Patience and due diligence can not be skipped in this process for many reasons.

  • GreenWin

    Ha ha. Lugano discredited? Only in the eyes of those wishing it so. To those who matter, the investors, Lugano and subsequent due diligence has raised some $60M for Industrial Heat. And that from pragmatic investment fund managers representing billions in shareholder value. Why should IH turn over their IP to incredulous academia? Rossi/IH don’t need ’em.

    Sorry Cat. Your scenario plays out only if Dr. Seuss were alive and doing hallucinogens.

  • mcloki

    Who cares. Making people believe in the product is marketing’s problem. Paying customers don’t need to believe they just see lower costs of production. That’s all they believe.

  • Dr. Mike

    Based on Rossi’s comments over the last few months, he plans on releasing data from the 1 MW system after one year’s operation, with at least some of that data coming from independent observers. Each person that reviews that data can decide for themselves just how successful the system operated. The key thing that Rossi can do to insure that the data is believable is to let everyone know who took the data and how the data was measured.

  • passerby

    If it didn’t work at all and IH still brought it to market that would be fraud. A buying company does not have to believe it, just has to believe in the capability of their government to prosecute multimillion dollar fraud schemes. It’s not like you’re talking about buying something off ebay, this equipment likely comes with contractual guarantees of minimum performance as well as the implied government protection that ensures they can reoup their money through legal channels if it turns out to be a scam.

    • snowvoardphil

      Guarantees are not worth much when a coy goes bust.

      • Owen Geiger

        Seriously, so you think Woodford also got bamboozled, along with all the other people involved? That includes the current customer who hasn’t complained so far. You see, it’s not just about Rossi’s credibility. There’s a whole line of people like Darden who are putting their job and reputation on the line.

      • passerby

        That’s why you use escrow if you’re that worried about it. They don’t get paid until you verify it’s working in your facility.

        • ecatworld

          The most important data that is being collected are the measurements of the referee, who are apparently independent of Rossi and the customer, and are considered to be reputable and qualified to do what they are doing. If the referee’s data is published (Rossi has said it is the only valid data for this test) then I think the results will carry a lot of weight.

          • Jarea

            Yes but we have to pray 😀 so that the customer let Rossi and referee to publish the data.
            Please, Annunaki lord let us have the new fire and save your servants

          • georgehants

            Would just add Akhenaten who really did worship only the sun god, Ha.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            If positive, the skeptics will simply attack the referee and his crediblity.

          • nietsnie

            He doesn’t need to do anything. He already has paying customers lined up. I presume that, from Rossi and his wannabe customer’s perspective, the current year-long ‘test’ has nothing to do with whether the effect exists – but rather whether it can be controlled, continuously and safely, by the technology Rossi has put to the task. From my vantage point it looks as if the person who has to be satisfied with the results is Rossi himself. When he is satisfied, he purportedly has everything lined up to produce more for sale, funding available to accomplish the expansion, and customers eagerly waiting to buy them.

            There will continue to be skeptics, of course. But, what of them? Nothing marginalizes skeptics faster than satisfied paying customers.

            We have concentrated until now on whether e-cat can possibly be real. Quite separate from the technology question are more ordinary questions about whether Rossi is capable of growing a medium-sized business from a research startup. Not everyone who has invented a great idea is good at business. In many ways they require a completely different temperament. Lots of great inventions initially fail due to bad management. Is there evidence that Rossi is capable of making that transition from mad scientist to CEO?

  • bfast

    “Nobody believes it” is highly unlikely, as there are a bunch of people on this site who already believe it. 5 companies put out to buy it, use it, and report on it. Then how hard will it be to disbelieve. Those 5 positive experiences will produce 100 positive experiences, and so on. ‘Won’t be long and a commercial product will be validated beyond the disbelief of virtually everyone.

  • As long as no state funded independent validation institution is involved, no one from the scientific area will accept the results.

    I for myself will believe it, when the said big corporations like google bought one and announces that it works.

    • US_Citizen71

      To be honest I don’t think Rossi or Darden care if the modern ‘Lord Kelvins’ of the world believe it or not. Every plant they sell will strengthen their case and bring more orders in.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi & Industrial heat have clients waiting,
    Likely they have more clients interested then they could build product for in a years time anyway.

    If it works, It doesn’t matter what others think. You just fill the orders you have & when someones competitor can sell product at a profit below what your barebones costs are, you’ll pay attention.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    If Darden is true to his word that his only interest is to eliminate coal as a source of fuel, once he is totally satisfied the E-Cat works, I would expect him to go public with results. The longer he waits the less sure I become that elimination of coal is his motivation.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Maybe the outright elimination of coal is not his only objective.
      Darden has stated that if stuff works, he doesn’t need a theory for the fact that it works. He will likely market what works, people will buy that working product – regardless of the theory governing it.
      We smoke, knowing full well the medical theory and the whole nicotine-ammonia industrial conditioning behind cigarettes; we eat hot dogs, even though we know that nitrates and nitrites are carcinogenic. They are all on the market, regardless of the theory. The market is all that counts.

  • Observer

    The issue is not whether or not the “Rossi Effect” is real; the issue is how much Rossi’s E-Cats can save the customer. We do not have these numbers yet. The cost savings versus the initial expense is what will determine whether or not the E-Cat is a success.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    For the homeowner, encase it in an wooden cabinet built by Amish craftsmen.
    For the sportsman, paint it in RealTree camo style.
    For farmers, paint it in John Deere green.
    For health nuts, label it as gluten free, paleo approved.
    For tree huggers, label it sustainable, fossil-free, low carbon footprint.
    For hippies, label it as a steel armored lava lamp.
    For new-agers, label it as a Tibetan OM generator.
    For preppers, label it as encased in a Faraday Cage.

    • MasterBlaster7

      haha

    • EmTee

      But for whom are those red ferrari styled boxes? 🙂
      But i know for whom the stylish white ones named iCat are made!

  • Axil Axil

    When Holmlid tells us all that he produces 10 billion K mesons in an instantaneous burst from a laser shot, most don’t believe him. Our ability to accept complexity that is far beyond our everyday experience is limiting our ability to think open mindedly. This extreme weirdness gets to the point that it becomes unbearable for most to accept. The true must be feed to us in small bite size pieces so we can digest it a little at a time. Too much truth all at once blows the heads off of must people.

  • Agaricus

    Possibly the outcome is a little more important than that, and further installation contracts may depend on a favourable outcome.

  • MasterBlaster7

    WTH…I just deleted my own comment while replying to blanco69 when it said I couldnt reply to his comment? Frank?

    Ill re-type it

    Money Talks. BS walks.

    Lets say that ‘the client’ was spending 1 milllion on power for his industrial heat process before e-cat. Then during e-cat year he shows a power bill of 50k. I mean WTH are the skeptopaths going to say? That IH ran power lines from an adjacent property and supplied 950k in power? Such a stealthy con is next to impossible. This isn’t oceans 11. So, I guess I’m asking you guys…if you were skeptopaths…what could you possibly, semi-rationally, say to counter the 50k power bill?

    • Bob

      It will not be quite so simple and the skeptos will pull at every splinter.
      .
      The customer was using gas before…not electric. So the Skeptos will start there, stating that it is next to impossible to compare the two. While in truth it can be compared, it does make it more difficult. Cost has little to do with how much heat was generated. It does have everything to do if the customer is happy. Reducing costs by as much as you state, would be a home run. It most likely will be much less of a difference. Gas is much less expensive than electricity. So the eCat will use much more electricity than before but no gas. We do not know the difference (COP) yet. If as Rossi states, that the plant is often running in self sustain mode, then a home run might be hit. But it is possible to see a much smaller difference in the dollar amount due to the price of natural gas (before) versus electricity (eCat consumption)/
      .
      I am convinced that there will not be any “secret customer” information released after the 1 year test, which will include dollars spent on utilities. So we will not know. At best, we might get some “Rossi says” and “F9”, but I am doubting any hard data. I have been saying for some time that a customer could not prevent performance data from being released, such as COP, MTBF, fuel life, average operating temps, etc. etc., but we will be told that no data could be released due to the “secret customer”. (Which I am convinced is a Darden owned entity and thus it will be Darden who prevents the data release if anyone)
      .
      Guys….we have all been here before. Expecting the big announcement that finally puts this subject over the “skepto hill”. Small steps have been made up that hill, but I am a realist. From what I see Rossi post, I have concluded we will not crest that hill in February. We will not see a meaningful report from this test. I hope I am wrong.

      • MasterBlaster7

        Good reply. Ill have to consider that.

        “Reducing costs by as much as you state, would be a home run. It most likely will be much less of a difference”

        1 million to 50k is only a COP of 20. The general consensus is that it will probably be a cop of 20-80. Support costs and the conversion between gas an electric notwithstanding.

      • Omega Z

        “Darden owned entity” This I doubt.
        However, It is likely someone associated with Darden or Rossi of some nature. It helps to keep everything under wraps.
        I agree, odds of a big reveal are slim. Likely a slow dribble process.

  • Daniel Maris

    This is simply a step along the way. But what happens immediately after is important. We need more publicity about who is using the E Cat and in what contexts. And we need verifiable comments from happy customers. We also need IH and Darden to take a much higher profile, so they begin to look like a proper business. We are a long way from full credibility.

  • Rick Steel

    It is important to realize that there are more than two scenarios than just “success” and “failure”. The secret customer could announce at the end of the test that the Ecat reduced their power bill by some amount. This might seem a success, but what everybody here wants to believe is that the Ecat produces more power than it consumes. This is where the so called “skeptics” want proof, because such a device would require a rewriting of physics. Rossi won’t get a Noble prize for inventing a million dollar water heater the size of a shipping container that is more efficient than a coal fired boiler. It could be a huge commercial success, but is not the same thing as building a box that has more power out than power in continuously for a year. If the referee announces that the latter is the case, then those results should absolutely be subjected to intense scrutiny. Since the input to the Ecat is electricity and the output is heat (hot water or steam), it is not trivial to make a convincing measurement of over-unity, and power bills from a factory won’t convince a physicist that unknown physical processes are in play.

    • US_Citizen71

      Nothing will convince a physicist whose income is derived from a competing technology or line of research that it is real!

    • Omega Z

      It takes 3kW of coal or natural gas to create 1kW of electricity.
      The cost of 1kW OF electricity is the cost of 3kW of coal or natural gas plus the hardware-Turbine generator etc…

      There is no way an Electric E-cat heater could heat an equivalent amount of water cheaper then coal or natural gas unless it’s power output was much greater then power input.
      Note it also wouldn’t necessarily require rewriting of physics, but likely a better understanding of physics. For some reason, many think we know all there is to be known about physics. We Don’t…

  • Bob

    It will not be quite so simple and the skeptos will pull at every splinter.
    .
    The customer was using gas before…not electric. So the Skeptos will start there, stating that it is next to impossible to compare the two. While in truth it can be compared, it does make it more difficult. Cost has little to do with how much heat was generated. It does have everything to do if the customer is happy. Reducing costs by as much as you state, would be a home run. It most likely will be much less of a difference. Gas is much less expensive than electricity. So the eCat will use much more electricity than before but no gas. We do not know the difference (COP) yet. If as Rossi states, that the plant is running in self sustain mode, then a home run might be hit. But it is possible to see a much smaller difference in the dollar amount due to the price of natural gas.
    .
    The Lugano test was a success… few in mainstream science even realize it was conducted. Few of those that did hear about it and reviewed the test believe it valid. There are even some LENR supporters who believe it greatly flawed. Even Bob Greenyer has stated that it did little to help the cause. (Mr. Greenyer, I apologize if my statement is inaccurate).
    .
    So compare the Lugano test versus this test. A group of scientist, with a planned protocol and a reasonable length of time for the test. These were smart men and seemingly had all the equipment they needed at their disposal. I am sure they spent much time in planning this test.
    .
    They conducted it accordingly. Their report showed absolute, unexplained excessive heat. (Over Untiy, not chemical) However their test was soon “debunked” and picked apart! (I am not saying it was invalid, I am saying peopled called it as such).
    .
    Now we have a “secret customer”, with a “secret referee”, in a “secret facility”, using who knows equipment and Rossi controlling everything 16 hours per day. You do not think the skeptos will not have a field day with that! If they dammed Lugano, they will burn this test at the stake!.
    .
    So the title “…succees and no one belives it?” is somewhat moot! It will be 100% sure that few will believe it. It is a foregone conclusion. The skeptos hang on to “Cold fusion is impossible because “the alternative is unthinkable!”
    .
    No, there will be little published from this test. Even though it supports the LENR effect, there will be little changed by this test.

    • Bob

      Sorry, somehow two posts got combined into one? One was a reply to Master Baster below (paragraph 1) and the rest was a new, stand alone post. Not sure what happed!
      Kind of like LENR testing….. not sure what happed! 🙂

      • MasterBlaster7

        There is some weird technical stuff going on with the posts today. Happened to me when the system denied me rights to respond to a post. Then, to get rid of the box that would not post, I deleted it. But the deletion didn’t delete the response box….it deleted my separate previous post below it. Maybe e-catworld is getting hacked.

        • US_Citizen71

          Nahhh, Discus gets quirky now and again here and everywhere.

  • Roger Barker

    I am not so sure about that. How can you say that when you have a product? This
    will be conclusive! People will be purchasing the eCat at that stage! Sales will
    take over from tests. Where people doubted tests. Sales will trump everything.
    Mary’s and co, from ecatnews, those that spout continuous hate are always been
    behind the eight ball when it comes to the eCat. Talk will no longer be about
    raw data and the likes, to be analysed! We’re talking about actual sales. There is
    no way around this. Nothing, nada, zulch! This time for the pseudos, there’ll be no
    protection whatsoever!

  • Zephir

    Mainstream scientists have their own agenda, the cold fusion represents competition for their jobs, interests and social credit – simply everything. They will admit it only when they will have no other option.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The skeptopaths can think what they want. Rossi has a patent now.

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    I think I would restart your question as follows.

    If the 1 year ecat test completes successfully. What will anyone be able to take from that decree from Rossi?

    For someone who starts from the position that rossi is not to be trusted. What evidence will be provided that would allow someone starting from that position to at least begin to change their position?

    For a true scientist looking for more proof that LENR/Cold fusion is real. What evidence will be provided that would further research?

    • Omega Z

      Question is why ask this question.
      There are clients already waiting for the product. If it works, you merely build a few & get them installed. The clients will talk & it will go viral. The skeptics don’t matter.

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        So putting on my objective hat.

        What are the names of the clients lined up to buy. If someone comes forward and claims they are a client and raves about the product how would you know they really are a client. That particular example may seem ubsurb but its corallary isnt. What if someone comes forward claiming to be a client and raves about how the product does not work as advertised.

        The only one with the information to tell real client from fake client is Rossi, as I have yet to find a list of potential clients awaiting successful test completion. So while Rossi will be able to tell the difference. We observers cannot.

        From my perspective there has to be a point where trust is replaced with evidence. Not because we don’t believe Rossi but because it is the most effective tool to spread the word. From my perspecitve I hope there are papers to be published after the test is completed, I also hope IH can convince the client to make their participation known. Otherwise all we are left with is the state we are currently in.

        • Omega Z

          We know from disgruntled terminated licensee’s that they had clients lined up. But regardless, It wouldn’t be hard to obtain clients under the premise that Rossi proposes. You don’t pay until you know it works as advertised. Until then, the money is held in an escrow account.

          It’s hard to keep something like this secret within the team. It becomes impossible once this technology is spread beyond this team. It’s not if, but when it will leak out. The more clients the sooner it will happen.

          AND, Rossi has nothing to prove to us, the observers. Only the customers. If it works, word will spread. And as Rossi has said for a long time, It will be the market that decides. Not the skeptics.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Then exposure is the key. If this works f9…and the client is paying 1/20 of what he was paying….and new clients and investors start jumping in head first…skeptopaths wont have a leg to stand on.

    Its kinda like Bloom Energy. Once it was revealed that they had functioning plants at a Google server farm and Google was vouching for the tech…game over…it couldn’t be denied after that.

  • Omega Z

    Do you think Rossi is a 1 man band.
    Rossi can have some involvement in setting up production while still moving forward with the E-cat X. There are multiple people well versed with the Lt-cat & can carry the load to production without Rossi being present all the time.

  • Omega Z

    I recognize that mug. I associate it with a Thompson.

  • Obvious

    If the customer was using gas before, then a sudden 720 MWh (720 000 kWh) spike in the monthly electric bill will be very noticeable. At a COP of 20, even 36 MWh extra will be very noticeable considering that the average US house uses about 11 MWh in a year.
    The plant operator would give Rossi the boot pretty quick if the cost was way out of line compared with the gas bill savings.

  • ecatworld

    Rossi says the small reactors are on standby, ready to kick in if the larger reactors have to go offline for an extended period of time for some reason.

    • BillH

      That opens up another question. If the “standby” reactors need to be used would that count to the success or not of the contract? Since they haven’t as yet been switched in during single 250KW reactor shut downs maybe we can assume that it would?

      • ecatworld

        I don’t think the customer cares which reactors give him the heat he is using. So long as they get he heat that they contracted for, I would guess it would not make any difference whether it came from the main reactors or back up ones.

  • very good quote.

    Stan Szpak of Spawar is quoted for :

    « scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe »

    To be honest most of the time the disagreement between realist and deluded is on “who pays”, and the errors is that skeptopath and other true believers imagine that some dark force is paying scientists to be evil, while the payment is simply public, in government grants, in publish or perish rules, in index factor.

    just imagine two studies proving one fact or the opposite.

    now imagine if your career will suffer from it, or benefit from it ?

    1- John Smith : some indications that cold fusion is a constant shift mistake

    2 John Smith : some indications that cold fusion is a nuclear phenomenon

    which will be published, which will cause trouble to the author? (what is inside is not important, as long as only expert can understand if it is BS or real)

  • Omega Z

    Rossi didn’t specify what their previous heat source was. He did say it wasn’t electric. Natural gas is readily available in Florida so 1 could assume it was N-gas. It doesn’t matter.

    This in no way hampers a direct comparison. It is simple energy in- energy out. Energy units are convertible. Btu’s to Kilowatt, Kilowatt to Btu’s.

    Electricity is a high value product. It’s cheapest form is fossil produced with a direct cost correlation based on conversion efficiency plus external costs(Turbines/Generators etc). Even using an antiquated N-gas boiler at 40% efficiency would be cheaper then an Electric boiler at 99% efficient. An 80% efficient N-gas boiler would be even cheaper & modern systems can obtain 97% efficiency. For an electric boiler to break even(cost) with fossil fuel would require a COP=5 or 6.
    ———————-
    That’s why most people don’t use gas to drive a micro-turbine to produce electricity, because it’s too expensive. ? ? ?
    ———————-
    What does that even mean. All Turbines are inefficient due to conversion efficiencies. Yet these fossil/fission/Hydro powered Turbines supply about 90% of our electricity. Micro-turbine’s are just less efficient due to scale.

    The most efficient turbine generators(about 60%) are combined power which in itself can be misleading if you don’t understand the process. A Gas turbine produces about 40% with the waste heat directed to a second turbine that produces about 20%. One extreme heat source, 2 in line turbine generators.

    • BillH

      If you look at your domestic electricity and gas bills, mine are both quoted in pence per KWh, £ per KWh if you like, you will see that gas is about 1/3 the price of electricity. So, you might suppose that if you could convert this gas into electricity locally, instead of having a large power-station do it as with your electricity supply, that you might be able to save money?

      Apparently, the most efficient way to do this is to use a micro-turbine, however, if you look at the cost of installing a micro-turbine and the efficiency that it can turn gas into electricity you will see that it doesn’t work out any cheaper.

  • Warthog

    If I am understanding your emphasis correctly, yes. But I also mean that no matter how “compelling” (or numerous) the evidence for a particular hypothesis, a result that contradicts that evidence, if replicated, MUST
    overthrow the original hypothesis.

  • Omega Z

    “AR now has a record of abandoning a configuration that doesn’t live up to expectation.”

    Rossi has a record of developing improvements in the product.
    The pilot plant consists of 52 20kW reactors instead of the previous 106 10kW reactors, A big improvement in itself. However, these are reserved as back up should the (4)main reactors fail for some reason.

    The 4-Main reactors are 250kW each.(1Mw total) powered by a maximum input of 250kW(Total) from the mains. These 250kW reactors are the 1st to fit the definition of Industrial size use. It’s also a huge simplification. The market product will be of a much smaller scale using these 250kW reactors. Probably slight larger then a side by side refrigerator for 1mW.

    Prior to releasing a commercial product, one needs a pilot plant test. In progress for the last 8 months. You may have noticed the count down to the side of the screen here at ECW. About 4 months to go. I personally don’t expect to here much for at least a couple months beyond that. Data Analysis will take time.

    “and for him I feel time is running short”
    That is merely YOUR Opinion!! And If something works, why would there be a time limit.

    The only Opinion’s that count are, The current customer where the pilot plant is in operation, the independent Referee and Industrial heat.
    And again, this isn’t just Rossi anymore. Aside from the U.S. patent just granted to Rossi, Another application has been published by the USPTO. Sponsored by Industrial Heat. With inventors listed as Rossi & another who is an Industrial heat engineer.

    • BillH

      I can only apologise for having an opinion. But I don’t think you get to decide who’s opinion counts. We will see as events unfold.

  • GreenWin

    See a real world example of the cost saving Bloom Box “Energy Server” @ “Beyond the E-Cat Test” thread. Bloom introduced their SOFC 200kW methane-fueled “Server” with huge fanfare in 2010. They now have a dozen satisfied customers including Google, E-Bay, WalMart, Staples, Macy’s, even CalTech! And they all testify to its cost saving efficacy.

    At $750k/box – Bloom is $2.25M MORE expensive than Rossi’s E-Cat. And the E-Cat operates overunity at a COP of ~20+. Meaning the cost savings will far outstrip any fuel cell technology. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/30/beyond-the-e-cat-test-the-next-phase/

  • GreenWin

    Hey, who needs objectivity when emotion is more powerful and rewarding?

  • If no one believes, we make a big noise. I don’t even try to convince others at this point, but when the Rossi year is up and all is positive, we raise our voices.

  • Frechette

    What if they call for an election and nobody shows up at the polls?