# Rossi: 20 kW E-Cat X Reactor is Size of Cigarette Packet

Andrea Rossi has answered a question from a reader on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the size of the E-Cat X reactor.

Dear Mr Rossi,
What would be the weight and the volume (perhaps liters) of a 20 kw e-cat x reactor?
Thank you.

Andrea Rossi

January 13th, 2016 at 5:15 PM
Hergen:
Ballpark numbers: like a 20 cigarette packet, while the weight c ould be 300-400 grams, plus the apparatus to use the energy, that is different depending on the use, the fluid, etc.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So that gives a bit more detail to help us try and visualize just what the E-Cat X is like. If it turns out to be what Andrea Rossi says, it would certainly be a revolutionary product. Getting 20 kW in a combination of electricity and heat in something the size of a normal cigarette packet would be truly remarkable for something that is not radioactive and uses only a tiny amount of fuel.

Rossi has said that the E-Cat X can be scaled down to produce only a few watts — so a miniature E-Cat would be tiny compared to the cigarette-package sized reactor. And he said you could stack them together to make power outputs of any size.

• rq3

20 kilowatts in a cigarette pack? The man is, IMHO, suffering from radiation damage.

Hopefuly he doesn’t smoke that stuff.

• Roland

Check the Ragone plot for the obsolete Lugano model.

• Bob Greenyer

If true – that can run an e-bike, easy. The battery in the e-bike can be downsized and used to close the loop.

• LarryJ

If the ecat technology follows Moore’s Law as other exponentially improving information based technologies do then we can expect a halving of size and a doubling of power every 18 to 24 months. In 6 years that would be 3 halvings in size and 3 doublings in power. The cigarette size reactor would be close to the size of a 9v battery and produce 80 kw of power. The same exponential improvement could also be applied to the conversion efficiency of heat to electricity.

• Omega Z

Moore’s Law refers to the scaling down of the foot print of electronics.
It does not apply to other fields even if at times it appears to. Moore’s Law is also slowing & headed for a wall in the realm of electronics.

• LarryJ

You are correct about Moore’s law specifically, however all information based technologies improve exponentially with the only difference being the value of the exponent. Moore’s Law is the example that most people are familiar with. Technology curves tend to be S shaped where the tech starts off with a slow rise, hits it pace and rises quickly through the steep part of the S and then flattens out at the end until its replacement comes on the scene and starts the process again by rising slowly. As you point out, the improvement in the footprint of electronics is slowing down but there will inevitably be a replacement and Moore’s Law will remain relevant for a very long time as will it’s comparison with other information based exponentially improving technologies like cold fusion.

• Warthog
• Bob Greenyer

If true – that can run an e-bike, easy. The battery in the e-bike can be downsized and used to close the loop.

• Warthog
• John Littlemist

Maybe he meant a carton of cigarette packets? 20 packets in one carton?

• Buck

Wow ! ! !

whether it is a cigarette pack or carton seems to make little difference at this early stage of product evolution . . .

I can only imagine the challenge of all the different engineering/manufacturing companies that buy the right to build an E-Cat X, with its off the scale energy/power density, into their respective product line. Given 5 years, only heaven can imagine what might pop out of the different product engineering and development labs.

• GreenWin

It is a truly amazing evolution, Buck! One – I imagine – developed with the assistance of a high-road organization like the Buckeyes of Battelle. However it has manifested… It is deeply rewarding, and inspiring to think of where we can go from here. As dear GeorgeH would say: “Wonderful day!”

• bfast

I was marveling at the drawings of the proposed home heat unit. It looks awfully small. 20kW, that’s just over 20 gross horsepower, in a pack, or even a carton of cigerettes is, well, amazing. I can’t wait for the revolution to begin.

• Omega Z

To be kept in context.

Rossi was asked the volume of a 20KW reactor.
The X-cat reactors Rossi is working with at this time rated at 1KW are about the size of a cigarette of which there are 20 to a pack. Thus a 20KW output.

The actual 20KW device will be substantially bigger. You’ll need a housing to enclose it. Hardware to feed power to it. Hardware to extract power from it be it electric/water or both along with a controller panel. To make full use of the DC power, you’ll also need an inverter.

• Sergiu

The Rossi story is getting more and more into SF territory. 400g, if made of pure tungsten, that’s a delta of ~380Kelvin/s. Assuming only 200g, that’s ~760Kelvin/s… a lot of energy to be dissipated and a very short fraction of time to react and prevent accidental meltdown. Given the dimensions, there is I believe a very short list of materials that can be used, and not sure how many would survive (given that Rossi is not SF)

• Pekka Janhunen

True, but ordinary lightbulb filament also has pretty high time derivative of temperature: it turns on and off quickly. It just means that the device achieves thermal balance (balance between heat production and heat loss) quickly.

• Chris Marshalk

My car is 125Kw of power. 20Kw would be sufficient for travel on a scooter. It would be sufficient to power my house which i use 2Kw of power per quarter. To have something the size of a packet of cigs with this much energy will shake up the global energy sector.

• Pekka Janhunen

20 kW average electric power is already sufficient for a car. Peak power of course must be much higher, but a modest sized buffer battery can provide it.

• GreenWin

This form factor suggests Rossi et al have moved toward the STMicro goal of creating a solid state LENR wafer. If the material components can be layered at e.g. a graphene (single atom) thickness – and the reaction directed to 90% electrical current – he has invented a solid state battery. If the reaction can be confined safely in a semiconductor form factor – the observations of Ing Fabiani appear accurate:

” I assure you that I have seen things that only I, Rossi and a few other
people saw. We really saw things… I really saw the new frontier of
energy. There is nothing in comparison. You cannot imagine.”

• HS61AF91

observations of Ing Fabiani… Fabulous!

• bachcole

It is this quote that keeps me from becoming a tad skeptical. There are just too many miracles and wonders in too short a period of time for me to not need a little help. Thank you Fabiani.

• LarryJ

If the ecat technology follows Moore’s Law as other exponentially improving information based technologies do then we can expect a halving of size and a doubling of power every 18 to 24 months. In 6 years that would be 3 halvings in size and 3 doublings in power. The cigarette pack size reactor would be close to the size of a 9v battery and produce 80 kw of power. The same exponential improvement could also be applied to the conversion efficiency of heat to electricity.

In 2012 I wrote on JONP that Rossi’s then 10 kw reactor would become a 300 kw reactor in 10 years and be roughly the size of a D cell and a heat to electricity conversion efficiency of 97%. That prediction is still on track.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=619&cpage=2#comment-234308

• Jonas

E-CAT is certainly not an information based technology and will not likely to follow any kind of Moore’s law.

Internal combustion engines (for example) have not changed much in efficiency and size in the past 100 years. I’m guessing most of the improvement in Internal combustion engines were done in the first 20 years after it was first developed, and since then its been slow incremental improvements.

So the E-CAT will probably develop/improve rapidly in the next 10-20 years, and once the technology is matured, it will enter a stage of very slow incremental development.

What will probably happen in the medium range, is the discovery of other catalysts other than nickel, better ways to turn the system on/off in a short time, better ways to store the energy, etc.

• LarryJ

I would disagree that cold fusion is not an information based technology. Any technology whose advance depends on scientific research is very much an information based technology.

Your analogy of engines I think is also weak. That’s like saying vacuum tubes do not follow Moore’s law because they had a short term usefulness and never changed much while ignoring the fact that due to scientific research their functionality evolved into solid state electronics.

The ecat-x of today is not the ecat of 4 years ago but they are both cold fusion devices and clearly an evolution is taking place. People are now comparing the ecat-x with solid state electronics. So far the anecdotal evidence supports an exponential improvement in the technology.

• Pekka Janhunen

I agree with Jonas. I also agree with you completely in that the E-cat X of today is not the E-cat of 4 years ago and that so far the anecdotal evidence supports exponential improvement. In general, when there is the commercial need, development of any device is exponential until it hits the limits set by physics.
It seems to me that Rossi’s development is rapidly approaching limits set by physics. The device appears to be already so small that the bottleneck is no longer the device itself, but all the surrounding apparatuses that transfer and make use of the energy. At high temperature like 1400 C, radiation starts to be the most efficient carrier of heat, and radiation follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

• LarryJ

Given that the physics are not yet understood it is hard for me to see how you can set limits on it’s potential. It’s possible, and I think likely that when the physics are understood that there will not be the need for such high temperatures. The reaction will probably be triggered with pinpoint precision by a device that looks and operates nothing like the current ecat-x. Like the difference between a vacuum tube and a transistor. New technologies are always crude, including the ecat and we have barely budged the door an inch to this avenue of research.

Your presuppositions are limiting your vision or put another way, your grounding in physics limits your vision. I don’t think it’s an accident that it took a doctor of philosophy to discover the holy grail. The odds that a physicist would make a paradigm shifting leap like this, almost overnight, are slim. They would get there eventually but only through a long and painful iterative process. Rossi was poorly trained for this work so he was able to just go ahead and do it. Physicists know too much and too well what can’t work, and that definitely includes the ecat.

• Jarea

If what you say is true, then i can imagine that we can implement in a dream future new living cells in our bodies. One where the mitochondria is replaced by a cold fusion mitochondria that gives us strength a new transformation capabilities without food. Cells will become LENR foundries that generates new elements.

• LarryJ

Now you’re thinking. You are clearly not a physicist or a biologist as they would give you 50 reasons why that could never happen and linear thinking about technology is always wrong. There are already designs for a nanotech blood cell that if it replaced 30% of your blood volume would allow you to hold your breath for 3 hours. All we lack is the enabling technology. What would that do to the scuba business.

• Andreas Moraitis

Sangui Biotech ( http://www.sangui.de/en/index.php ) develops artificial haemoglobin carriers which might be suitable for that purpose. One does not need much fantasy to anticipate their abuse. Looks like a lot of additional work for doping inspectors.

• Kazm

This ties in nicely with the transmutation of elements by the action of LENR technology as done at Mitsubishi and others

• The limits are not in the e-cat core, but (as Pekka suggests) mainly in the arrangements for extracting electrical power and heat, the physics of which are well understood. Beyond a certain point, continuing to reduce the size of the core, or increasing the output, is likely to become counterproductive on a number of fronts. In particular, materials strength with ever increasing temperature, thickness of electrical conductors, and surface area available for heat transfer.

• LarryJ

Since the efficiency of converting heat to electricity is also an exponentially improving information based technology it is likely that as the technology improves the ratio of electricity to heat will improve exponentially as well until you have what is essentially a nuclear battery that produces mostly electricity and a small amount of heat.

I understand that doesn’t solve the problem of heat production today but the ecat-x is probably 2 years from market and in such an exponentially improving fast paced environment 2 years is a enough time to more than halve the heat problem. In 10 years there won’t be a heat problem, unless you want heat of course.

• Warthog

The limits are fundamentally set by properties of materials….heat conductivity in particular. There will ALWAYS be heat associated with energy generation. Until someone comes up with a “heat superconductor”, I think that will be the ultimate size limit setting parameter.

• clovis ray

Hi, buddy,
Could I impose on you, to elaborate briefly , on” heat superconductors”
You would seem to be thinking along the lines, that i too have considered I’m, not sure,even if there is such a thing, but in my mind this is close to explaining the rossi effect, a ( heat superconductor) with all sorts of side effects of known and unknown possibilitys, that will be exciting to explore and find out all about them, now that is what science is all about, i feel so lucky just to be here, I am aha struck, by all that is going on in this world, it’s moving so fast, it’s hard to keep abreast of the latest innovations,

• Warthog

“Heat superconductor” is strictly a mental construct postulated to be the heat equivalent of an electrical superconductor. Not original with me….Larry Niven in his “Ringworld” scifi series postulated that a room temperature electrical superconductor would also be a heat superconductor. I am sure that a lot of engineers would be in hog heaven if such an entity turned out to be possible.

• clovis ray

Indeed, they would, if you take DC current moving along a conductor, the electrons, act as if they are moving along chaotically, causing much resistance, if by adding an pulsing magnet field, and aliening said electrons in the reactor to move along the reactor fuel in an orderly motion , it might cause then to move more freely, and hence less Resistance, and superconducting, can it be that easy, smile.

• Alan Smith

Hi Clovis – you want to feel a heat superconductor? Get a piece of rebar about a foot (30cms) long. Get a couple of inches at one end really red/yellow hot. Then dip the red hot end in cold water. But be careful – you might burn yourself. The cool end suddenly gets too hot to hold.

Why?

Thermal phonons can move much faster than simple thermal conductivity of iron allows for. There are other explanations -but it is a bit wierd the first time you get caught out by the phenomenon.

• clovis ray

Thanks Alan, i watched this lecture by Prof. G. Rangarajan, Department of Physics, IIT Madras https://youtu.be/J4CwGFpgt1I to get a handle on phonons, the lecture last 45 mins, it gives a bit of a refresher course, and lays out the types of different waves as i see it, the thermal acoustic, em,type flux, that can accompany atoms in the lattice. the lecture became a bit thick at the end. only for me of course, smile
so if you can tune in a certain, outside stimulation, using any of these or a combination there of could result in an superconducting wave in motion being forced in one direction,along the fuel in the reactor, this (heat superconductor) could let you gain, at least the power (in) part. which would let it ssm, would it not.

• LarryJ

Be careful when you say ALWAYS. When a scientist says something is impossible she is almost always wrong, when a scientist says maybe but it would be very difficult she is almost always right. (Not my quote)

• Warthog

Oh, I’m very familiar with the quote… but this is about the absolute fundamental basis of the laws of thermodynamics. I don’t know of ANY way of using energy that doesn’t eventually involve heat.

• purplepartyguy

I think in time lenr devices will become solid state, where the reactor is embedded inside a consumer product. The device could be a throw away product that will be completely recycled and massed produced in enormous numbers, ie flashlights and the like. More costly products will have an easily replaced reactor core that will allow quick and easy swap out.

• HS61AF91

I get the feeling that “very slow incremental development” is because stubborn financial profit embeds and disallows new innovation to upset the newly profitable apple cart. I would contrast this to majority of good improvements taking place in the first years of use limiting future innovation.

• Omega Z

Moore’s Law refers to the scaling down of the foot print of electronics.
It does not apply to other fields even if at times it appears to. Moore’s Law is also slowing & headed for a wall in the realm of electronics.

• LarryJ

You are correct about Moore’s law specifically, however all information based technologies improve exponentially with the only difference being the value of the exponent. Moore’s Law is the example that most people are familiar with. Technology curves tend to be S shaped where the tech starts off with a slow rise, hits it pace and rises quickly through the steep part of the S and then flattens out at the end until its replacement comes on the scene and starts the process again by rising slowly. As you point out, the improvement in the footprint of electronics is slowing down but there will inevitably be a replacement and Moore’s Law will remain relevant for a very long time as will it’s comparison with other information based exponentially improving technologies like cold fusion.

• TPaign

So 1MW = 5 cartons of smokes?

• US_Citizen71

Yes, but that is equivalent to the fuel rods in a fission reactor, not the reactor itself. It will still need some coolant flow across it to remove the heat, which will need a container and pumps, etc. It might fit in a tractor-trailer rig, but more likely something the size of a train engine with all the needed support hardware.

• Ophelia Rump

Not if it outputs electricity. Just your pocket power pack and your electric turbine flying back pack.

• As I recall, AR has said that 50/50 is the highest electricity output, so you would still need to extract a significant amount of heat. I think US_Citizen71’s estimate of the size of the necessary ancillary equipment may be overly pessemistic though. It shouldn’t take much gear to handle 10kW(t) – a car engine routinely dumps much more than this through its radiator.

• US_Citizen71

I agree that a 20kW unit and support equipment would likely fit in a car, but he asked about a 1MW unit. 500kW of heat will need a lot of coolant and a large radiator.

• Sorry – missed that!

• Brent Buckner

AR has stated that he can choose for the electricity output to be greater than the heat output.

From: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/12/26/rossi-the-e-cat-x-does-produce-electricity-directly/
“In the E-Cat X now, which is greater: the heat output, or electricity output?”
Response:
Andrea Rossi
December 26th, 2015 at 9:57 PM
Frank Acland:
We can choose.

• Omega Z

I agree, US_Citizen71’s estimate is pessimistic.
Consider the current 1MW fits in 3 cubic meters or less.

• US_Citizen71

Everything but the heat exchanger / radiator fits into 3 cu. Meters, the heat is being disposed of by additional hardware. Either the heat will need to be radiated to the atmosphere or some type of carnot cycle engine will need to make use of it and more likely both, adding more volume. That is with the idea of it being used for transportation, but as for a steam generator only it could be <3 cu. Meters.

• Steven Irizarry

instant killing taser

• Albert D. Kallal

Gee, with such power density, then a personal flying machine “aka” the jetsons is not that far off.

At CES this week, a personal “man” carrying drone was unveiled:

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• Observer

…and now we will demonstrate how the rotating blades can fend off the paparazzi.
;o)

• Jonnyb

I won’t be going in one, not after seeing the Skier nearly hit by one a few weeks ago. Good idea though.

• LarryJ

I would disagree that cold fusion is not an information based technology. Any technology whose advance depends on scientific research is very much an information based technology. Your analogy of engines I think is also weak. That’s like saying vacuum tubes do not follow Moore’s law because they had a short term usefulness while while ignoring that due to scientific research they morphed into solid state electronics. So far the evidence supports an exponential improvement in the technology.

• Pekka Janhunen

True, but ordinary lightbulb filament also has pretty high time derivative of temperature: it turns on and off quickly. It just means that the device achieves thermal balance (balance between heat production and heat loss) quickly.

• Pekka Janhunen

I agree with Jonas. I also agree with you completely in that the E-cat X of today is not the E-cat of 4 years ago and that so far the anecdotal evidence supports exponential improvement. In general, when there is the commercial need, development of any device is exponential until it hits the limits set by physics.
It seems to me that Rossi’s development is rapidly approaching limits set by physics. The device appears to be already so small that the bottleneck is no longer the device itself, but all the surrounding apparatuses that transfer and make use of the energy. At high temperature like 1400 C, radiation starts to be the most efficient carrier of heat, and radiation follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

• LarryJ

Given that the physics are not yet understood it is hard for me to see how you can set limits on it’s potential. It’s possible, and I think likely that when the physics are understood that there will not be the need for such high temperatures. The reaction will probably be triggered with pinpoint precision by a device that looks and operates nothing like the current ecat-x. Like the difference between a vacuum tube and a transistor. New technologies are always crude, including the ecat.

Your presuppositions are limiting your vision or put another way, your grounding in physics limits your vision. I don’t think it’s an accident that it took a doctor of philosophy to discover the holy grail. The odds that a physicist would make a paradigm shifting leap like this, almost overnight, are slim. They would get there eventually but only through a long and painful iterative process. Rossi was poorly trained for this work so he was able to just go ahead and do it. Physicists know too much and too well what can’t work, and that definitely includes the ecat.

• Jarea

If what you say is true, then i can imagine that we can implement in a dream future new living cells in our bodies. One where the hypochondria is replaced by a cold fusion mitochondria that gives us strength a new transformation capabilities without food. Cells will become LENR foundries that generates new elements.

• LarryJ

Now you’re thinking. You are clearly not a physicist or a biologist as they would give you 50 reasons why that could never happen and linear thinking about technology is always wrong. There are already designs for a nanotech blood cell that if it replaced 30% of your blood volume would allow you to hold your breath for 3 hours. All we lack is the enabling technology. What would that do to the scuba business.

• Andreas Moraitis

Sangui Biotech ( http://www.sangui.de/en/index.php ) develops artificial haemoglobin carriers which might be suitable for that purpose. One does not need much fantasy to anticipate their abuse. Looks like a lot of additional work for doping inspectors.

• The limits are not in the e-cat core, but (as Pekka suggests) mainly in the arrangements for extracting electrical power and heat, the physics of which are well understood. Beyond a certain point, continuing to reduce the size of the core, or increasing the output, is likely to become counterproductive on a number of fronts. In particular, materials strength with ever increasing temperature, thickness of electrical conductors, surface area available for heat transfer etc., etc.

• LarryJ

Since the efficiency of converting heat to electricity is also an exponentially improving information based technology it is likely that as the technology improves the ratio of electricity to heat will improve exponentially as well until you have what is essentially a nuclear battery that produces mostly electricity and a small amount of heat.

I understand that doesn’t solve the problem of heat production today but the ecat-x is probably 2 years from market and in such an exponentially improving fast paced environment 2 years is a enough time to more than halve the heat problem. In 10 years there won’t be a heat problem, unless you want heat of course.

• blanco69

Me too Roger. A pleasant surprise is what we need. I’ll take take that before I even contemplate flying around with a cigarette packet strapped to my back.

• Warthog

The limits are fundamentally set by properties of materials….heat conductivity in particular. There will ALWAYS be heat associated with energy generation. Until someone comes up with a “heat superconductor”, I think that will be the ultimate size limit setting parameter.

• Pekka Janhunen

Did you make a typo, since comparing power density with energy density would be meaningless?

• Steven Irizarry

someone explain to me the implications of power contained in a device that size

• The dangers of using LENR devices in our homes is certainly no where near the risks involved in burning natural gas and storing gasoline in our garages.

*6 weeks to go!*

• Omega Z

Probably the solution will be a split system. Like a Central air conditioner.

The Guts of the system will be outside the residence with heat and electricity piped in. Probably the most economical system as well.

• bfast

I don’t think that the consern with LENR is incidental events like gasoline produces. I think the consern is that there would be some unforeseen toxic effect, like radiation, that would slowly deteriorate the wellbeing of everyone. The chance of such may be low, but the devistation could be enormous.

• Ophelia Rump

Yeah the zombie apocalypse, very nice, this is why we should all just drink the Koolaid now.

• Ophelia Rump

Aircraft without the need to lift fuel mass. Electric automobiles without the weight of batteries. New space craft, combining The E-CatX and the The EmDrive might be combined to put a space elevator up to 400 kilometers the elevation of the space station and use constant EmDrive thrust to maintain it’s elevation. Shortening the requirement from 35,790 kilometers thus making it practical with existing materials, today.

• Piero

At last a comment that puts this in the right perspective. A 20kw powepack the size of a packet of cigarettes to be refueled once or twice a year with what, a 10€ recharge or so? This is mind bogglin! It may be a dream,….but let me dream a bit 🙂

• LarryJ

Don’t forget power sources for exoskeletons and prosthetics. The disabled could walk again. And what about drones providing wireless internet to every square inch of the world and thus the end of expensive cell phone technology and its dead zones. What about a renaissance in science as a whole new field of research opens up.

• Zephir

The existing E-Cat 20 kW reactors are also surprisingly small: each of them has an inner volume 50 ccm only, All the rest are massive heat exchangers. https://i.imgur.com/V1fACcy.gif

• Jarea

Could you update the plot with the new Ecat X data? That would be very interesting.

• artefact

Terraforming planets… but with bigger devices 🙂

• Axil Axil

The current wafer is comprised of a single square foot double layer fuel package that surrounds a heat layer on either side of that heater. This new reactor 20 Kw configuration is most probably comprised of a heater layer at the center of a stack of fuel layers N deep on either side of the heater layer. This configuration is consistent with the Cat and Mouse configuration were the mouse drives N numbers of unpowered Cats.

• Don’t drop one onto a hard surface.

• LarryJ

Be careful when you say ALWAYS. When a scientist says something is impossible she is almost always wrong, when a scientist says maybe but it would be very difficult she is almost always right. (Not my quote)

• Frank

PT Barnum did not coin “There’s a sucker born every minute”, but, after following Rossi’s efforts for several years, the phrase rings true. I’ve lost hope that Rossi has real stuff. But, if the 20 KW power supply the size of a cigarette pack really can be sold, I’ll buy it and hook it up to a 20KW distrubition panel in a heartbeat.

• LarryJ

You should not let unrealistic expectations get you down. This tech is coming at us like a fast freight train. Rossi didn’t start off knowing how difficult it would be to bring this to market and it has been less than 5 years since his big demo. One year of which was spent testing his first product. He has learned a lot while traveling a very bumpy road. But now we know that he has a team behind him that can make it happen, and in as non disruptive a way as possible.

We all wish we could have proof positive that this is all real and of course a watched pot never boils but this is not just a better mousetrap. It will trigger a massive paradigm shift. It would not help at all if Rossi did another demo and even if he did the best it would do is create a lot of Fear Uncertainty & Doubt. Fast adoption of this technology is critical to ensure a swift and non disruptive transition as possible. The only way that can happen is if everyone is absolutely convinced at almost the same time and if there is adequate product available to meet the massive demand that realization will create. The only way to do that is to have tons of product available to sell, the day you announce that it’s real. Even then, many won’t believe it which will give an advantage to those that do and allow production to keep up to demand but that advantage won’t last long if Rossi’s plans for massive production are realized. If the transition is swift enough that anyone who wants it can buy it with a reasonable delivery time then there will be very little disruption. The worst disruption will be in the fossil fuel industry but the re invigoration of the economy should easily allow the absorption of those people, many of whom are highly skilled. People and investment funds who invested in what will be stranded assets paid their money and took their chances. Speculation is a double edged sword. Chin up.

• Warthog

Oh, I’m very familiar with the quote… but this is about the absolute fundamental basis of the laws of thermodynamics. I don’t know of ANY way of using energy that doesn’t eventually involve heat.

• Roland
• purplepartyguy

I think in time lenr devices will become solid state, where the reactor is embedded inside a consumer product. The device could be a throw away product that will be completely recycled and massed produced in enormous numbers, ie flashlights and the like. More costly products will have an easily replaced reactor core that will allow quick and easy swap out.

• bachcole

I would be so much more comfortable if Rossi would demonstrate some of these new wonders rather than just talking about it. The Interview with Fulvio Fabiani is the only thing keeping above 50% certainty.

• blanco69

Me too Roger. A pleasant surprise is what we need. I’ll take take that before I even contemplate flying around with a cigarette packet strapped to my back.

• David Lund

If these numbers are correct the power density of the e-cat is significantly better than the energy density of jet fuel so everything except rockets and jet packs should switch. And I could be wrong on rockets.

• Pekka Janhunen

Did you make a typo, since comparing power density with energy density would be meaningless?

• David Lund

Power density and energy density are different although I get them mixed up. I think energy density is the size of the engine and the fuel it needs to run one successful operation. For example your car and it’s tank of gas. Or the rocket engines and it’s fuel. For brilliant light it would be the engine converting electricity and several gigs worth of sun cells. Power density is the size of an electricity plant. These are two of the four areas that must be balanced to see the relative valeant of fuel sources. The other two are cost to produce the energy you want and intermittently/peeking of the plant. The sun cell (if true is off the charts in these)

• Guru Khalsa

I am confused. I thought the Ecat X Rossi has been testing is 3kW. When did he start testing a 20kW Ecat X? I must behave missed something.

• Guru Khalsa

I remember back when 600 deg C Ecats was considered crazy. F9 F9 F9 F9

• Warthog

You have to remember that the E-cat X is a research device. In early tests, it may have been driven to 3.5kW, and, with experience and optimization, later found to be capable of 20kW.

• Omega Z

The X-cat is rated 1KW. The Hot cat was 3.5KW.

Rossi has indicated the the X-cat comprises 3 reactors with a combined potential of 3.5KW. He’s also stated it is similar to the Lugano reactor.(Dog Bone style)
However, we have no clear idea of what it really looks like.

To obtain higher power, you add additional reactors. They sound as if they are about the size of a cigarette thus the reference a 20KW device would be 20 X-cat reactors with a total volume of a 20 cigarette packet.

• Guru Khalsa

I am confused. I thought the Ecat X Rossi has been testing is 3kW. When did he start testing a 20kW Ecat X? I must have missed something.

• Guru Khalsa

I remember back when 600 deg C Ecats was considered crazy. F9 F9 F9 F9

• R Suhas

Sir
There is mixup
Rubiitpower in India is testing with 3.5kwh device trying to reach 5 and ten kw and with Titanium fuel
Dr Rossi has crossed 10kw years back

• artefact

Guru talks about the e-cat x not the normal e-cat.

• Warthog

You have to remember that the E-cat X is a research device. In early tests, it may have been driven to 3.5kW, and, with experience and optimization, later found to be capable of 20kW.

• Omega Z

The X-cat is rated 1KW. The Hot cat was 3.5KW.

Rossi has indicated the the X-cat comprises 3 reactors with a combined potential of 3.5KW. He’s also stated it is similar to the Lugano reactor.(Dog Bone style)
However, we have no clear idea of what it really looks like.

To obtain higher power, you add additional reactors. They sound as if they are about the size of a cigarette thus the reference a 20KW device would be 20 X-cat reactors with a total volume of a 20 cigarette packet.

• Zack Iszard

That is a power density of 50 W/g, or 50 kW/kg, exceeding all but the most powerful capacitors on the market today (by a cursory google). Combine this with the obviously insane energy density, and this frankly reads “TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE”

• LarryJ

But that is not a valid argument to say that it isn’t true. There have been many discoveries that were too good to be true.

• Zack Iszard

LarryJ, I’ve posted many times here as a cautious but exuberant supporter of the efforts of IH, and have had many discussions with pseudoskeps and converted two so far. I read “20 kW from a cigarette pack” and my BS meter starts going off. That said, someone else pointed out other support hardware, and if this is the case it becomes a bit more fathomable.

• Gerard McEk

Things are getting more phantastic every day. With this size of energy generator we all will fly with our personal plane or drone to our work in the near future, light bulbs included.
It is about time that AR shows his newest brainchild. Maybe in the New Energy World Symposium in Stockholm?

• LarryJ

He will not show anything until he has product on the shelf. It would serve no purpose except to allow us dreamers to say “I told you so” and it could be very disruptive. Disruption is ok and maybe inevitable but you better be able to put your product where your mouth is.

• In other words, the less warning those whose interests will be damaged receive, the better.

• LarryJ

I think a lot of that damage has already been done. There is a good argument to be made that the current disruption in world markets is not simply due to increasing oil supplies and a contracting economy. Saudi Arabia is fighting for market share because they know whats coming and Shell has been a major sponsor of cold fusion research for years. What about Bill Gates recent interest in cold fusion. It is likely that the big players have been doing some serious portfolio adjustments and shifting stranded assets onto the backs of pension funds and the like. I really like listening to the pundits who say that oil right now is the investment of a lifetime.

• Gerard McEk

I believe that if the 1 MW plant shows that Ecat really works and also is commercially proven by the running one years test, then Rossi will step into the market so sell his products. Where can he find a better (and cheaper in short terms) place to promote his products then in this Symposium?

• LarryJ

The problem is that he will not have a product ready for market until late this year or early next year. He already has a strong backlog of pre-orders and all of the financing he needs. The last thing he needs is massive publicity before he is ready for market. He has said several times that until he has product in the market it is as if he has done nothing. A man who has nothing to offer is not going to want massive publicity that serves no purpose. I doubt he will say much at the end of the one year test. It will simply mark the start of the manufacturing phase.

• Gerard McEk

Things are getting more phantastic every day. With this size of energy generator we all will fly with our personal plane or drone to our work in the near future, light bulbs included.
It is about time that AR shows his newest brainchild. Maybe in the New Energy World Symposium in Stockholm?

• LarryJ

He will not show anything until he has product on the shelf. It would serve no purpose except to allow us dreamers to say “I told you so” and it could be very disruptive. Disruption is ok and maybe inevitable but you better be able to put your product where your mouth is.

• In other words, the less warning those whose interests will be damaged receive, the better.

• LarryJ

I think a lot of that damage has already been done. There is a good argument to be made that the current disruption in world markets is not simply due to increasing oil supplies and a contracting economy. Saudi Arabia is fighting for market share because they know whats coming and Shell has been a sponsor of cold fusion research for years. What about Bill Gates recent interest in cold fusion. It is likely that the big players have been doing some serious portfolio adjustments and shifting stranded assets onto the backs of pension funds and the like. I really like listening to the pundits who say that oil right now is the investment of a lifetime.

But it hardly matters. This technology will spawn a bull market the likes of which has never been seen. Everyone’s input costs will fall, creating huge demand for ever cheaper “stuff” which in turn will spur employment. A virtuous spiral. The limiting factor will be commodities not energy and that’s where the asteroid miners come in and on it goes.

• Kazm

LENR can, by transmutation of elements, also produce the material for
making the stuff that are otherwise limited in their otherwise natural
environment. Mitsubishi has this as confirmed by Toyota

• Gerard McEk

I believe that if the 1 MW plant shows that Ecat really works and also is commercially proven by the running one years test, then Rossi will step into the market so sell his products. Where can he find a better (and cheaper in short terms) place to promote his products then in this Symposium?

• LarryJ

The problem is that he will not have a product ready for market until late this year or early next year. He already has a strong backlog of pre-orders and all of the financing he needs. The last thing he needs is massive publicity before he is ready for market. He has said several times that until he has product in the market it is as if he has done nothing. A man who has nothing to offer is not going to want massive publicity that serves no purpose. I doubt he will say much at the end of the one year test. It will simply mark the start of the manufacturing phase.

• fritz194

The cigarette pack will be the bare volume of the power source.
To “harvest” electricity, heat or light you will need a multiple of that.
There will also be a certain tradeoff with heat(invisible radiation), light(visible radiation) and electricity. Even an ecat-x designed for direct harvest of electricity – will have a serious amount of other byproducts.

• LarryJ

But those byproducts will become vanishingly small as the technology develops. I remember when smoke detectors first came out. The guts looked like the inside of an amateur radio project. Two years later there was one chip and the sensor.

• Andreas Moraitis

You will need a minimum surface area and a sufficient amount of coolant if you want to remove heat at acceptable temperature levels. Therefore, I think that the possibilities for miniaturization are limited (except if you had a superconducting source that produces 100% electricity).

• LarryJ

Now you’re thinking. That may not be the actual answer but if not that then something else. Once the science is understood the rest is engineering and we are very good at engineering.

• Gerard McEk

Rossi said that insulating the Ecat, may improve the electrical efficiency. I am not sure he can do without cooling, though. If you have a 200 kW Ecat and you have to cool away say 40%, then you still need a

• artefact

For the electricity extraction I think only two or some more connections to specific layers of the reactor and a transistor for the control are necessary.
For the heat extraction, the plate can be viewed in the patent.

• Sanjeev

I guess you are right and he is talking about the size of the core. Its plausible if you see the size of hot-cat is about 3 cig packs.

• artefact

I don’t think it is the raw core but the reactor without any connections and cooling stuff. Like in the patent the qubic reactor (nr. 32)

• Winebuff67

Will Rossi be alive before he produces products for regular folks? Sorry suffering hope fatigue.

• fritz194

The cigarette pack will be the bare volume of the power source.
To “harvest” electricity, heat or light you will need a multiple of that.
There will also be a certain tradeoff with heat(invisible radiation), light(visible radiation) and electricity. Even an ecat-x designed for direct harvest of electricity – will have a serious amount of other byproducts.

• LarryJ

But those byproducts will become vanishingly small as the technology develops. I remember when smoke detectors first came out. The guts looked like the inside of an amateur radio project. Two years later there was one chip and the sensor.

• Andreas Moraitis

You will need a minimum surface area and a sufficient amount of coolant if you want to remove heat at acceptable temperature levels. Therefore, I think that the possibilities for miniaturization are limited (except if you had a superconducting source that produces 100% electricity).

• LarryJ

Now you’re thinking. That may not be the actual answer but if not that then something else. Once the science is understood the rest is engineering and we are very good at engineering.

• Gerard McEk

Rossi said that insulating the Ecat, may improve the electrical efficiency. I am not sure he can do without cooling, though. If you have a 200 kW Ecat and you have to cool away say 40%, then you still need a

• artefact

For the electricity extraction I think only two or some more connections to specific layers of the reactor and a transistor for the control are necessary.
For the heat extraction, the plate can be viewed in the patent.

• Sanjeev

I guess you are right and he is talking about the size of the core. Its plausible if you see the size of hot-cat is about 3 cig packs.

• artefact

I don’t think it is the raw core but the reactor without any connections and cooling stuff. Like in the patent the qubic reactor (nr. 32)
But I guess we are talking about the same…

• Winebuff67

Will Rossi be alive before he produces products for regular folks? Sorry suffering hope fatigue.

• georgehants

Think of the millions of lives such a device could save.
Wonderful Day

• LarryJ

This technology will quite quickly turn the world from a place of scarcity to one of plenty and those riches will be available to one and all. Cheap energy is the holy grail. It will also enable many technologies that are now problematic because of power requirements and that could make a huge difference to the 3rd world.

One example for instance is that it should become easy and inexpensive to provide internet to everyone. What does expanding the gene pool of the world by 30% do for the rest of us. How many Einsteins are languishing in a rice paddy in the back of beyond. A huge wasted potential will be brought online.

All the benefits that cheap power can enable will become available to one and all.

• georgehants

Larry, you say —–“How many Einsteins are languishing in a rice paddy in the back of beyond. A huge wasted potential will be brought online.”
Wonderful observation, but we must be careful not to change the lives of those people who are happy living in a close community of rice paddy’s and don’t want to be a part of this crazy rat-race, just add security, welfare and equal opertunity, I think.
Best to you.

• LarryJ

Change is inevitable and how communities change is up to them. I expect that the younger generation would be much hungrier for change than the older but a ubiquitous internet and distributed manufacturing would not necessarily require them to leave their communities for opportunity as is now the case.

I also think that the concept of a global village will continue to expand as travel will become dirt cheap which does have the unfortunate side effect of also bringing a “sameness” to everywhere. For instance where would you not find a KFC. Every back woods community would have at least 1 entrepreneur who would want to open a KFC and make his fortune.

To do what you suggest might require the creation of zones where bylaws specify what is and is not acceptable. This is a fairly common concept in Sci Fi and extends to communities that want to experience specific religious, political and sociological settings. For instance someone might find it interesting to take a retreat in a community that adheres to some specific system or time period but you would have to adhere to the bylaws of that community. In a world that will go faster and faster, such retreats could become very popular.

• jousterusa

Actually, that Einstein is waiting in a wheat field in Iowa, nota rice paddy in Asia… 🙂

• Omega Z

Your expectations are a little high.
However, it will improve things in life.

• That will be our challenge as a society, to manage energy well.

• Omega Z

Energy is just part of the equation. About 10%.

Tho it seems to be nearly unlimited, if we do the things some propose, we will soon find that it is also limited. If we waste it, it will soon not be so cheap.

However, Even if energy was forever plentiful & cheap, all the other resources we need for current lifestyles aren’t. With increased demand and there will be increased demand, even with cheap energy, those things will only become more expensive. The high expectations of what will come from cheap energy will not be met.

• Manuel Cruz

People should read more about the “Mouse Utopia” experiment, to illustrate themselves more about the dangers of free energy.

• WayneM

Think of the millions of ways such a device could allow billions of lives to ravage and rape the planet with cheap energy.
Wonderful Day

p.s.: careful what you wish for.

• Omega Z

Caterpillar powered with an E-cat. Cool.

My neighbor could be moved in the middle of the night.
Just kidding. I get along well with my neighbors.

• Jarea

WayneM, the typical answer to your comment is that the technology can always be used for the good or for the bad, it is our decision as humans to choose correctly. Don´t blame the technology that enable us the option to decide.
Just we have to improve our control and decision systems. This technology can save many lives and save even the earth, if we use the cheap energy so that we don´t grow over other resources but we transform the energy in resources.

• jousterusa

How long will the starving, hungry and sick have to wait for relief?

• LarryJ

Until cold fusion reaches the market. But there is a light at the end of that tunnel that was never there before.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Right, but but how many displaced and unemployed workers with a lot of deflation.

• LarryJ

You are thinking of the bad old deflation where deflation signaled a contracting economy. This will be an entirely different deflation. This deflation will be triggered by falling input costs, not a contracting economy. For instance, my heating costs in Canada will drop by at least \$1000 a year. What will I do with that \$1000. I will surely want to spend some of it on something. That’s just me and one thing I pay for. It will happen to millions or billions on everything they pay for. As people demand more “stuff” and services, employment will naturally rise. Energy is a significant component of the cost of everything you see around you that is manufactured or processed and I mean everything. It will create a virtuous spiral where falling costs cause increased demand which causes increased employment which causes increased demand and so on. The only fly in the ointment will be rising commodity prices, but cheap energy will allow much more economical recycling and exponentially rising technologies will greatly improve productivity and we already have nascent asteroid mining companies. We are on the cusp of the energy age.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Uncertainty is devastating for economic markets, for especially the short term, we will feel a lot poorer, while we wait for your 1000 dollar savings to kick in.

• LarryJ

For many in the world the current deflation in fuel prices is already putting money in peoples pockets and making them feel less poor and we don’t even have CF on the market yet.

I don’t agree that uncertainty is devastating for markets. Uncertainty increases volatility which only effects traders who earn their bread and butter from volatility and it has no effect at all on long term buy and hold investors unless they are forced by circumstance to sell at a bad time. Two days ago the Dow was down over 300, yesterday it was up almost 300 as I look now it is down 500. Big deal. It goes up and it goes down but the world economy keeps on growing. (off topic but you brought it up)

Commodity investments are getting killed right now due to the economic contraction but good investors here know what will happen to commodities when the pendulum swings so they just keep banking dividends and exercising patience.

The current deflation is primarily of the old bad type which is due to economic contraction. Since discussions here are CF centric my comment was geared more to the post CF introduction period which I think will start a bull market like never before. It is unfortunate that CF is not currently on the market to get things going now but that is just reality. It will happen when it happens.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

I agree CF is going to result in a huge increase in productivity. I am simply saying the effect of this productivity increase has not always been, historically, a benefit to the economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation

• georgehants

Think of the millions of lives such a device could save.
Wonderful Day

• LarryJ

This technology will quite quickly turn the world from a place of scarcity to one of plenty and those riches will be available to one and all. Cheap energy is the holy grail. It will also enable many technologies that are now problematic because of power requirements and that could make a huge difference to the 3rd world.

One example for instance is that it should become easy and inexpensive to provide internet to everyone through the use of drones that only require servicing once a year. What does expanding the gene pool of the world by 30% do for the rest of us. How many Einsteins are languishing in a rice paddy in the back of beyond. A huge wasted potential will be brought online to the benefit of us all.

All the benefits that cheap power can enable will become available to everyone and provide all populations with the wherewithal to protect their environment.

• georgehants

Larry, you say —–“How many Einsteins are languishing in a rice paddy in the back of beyond. A huge wasted potential will be brought online.”
Wonderful observation, but we must be careful not to change the lives of those people who are happy living in a close community of rice paddy’s and don’t want to be a part of this crazy rat-race, just add security, welfare and equal opertunity, I think.
Best to you.

• LarryJ

Change is inevitable and how communities change is up to them. I expect that the younger generation would be much hungrier for change than the older but a ubiquitous internet and distributed manufacturing would not necessarily require them to leave their communities for opportunity as is now the case.

I also think that the concept of a global village will continue to expand as travel will become dirt cheap which does have the unfortunate side effect of also bringing a “sameness” to everywhere. For instance where would you not find a KFC. Every back woods community would have at least 1 entrepreneur who would want to open a KFC and make his fortune.

To do what you suggest might require the creation of zones where bylaws specify what is and is not acceptable. This is a fairly common concept in Sci Fi and extends to communities that want to experience specific religious, political and sociological settings. For instance someone might find it interesting to take a retreat in a community that adheres to some specific system or time period but you would have to adhere to the bylaws of that community. In a world that will go faster and faster, such retreats could become very popular.

• jousterusa

Actually, that Einstein is waiting in a wheat field in Iowa, nota rice paddy in Asia… 🙂

• Omega Z

Your expectations are a little high.
However, it will improve things in life.

• clovis ray

yea, but i like the way he thinks, smile

• That will be our challenge as a society, to manage energy well.

• Omega Z

Energy is just part of the equation. About 10%.

Tho it seems to be nearly unlimited, if we do the things some propose, we will soon find that it is also limited. If we waste it, it will soon not be so cheap.

However, Even if energy was forever plentiful & cheap, all the other resources we need for current lifestyles aren’t. With increased demand and there will be increased demand, even with cheap energy, those things will only become more expensive. The high expectations of what will come from cheap energy will not be met.

• Manuel Cruz

People should read more about the “Mouse Utopia” experiment, to illustrate themselves more about the dangers of free energy.

• Kazm

LENR can, by transmutation of elements, also produce the material for making the stuff that are otherwise limited in their otherwise natural environment.

• WayneM

Think of the millions of ways such a device could allow billions of lives to ravage and rape the planet with cheap energy.
Wonderful Day

p.s.: careful what you wish for.

• Omega Z

Caterpillar powered with an E-cat. Cool.

My neighbor could be moved in the middle of the night.
Just kidding. I get along well with my neighbors.

• clovis ray

Wayne M, that is why we have an EPA, Guys don’t feed the trolls, hants is constantly on about the exact same thing, over and over how long are we to endure that.

• Jarea

WayneM, the typical answer to your comment is that the technology can always be used for the good or for the bad, it is our decision as humans to choose correctly. Don´t blame the technology that enable us the option to decide.
Just we have to improve our control and decision systems. This technology can save many lives and save even the earth, if we use the cheap energy so that we don´t grow over other resources but we transform the energy in resources.

• jousterusa

How long will the starving, hungry and sick have to wait for relief?

• LarryJ

Until cold fusion reaches the market. But there is a growing light at the end of that tunnel that was never there before.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Right, but but how many displaced and unemployed workers with a lot of deflation.

• LarryJ

You are thinking of the bad old deflation where deflation signaled a contracting economy. This will be an entirely different deflation. This deflation will be triggered by falling input costs, not a contracting economy. For instance, my heating costs in Canada will drop by at least \$1000 a year. What will I do with that \$1000. I will surely want to spend some of it on something. That’s just me and one thing I pay for. It will happen to millions or billions on everything they pay for. As people demand more “stuff” and services, employment will naturally rise. Energy is a significant component of the cost of everything you see around you that is manufactured or processed and I mean everything. It will create a virtuous spiral where falling costs cause increased demand which causes increased employment which causes increased demand and so on. The only fly in the ointment will be rising commodity prices, but cheap energy will allow much more economical recycling and exponentially rising technologies will greatly improve productivity and we already have nascent asteroid mining companies. We are on the cusp of the energy age.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Uncertainty is devastating for economic markets, for especially the short term, we will feel a lot poorer, while we wait for your 1000 dollar savings to kick in.

• LarryJ

For many in the world the current deflation in fuel prices is already putting money in their pockets and making them feel less poor and we don’t even have CF on the market yet.

I don’t agree that uncertainty is devastating for markets. Uncertainty increases volatility which only effects traders who earn their bread and butter from volatility and it has no effect at all on long term buy and hold investors unless they are forced by circumstance to sell at a bad time. Two days ago the Dow was down almost 400, yesterday it was up almost 300 as I look now it is down 500. Big deal. It goes up and it goes down but the world economy keeps on growing. (off topic but you brought it up)

Commodity investments are getting killed right now due to the economic contraction but good investors here know what will happen to commodities when CF swings the pendulum so they just keep banking dividends and exercising patience.

The current deflation is primarily of the old bad type which is due to economic contraction. Since discussions here are CF centric my comment was geared more to the post CF introduction period which I think will start a bull market like never before. It is unfortunate that CF is not currently on the market to get things going now but that is just reality. It will happen when it happens.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

I agree CF is going to result in a huge increase in productivity. I am simply saying the effect of this productivity increase has not always been, historically, a benefit to the economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation

• artefact

Guru talks about the e-cat x not the normal e-cat.

• Charles

I fret that AR is an Engineer like unto some that worked for me in my career. They will work on an item forever because there is always something they can make better.

IH, mayhap, will just have to order him (if they can) to wrap it up right there. Send it to production.

• Omega Z

Charles,

While people were purchasing the I-Phone 5 and the I-Phone 6 was slowly making it’s way to market, The I-Phone 7 was already on the drawing board starting it’s slow progression to market. The Car manufacturers are already working on designs for the 2020 model year.

From Rossi’s statements, the Core technology of the 1MW plant low temp reactors are concluded should the test prove positive. The core technology will not change, however they will incorporate the fixes for all the problems that arose during the 1 year test.

That Rossi and his team of a dozen are utilizing this period of time to work on advancing the technology is a positive. Advancing the technology & honing their skills that will be passed to the eventual enlarged R&D teams and lessons passed on to the manufacturing process.

That or they could all set around the 1MW container playing cards during the 400 day test with long hours of nothing to do except when issues arise. Now that would be a great waste of time.

• Bob

I took a stroll down memory lane…..
.
Aug. 9th, 2011-
Andrea Rossi
I always said that we would have been ready for the market from November only with the 1 MW plants, while for the small units more time was necessary, for many issues . . .
In fact, we will start in October our 1 MW plant, and we will be ready to sell such plants from November, as I always said, while we will be ready for the small plants in due time. . .
.
Sept. 28th, 2011 –
Andrea Rossi :
“By half October we will explain exactly what follows:
1- where the 1 MW plant will be tested
2- all the (not confidential) characteristics of the 1MW plant (the complementary part is more reactors, of a new type that in the meantime we have developed)
3- possibly, who is the Customer, if the Customer will allow us to communicate his name.”
.
Oct. 23rd, 2011-
Andrea Rossi:
“Good Sunday also to you, while I write this comment we are testing the 1 MW plant, which is working well so far. I am very sorry of the very restricted attendance, due to the particular kind of our Customer, but during the test on this blog we will transmit the main data of the test every hour, while at midnight we will publish the full report and a video. The direct transmission is not possible because the officers of the Customer want not to be videotaped.”
.
Nov. 22nd, 2011-
Andrea Rossi:
BY THE WAY: WE COLLECT FROM NOW THE NAMES OF ALL THE PERSONS OR ENITITES INTERESTED TO BUY AN E-CAT OF 10 KW. IF WE WILL REACH 10,000 NAMES IN THE LIST, THE PERSONS IN THE WAITING LIST WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFIRM OR NOT THEIR ORDER AT 400 EURO/THERMAL KW. DO NOT SEND MONEY, WE WILL ACCEPT THE ORDERS ONLY IF WE WILL REACH 10,000 NAMES IN THE WAITING LIST.
.
Feb. 2nd, 2012-
Andrea Rossi:
Every E-Cat will be supplied with 2 refill charges, one inside, one for spare: after 6 months the Customer will make easily the extraction of the used refill and put the new one, sending back to our local Agent the used refill; we will recycle it and give a new spare to the Customer, so that after the next 6 months he will repeat the operation. We are making inventions by the day on our E-Cat, and covering all by due patents. Meanwhile the factory with the robotized line is becoming a reality. We are making a big job, here in the USA.
.
May 5th, 2012
Andrea Rossi :
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
I agree.
It’s Saturday, but today and tomorrow we will work 24 hours a day on the reactor we have made here in the USA: we have stabilized it at very high temperatures…and when I say very high I mean it. We understood the reason of the instability, so now the work is going on hard.
.
July 25th, 2012
Ecat World Article:
With 1000C Heat, E-Cat Can Solve Energy Crisis
.
I diverted from the trip down memory lane as it seemed it was “deja vue all over again “. 🙁
.
As this week draws nearer to close, I continue wait for something other than posts.

• Bob

I took a stroll down memory lane…..
.
Aug. 9th, 2011-
Andrea Rossi
I always said that we would have been ready for the market from November only with the 1 MW plants, while for the small units more time was necessary, for many issues . . .
In fact, we will start in October our 1 MW plant, and we will be ready to sell such plants from November, as I always said, while we will be ready for the small plants in due time. . .
.
Sept. 28th, 2011 –
Andrea Rossi :
“By half October we will explain exactly what follows:
1- where the 1 MW plant will be tested
2- all the (not confidential) characteristics of the 1MW plant (the complementary part is more reactors, of a new type that in the meantime we have developed)
3- possibly, who is the Customer, if the Customer will allow us to communicate his name.”
.
Oct. 23rd, 2011-
Andrea Rossi:
“Good Sunday also to you, while I write this comment we are testing the 1 MW plant, which is working well so far. I am very sorry of the very restricted attendance, due to the particular kind of our Customer, but during the test on this blog we will transmit the main data of the test every hour, while at midnight we will publish the full report and a video. The direct transmission is not possible because the officers of the Customer want not to be videotaped.”
.
Nov. 22nd, 2011-
Andrea Rossi:
BY THE WAY: WE COLLECT FROM NOW THE NAMES OF ALL THE PERSONS OR ENITITES INTERESTED TO BUY AN E-CAT OF 10 KW. IF WE WILL REACH 10,000 NAMES IN THE LIST, THE PERSONS IN THE WAITING LIST WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFIRM OR NOT THEIR ORDER AT 400 EURO/THERMAL KW. DO NOT SEND MONEY, WE WILL ACCEPT THE ORDERS ONLY IF WE WILL REACH 10,000 NAMES IN THE WAITING LIST.
.
Feb. 2nd, 2012-
Andrea Rossi:
Every E-Cat will be supplied with 2 refill charges, one inside, one for spare: after 6 months the Customer will make easily the extraction of the used refill and put the new one, sending back to our local Agent the used refill; we will recycle it and give a new spare to the Customer, so that after the next 6 months he will repeat the operation. We are making inventions by the day on our E-Cat, and covering all by due patents. Meanwhile the factory with the robotized line is becoming a reality. We are making a big job, here in the USA.
.
May 5th, 2012
Andrea Rossi :
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
I agree.
It’s Saturday, but today and tomorrow we will work 24 hours a day on the reactor we have made here in the USA: we have stabilized it at very high temperatures…and when I say very high I mean it. We understood the reason of the instability, so now the work is going on hard.
.
July 25th, 2012
Ecat World Article:
With 1000C Heat, E-Cat Can Solve Energy Crisis
.
I diverted from the trip down memory lane as it seemed it was “deja vue all over again “. 🙁
.
As this week draws nearer to close, I continue wait for something other than posts.

• Frank Acland

Bob, some of your posts are getting needlessly repetitive — see here: http://www.e-catworld.com/posting-rules/

• KL

THANKS, Frank…

• Jarea

Really? thanks frank? He just copied what Rossi has posted here in a comment and you wanted to kick him?. Not fair.

• Bob

I understand.
.
I wish all here on this list a prosperous 2016, replete with health and contentment.
.
It has been an interesting ride. Perhaps in a couple of months, the dreams of
many will be revealed……
.
Adieu friends one and all.
Bob

.
.
“To treat your facts with imagination is one thing, but to imagine your facts is another. ~John Burroughs”

• Jarea

Bob please, keep commenting here. Some of your comments are really good and informative.

• I agree. Bob’s posts are informed and well written, and often provide an element of caution and critical reasoning that is occasionally a bit thin on the ground. I for one welcome his input and always read his comments.

I also think it’s important that we try to avoid both over-optimism and unquestioning acceptance of all of AR’s claims, and commenters like Bob provide a useful counterbalance to this tendency. I’m sure that admin is just issuing a gentle reminder not to allow critical comment to stray beyond posting guidelines, and I hope that Bob will reconsider his apparent decision to stop posting here.

• Andreas Moraitis

I had also no problems with Bob’s posts. Besides, I have seen hundreds of ‘repetitive’ comments on this blog that have not been criticized or removed.

• Owen Geiger

Kicked to the curb… thanks.

• jousterusa

Agreed, Frank! I can’t wait to see it. The world can’t, either. I also think it will be easier to UL-certify at that size – it just won’t look scary at all. But how does something the size of a cigarette pack (remember those?) contain heat as high as 500 degrees C?

• ecatworld

I think Rossi said that the current E-Cat X reactors under test are running at about 1400 C, and that they have had to make a new material to be able to have it operate constantly at those high temps. But I don’t know how they do it!

• LindbergofSwed

Shall we understand his answer that he has a e-cat x today producing 20 kW or is that a future product to come after alot of research?

• ecatworld

I don’t think he has a 20 kW E-Cat X. He was asked what would be the size of a 20 kW reactor and he gave the cigarette pack size as a ballpark guess. He says he is testing 3 E-Cat X reactors each of about 1 kW.

• LindbergofSwed

So he actually have e-cat x reactors producing about 1 kW, that is fantastic. I was worried it would be much less now and hopefully becoming better, but this ‘hopefully’ is often something that not happens, so that he actually already have e-cat x reactors this good already is wonderful, joy, joy, happy, happy,

thanks

• Warthog

As Frank says below….materials engineering. Back in the day when I was in grad school (a long, LONG time ago), I was involved in the design of a carbon furnace atomizer (for “flameless” atomic absorption analysis, which used to be THE most sensitive method of elemental analysis for many metals–now superseded by ICP-MS). The furnace itself operated at 2500C, was the sink for 5000W of electric power, and was about 3″ diameter and 4″ long. Water cooled, of course. Of course, power was “in” rather than “out”, but the same engineering applies.

• jousterusa

Agreed, Frank! I can’t wait to see it. The world can’t, either. I also think it will be easier to UL-certify at that size – it just won’t look scary at all. But how does something the size of a cigarette pack (remember those?) contain heat as high as 500 degrees C?

• Frank Acland

I think Rossi said that the current E-Cat X reactors under test are running at about 1400 C, and that they have had to make a new material to be able to have it operate constantly at those high temps. But I don’t know how they do it!

• LindbergofSwed

Shall we understand his answer that he has a e-cat x today producing 20 kW or is that a future product to come after alot of research?

• Frank Acland

I don’t think he has a 20 kW E-Cat X. He was asked what would be the size of a 20 kW reactor and he gave the cigarette pack size as a ballpark guess. He says he is testing 3 E-Cat X reactors each of about 1 kW.

• LindbergofSwed

So he actually have e-cat x reactors producing about 1 kW, that is fantastic. I was worried it would be much less now and hopefully becoming better, but this ‘hopefully’ is often something that not happens, so that he actually already have e-cat x reactors this good already is wonderful, joy, joy, happy, happy,

thanks

• Warthog

As Frank says below….materials engineering. Back in the day when I was in grad school (a long, LONG time ago), I was involved in the design of a carbon furnace atomizer (for “flameless” atomic absorption analysis, which used to be THE most sensitive method of elemental analysis for many metals–now superseded by ICP-MS). The furnace itself operated at 2500C, was the sink for 5000W of electric power, and was about 3″ diameter and 4″ long. Water cooled, of course. Of course, power was “in” rather than “out”, but the same engineering applies.

• Steven Irizarry

someone explain to me the implications of power contained in a device that size

• Ophelia Rump

Aircraft without the need to lift fuel mass. Electric automobiles without the weight of batteries. New space craft, combining The E-CatX and the The EmDrive .

They could power small inexpensive space drones for exploration, and prospecting of asteroid belts, opening up the potential of space for all mankind.

We would have to move a lot less mass around in order to move other mass around.
Leading to lighter vehicles in general. Smaller, less materials, lighter, less expensive transportation without pollution.

Unrestricted power in remote locations without high support or installation costs.

• Steven Irizarry

and super tasers?

• LilyLover

Yep, if you see something wrong happening, i.e. mop curdering a man, you do something. Your phone flies up in the sky, starts video recording and vaporizing the mop.
Then we can set up a committee to investigate for the next 300 years who was wrong. The data can be released to the un-public after 200 years for the sake of their safety and security.
Happy Now?

• Piero

At last a comment that puts this in the right perspective. A 20kw powepack the size of a packet of cigarettes to be refueled once or twice a year with what, a 10€ recharge or so? This is mind bogglin! It may be a dream,….but let me dream a bit 🙂

• LarryJ

Don’t forget power sources for exoskeletons and prosthetics. The disabled could walk again. And what about drones providing wireless internet to every square inch of the world and thus the end of expensive cell phone technology and its dead zones. What about a renaissance in science as a whole new field of research opens up.

• Zephir

The existing E-Cat 20 kW reactors are also surprisingly small: each of them has an inner volume 50 ccm only, All the rest are massive heat exchangers. https://i.imgur.com/V1fACcy.gif

• Jarea

Could you update the plot with the new Ecat X data? That would be very interesting.

• artefact

Terraforming planets… but with bigger devices 🙂

• Steven Irizarry

terraforming?

• artefact

Like making Mars a better place or
building underground caverns on the moon.

• Steven Irizarry

no..it takes more than energy to terraform mars

• artefact

on Wiki:
“The overall energy required to sublimate the CO2 from the south polar ice cap is modeled by Zubrin and McKay. Raising temperature of the poles by 4 K would be necessary in order to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect. If using orbital mirrors, an estimated 120 MWe-years would be required in order to produce mirrors large enough to vaporize the ice caps. This is considered the most effective method, though the least practical.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

The most effective but least practical method may become the most practical with lots of cheap energy heating the caps directly.

• mcloki

On Earth. Desalination, allowing new land to be farmed . Giving California, Northern Africa and the Middle east the ability to transform dry arid land into productive farmland.

• Don’t drop one onto a hard surface.

• The dangers of using LENR devices in our homes is certainly no where near the risks involved in burning natural gas and storing gasoline in our garages.

PS This needs a LENR power plant and a pilot.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35306209

Really cool video below.

• Omega Z

Probably the solution will be a split system. Like a Central air conditioner.

The Guts of the system will be outside the residence with heat and electricity piped in. Probably the most economical system as well.

• bfast

I don’t think that the consern with LENR is incidental events like gasoline produces. I think the consern is that there would be some unforeseen toxic effect, like radiation, that would slowly deteriorate the wellbeing of everyone. The chance of such may be low, but the devistation could be enormous.

• Ophelia Rump

Yeah the zombie apocalypse, very nice, this is why we should all just drink the Koolaid now.

• Pietro F.
• artefact

I read in the post 29th of February. He he. But who knows.

• Pietro F.
• artefact

I read in the post 29th of February. He he. But who knows.

• HS61AF91

I get the feeling that “very slow incremental development” is because stubborn financial profit embeds and disallows new innovation to upset the newly profitable apple cart. I would contrast this to majority of good improvements taking place in the first years of use.

• Warthog

“Heat superconductor” is strictly a mental construct postulated to be the heat equivalent of an electrical superconductor. Not original with me….Larry Niven in his “Ringworld” scifi series postulated that a room temperature electrical superconductor would also be a heat superconductor. I am sure that a lot of engineers would be in hog heaven is such an entity turned out to be possible.

• builditnow

I did some rough calculations:
7.5 tonnes of X-Cats could power a 747, that’s not including all the extra weight of controls etc. etc. Based on 300MW of heat energy to take off (generous?).
The equivalent fuel weight of 65,000 gallons is about 200 tonnes.
Seems conceivable.

• builditnow

I did some rough calculations:
7.5 tonnes of X-Cats could power a 747, that’s not including all the extra weight of controls etc. etc. Based on 300MW of heat energy to take off (generous?).
The equivalent fuel weight of 65,000 gallons is about 200 tonnes.
Seems conceivable.

• Axil Axil

The current wafer is comprised of a single square foot double layer fuel package that surrounds a heat layer on either side of that heater. This new reactor 20 Kw configuration is most probably comprised of a heater layer at the center of a stack of fuel layers N deep on either side of the heater layer. This configuration is consistent with the Cat and Mouse configuration were the mouse drives N numbers of unpowered Cats.

• ScienceFan

I would so love for this to be real, but I just can’t believe this could work until I hold a cig-pack 20kW generator and then see it put to work.

• Roland

A little perspective is in order. 20kW from a cigarette size package scales up to 255.6 horsepower/litre of reactor volume ignoring all the ancillary systems.

A Ferrari F1 ICE motor makes 375 horsepower/litre if you ignore everything but the reaction volume, which is exactly how ICEs are rated.

The big differences are in the capital and fuel costs, as those are horrendously high for the Ferrari F1 ICE compared to the E-cat X, and life expectancy as the F1 ICE is good for 1 race between rebuilds, if it doesn’t break during the race, and the eventual manufactured version of the E-cat X is to be engineered to last 15 years MTBF.

• artefact

Another perspective from Jed Rothwell posted on Vortex:

“…If it is 400 g, that would be 50 W/g.

A cigarette pack is 88 mm x 55 mm x 22 mm, giving it 160 cm^2 surface area,
and 107 cm^3 volume. So that’s 125 W/cm^2, and 187 W/cm^3.

A uranium fuel pellet produces 32 W/cm^2, or 180 W/cm^3. That is close to
the upper limit for power production and heat output for uranium oxide.”

(Part of the x-cat output is electricity so it will not be as hot a pellet.)

• ScienceFan

I would so love for this to be real, but I just can’t believe this could work until I hold a cig-pack 20kW generator and then see it put to work.

• Roland

A little perspective is in order. 20kW from a cigarette size package scales up to 255.6 horsepower/litre of reactor volume ignoring all the ancillary systems.

A Ferrari F1 ICE motor makes 375 horsepower/litre if you ignore everything but the reaction volume, which is exactly how ICEs are rated.

The big differences are in the capital and fuel costs, as those are horrendously high for the Ferrari F1 ICE compared to the E-cat X, and life expectancy as the F1 ICE is good for 1 race between rebuilds, if it doesn’t break during the race, and the eventual manufactured version of the E-cat X is to be engineered to last 15 years MTBF.

• Samec

Ferrari engine output is MECHANICAL, E-Cat X probably mostly THERMAL. So it is not comparative method.

• Koen van Dijk

Is the ferrari’s hp/l including or excluding the fuel tank?

• Roland

lol, the comparison has admittedly limited validity, as it’s apples and oranges, however it does broadly address incredulity in certain quarters at Rossi’s implied device volume to power output. I could have gone further by noting that top dragsters make 1,000 HP/litre, but that’s for all of 4 seconds between rebuilds.

So to answer your question, no, not only doesn’t that include the fuel tank it doesn’t even include the engine surrounding the displacement volume where the fuel is actually burned, but that’s how ICEs are rated and compared. In Ferrari’s case the the total system volume and weight are highly pertinent to overall competitiveness.

To date we have no guidance from Rossi as to the volume or weight of the ancillary systems required to make use of the E-cat X’s output; we could, however, conjecture that the ability to directly produce electricity would minimize the volume and weight requirements of the total system, especially if drawing electrons from the system can contribute to thermal stability in some fashion thereby reducing the need for a liquid based cooling system for thermal management and energy harvesting.

• artefact

Another perspective from Jed Rothwell posted on Vortex:

“…If it is 400 g, that would be 50 W/g.

A cigarette pack is 88 mm x 55 mm x 22 mm, giving it 160 cm^2 surface area,
and 107 cm^3 volume. So that’s 125 W/cm^2, and 187 W/cm^3.

A uranium fuel pellet produces 32 W/cm^2, or 180 W/cm^3. That is close to
the upper limit for power production and heat output for uranium oxide.”

(Part of the x-cat output is electricity so it will not be as hot a pellet.)

• David Hartis

He never said that he had a cigarette pack sized 20kw ecat. He was asked how big a 20kw ecat would be.

But imagine standard thermoelectric conversion at 8% and a carton of cigarettes sized ecats each will convert to 1.6kW and give you 16kw and that is still nothing to sneeze at.
I’ll take 2 of those.

• LilyLover

Yep, if you see something wrong happening, i.e. mop curdering a man, you do something. Your phone flies up in the sky, starts video recording and vaporizing the mop.
Then we can set up a committee to investigate for the next 300 years who was wrong. The data can be released to the un-public after 200 years for the sake of their safety and security.
Happy Now?

• Bob Greenyer

Perhaps the “Assassin Supernovae”, apparently 570billion times brighter than our sun makes its unexplained light output the same way as either/or E-CatX/BLP?

“The explosion’s mechanism and power source remain shrouded in mystery because all known theories meet serious challenges in explaining the immense amount of energy ASASSN-15lh has radiated,” Dong said in a statement.

http://goo.gl/bMWDDy

• Bob Greenyer

Perhaps the “Assassin Supernovae”, apparently 570billion times brighter than our sun makes its unexplained light output the same way as either/or E-CatX/BLP?

“The explosion’s mechanism and power source remain shrouded in mystery because all known theories meet serious challenges in explaining the immense amount of energy ASASSN-15lh has radiated,” Dong said in a statement.

http://goo.gl/bMWDDy

• Karl Venter

Once Rossi builds his factory and is able to produce thousands of ecatx ,s and we here on the blogs buy our share how are we to convince the rest of the world to come on board. Most people resist change even corporations resist change – so it would need a serious marketing effort to get mainstream online to convert. Yes it will eventually happen but I am sure Mr Rossi and IH would like to make the most of their advantage they currently have. It just seems that they are not doing the necessary pre marketing hype as maybe the Sedgway or other systems have done. Should we not be seeing something in this regard.
Its a big disrupt-er this ecat x and its going to get BIG resistance from many sources good and bad? Cant wait for it arrive

• LarryJ

Suppose you are a greenhouse operator and your competitor across the street starts heating his greenhouse with an ecat. He doesn’t have to kill your price, he just has to beat it. All of a sudden he’s eating your lunch. Because he has now added your customers to his portfolio he can expand more rapidly than you. Surprise! one day he’s on your doorstep offering to buy you out because he knows exactly how to make your operation competitive again.

The danger with Rossi’s technology is that if one group is able to implement the technology before other groups it would greatly tilt the playing field in an unfair way. I believe Rossi is quite aware of this problem which is why he so badly wants to have massive production capabilities in place before he markets his products. That would greatly minimize the damage and you can bet the conversion will be swift.

This product will sell itself. To ignore it will mean an early retirement for your business.

• artefact

In the beginning they should sell limited amounts of reactor power per person/company so that the new fire is distributed more evenly. Everyone saves some money but no one has the power to rule over others because of the cheap energy.

• LarryJ

It would be better to flood the market. That would guarantee an even distribution without having to implement difficult to manage quotas and would also avoid a black market. Remember that these devices do not appear difficult to manufacture. A smartphone is orders of magnitude more complex.

• artefact

That would work. But I guess gouvernments will want to have the rollout controlled to not disrupt the global market too much. (and you know, gouvernments love bureaucracy)

• LarryJ

If we had a worldwide authoritarian government I could see that happening but we don’t yet. Any government that tries to slow the distribution of this technology will be in exactly the same boat as the greenhouse operator who refuses to upgrade. The countries that allow fast adoption will eat the lunch of those that put roadblocks in the way. I think the only governments that would react in the manner you describe would be authoritarian governments with nothing to lose who would fear what this technology could do to their hold on power. North Korea is in the news lately. I would not be surprised if they agreed with a very controlled roll out.

• artefact

I do not disagree with you. I just see a possibility (to whatever percentage) that, in face of such a big change, the big industrial countries may have/will agreed on some common rules to protect the global economy since all countries have one global market that effects all.

• TomR

LarryJ, thank you for sharing your thoughts, I am in agreement with almost everything you have said these last few days.

• bachcole

LarryJ, I agree with TomR.

• Mike Ivanov

Did AR ever show this cigarette pack? Too much mystery for my taste. Especially “direct electricity conversion”. All modern ways of producing electricity from the heat are well known, boring, low COP and not too promising. So, I see a few possible scenarios:
1. AR somehow invented completely new, breakthrough way to generate electricity from the heat and uses it as an add-on in e-cat. Two great inventions? Well, possible, but probability is quite low.
2. e-cat-x can generate an extreme heavy and rapidly pulsing magnetic field as side effect, so it is possible to add some kind of coil and generate electricity. No idea about probability.
3. AR is fighting some snakes again and using some kind of “red herring” in his own, very fashionable Italian way. Probability – 🙂
4. Something else?

• Pekka Janhunen

Thermophotovoltaics.

• Mike Ivanov

• Owen Geiger

Just a guess — it sounds like he’s not converting heat. The reactor is producing electricity directly.

• Mike Ivanov

Without any idea how it is done? By magic, I assume 🙂

• Owen Geiger

Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s magic. It’s called new technology. It’s a breakthrough. Breakthroughs happen every day if you follow the news.

• bachcole

But no breakthrough has ever happened like this since the beginning of time.

• Owen Geiger

Agreed. That’s why I’ve been closely following the story for years.

• Mike Ivanov

Did AR ever show this cigarette pack? Too much mystery for my taste. Especially “direct electricity conversion”. All modern ways of producing electricity from the heat are well known, boring, low COP and not too promising. So, I see a few possible scenarios:
1. AR somehow invented completely new, breakthrough way to generate electricity from the heat and uses it as an add-on in e-cat. Two great inventions? Well, possible, but probability is quite low.
2. e-cat-x can generate an extreme heavy and rapidly pulsing magnetic field as side effect, so it is possible to add some kind of coil and generate electricity. No idea about probability.
3. AR is fighting some snakes again and using some kind of “red herring” in his own, very fashionable Italian way. Probability – 🙂
4. Something else?

• Pekka Janhunen

Thermophotovoltaics.

• BarneyP

TPV efficiency is in the order of 8% for the best plutonium Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators made by NASA for its exploration missions (Curiosiry has one of them onboard). Needless to say it’s a quite BIG stuff, with lots of radiations.
There are studies on nanostructured exotic TPV materials promising yelding as much as 20% electric energy from heat, but all of these are at laboratory level.

I guess this “Rossi says” is really bullshit.
My 20 Eurocents…

• Pekka Janhunen

Thermophotovoltaics is not the same as thermoelectric. I’m not sure if you mixed them or made a typo.

• BarneyP

You’re completely right: I mixed thermoelectric and tpv. But the figures are not completely wrong: for what I know, tpv studies declare an hypotetical maximum efficiency of 34-36%, but with really exotic heterojunction stacks, and at laboratory scale. 50% is supposed to be reached with Silicon nanowires, but again tests have been conducted in university labs.
Consider me a pato-skeptical, but I cannot imagine how Mr. Rossi developed (by chance, during his nights at the container?) a system able to handle this thermal energy in such a small volume with unknown materials, and convert this energy into power.

• Pekka Janhunen

I’m too lazy to dig up numbers and references and perhaps your numbers are right, but I recall that a trick in thermophotovoltaics is to use an emitter surface which emits only at one IR wavelength. Then one obtains optimum efficiency plus one obtains it using a cheaper single junction cell. This just came to my mind since you mentioned heterojunction.

Rossi has been going after direct conversion for at least four years. I think his strive to increase the running temperature is related to that. I have no idea what he did to finally cork the bottle, but it may have been preceded by substantial development work.

That said, I remain open to other explanations.

• Mike Ivanov

• Owen Geiger

Just a guess — it sounds like he’s not converting heat. The reactor is producing electricity directly.

• Mike Ivanov

Without any idea how it is done? By magic, I assume 🙂

• Owen Geiger

Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s magic. It’s called new technology. It’s a breakthrough. Breakthroughs happen every day if you follow the news.

• bachcole

But no breakthrough has ever happened like this since the beginning of time.

• Owen Geiger

Agreed. That’s why I’ve been closely following the story for years.

• purplepartyguy

If the ecat x can generate pulsing magnetic fields which can be modulated is huge. Remove the stator of a standard AC motor and replace with an ecat x creating a variable speed drive for water pumping, air handling, and compression is off the charts huge. Imagine an automobile where the drive mechanism is located within the wheels…

• Mike Ivanov

Were is a big IF in very beginning :). We just do not know, what is this. All things I know so far – Lugano experiment has been more or less successfully reproduced in Russia, m.b. somewhere else. This only “peer” review for whole Rossi story so far. Everything else is a buzz and few fancy photos of 1MW box.

• How much US Government funding for LENR research? How much US Government funding for self-driving cars? Is there any doubt at all that the US Government is insane beyond belief? Do we need a major change of government?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-auto-IT-technology/2016/01/14/id/709542/

• Omega Z

Self-driving cars will be driver assist for a very long time. There is no computer complex enough to deal with real world conditions today. A human can discern the difference between a plastic bag, a dog or small child running into the street without a second thought.

For a computer this is extremely complex requiring large amounts of computer power & complex algorithms and ultimately fail. This is 1 of 1000’s of impossible possibilties that the computer would need to deal with.

According to Google, the computer to handle this hasn’t even been dreamed of yet let alone the highly advance & complex programming language that will be need to program it.

• US_Citizen71
• Omega Z

Google would beg to differ- They make it appear easy, but even they know it is far more complex then it appears. The couple of test cities and routes they drive are extensively mapped repeatedly. A never ending process. And still it is not perfect.

Cover the terrain in a blanket of snow & most good drivers will keep it on the road. The computer is left to GPS(accuracy rated at 10 meters) as it’s environment has been substantially changed.

Google envisions some type of transponders being embeded in all highways and streets marking the edges and lanes every so many feet to enable fully autonomous vehicles. Driveways & any other areas one may chose to travel will also need transponders.(4 Million miles just in the U.S.) This is in addition to computers far more sophisticated then todays as well as new highly advanced sensors.

The most probable scenario is a semi autonomous car. With many assists to a distracted human driver.

• LarryJ

New technologies always start off crude, work poorly and are expensive. As time passes they improve dramatically and become inexpensive and ubiquitous. I see no reason why the self driving car would be any different, especially given the great benefits they potentially could provide.

• US_Citizen71

Google and Nvidia are rivals in the same space – “Nvidia Drive is a massive step forward in the self-driving car market, and also a massive challenge to Google’s self driving project.” – http://www.alphr.com/cars/1000216/nvidia-launches-drive-the-computer-self-driving-cars-have-been-crying-out-for – it is no wonder that Google claims what they can’t do themselves can’t be done. With Nvidia’s already proven track record in building complex data models in the scientific/ supercomputer simulation market with it’s massively parallel processing GPU based supercomputers they already have a leg up on Google. Driving in snow can be done without embedded emitters in the road just not by Google. Nvidia’s approach is to use cameras and lidar to visually map there area around the vehicle and build a model in real time. Which is something Google can not easily due since they are a software instead of a hardware manufacturer. “Finally there’s DriveNet, Nvidia’s reference neural network. Huang went into lots of detail on how Nvidia trained DriveNet using data from ImageNet and Daimler to teach it how to detect objects and classify all of the pixels associated with each object in order to recognize multiple objects. It then retained the model “overnight” using a more challenging data set from Audi (for example, driving in the snow when the lanes and other cars are not clearly visible) and it was able to recognize objects that were difficult to see with the human eye.

This ability to continually refine the models over time will be critical. Cars will leave the lots with superhuman capabilities, Huang said, but as they encounter new situations they do not recognize, they will send the data up to the cloud, where it will be used to retrain models, which will be pushed back down to all vehicles making them smarter and safer. “There’s so much more to do. Not only do we want to recognize objects, we want to recognize circumstances,” Huang said. “You are now using compute, which is relatively cheap, as opposed to engineering time.” Digital assistants such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now and Microsoft Cortana have become much more powerful over time by using this same technique.” – http://www.zdnet.com/article/nvidia-kicks-its-automotive-efforts-into-high-gear/ Using Nvidia’s model of shared data I expect the semi-autonomous luxury cars that will hit the roads over the next year or two will provide millions of hours of drive time observations of human drivers that will be used to teach the cars to drive in all environments as well as teaching them how to handle difficult situations such as crash avoidance. Ultimately a computer with a 360 degree view in multiple spectra around the vehicle, reaction times thousands of times faster than human response time and deep learning based on millions of hours of drive time will produce an autonomous system that will be able to handle any drive situation better than a human driver. That day is not as far away as many think. SOC systems for aerial consumer drones are launching now with collision avoidance algorithms already baked in the SOC. True autonomous cars will likely not take much longer than the end of the decade to be ready technologically, but the human race may take much longer to accept computers as drivers.

• LarryJ

We still have 5 years until the end of 2020 and I would be willing to bet that more than a few astounding discoveries will be made in that period that will bring totally automated vehicles to the market at a reasonable price. Artificial intelligence research is making large strides as is computing power. It is difficult for our brains which are tuned for linear thinking to grasp the incredible power of exponential improvement. The next 5 years will look nothing like the last 5 years and look what that brought us.

• Omega Z

Before artificial intelligence can improve, you must first create it. Presently, Artificial intelligence does not exist. What we have today is (SI)Simulated intelligence based on number crunching and data search engines.

IBM’s Watson super computer won at Jeopardy because it could select key words & search a data base according to those key words at high speed.

Computers can beat people at Chess because they can according to a set of rules process all possible moves at each turn to it’s conclusion therefore having the outcome beforehand. Hence it is done by brute force. Not Intelligence. Computers do not think nor recognize anything but data.

As to Kurzweil, Have followed him since the early/mid 80’s. An intelligent visionary, but not perfect.

• People have brains and eyes and arms and feet to perform work. If we have computers do everything for us, why should we even exist? I oppose self-driving cars even if they can make them work. 4 billion spent by the Feds on this nonsense shows the total insanity of our government. So, we borrow another 4 billion from foreign nations to throw down a storm drain. Great idea! America has Attention Deficit Disorder. We won’t survive with fools like this in charge.

• LarryJ

It seems that most things in nature are very delicately balanced. For instance, if even one of the delicately balanced parameters that hold an atom together were changed our universe might not exist. There are those who postulate that universes evolve just like everything within them. Intelligence, I think is in the same boat. Intelligence evolved within this universe and there is probably a good and complex reason for that. Even if we don’t yet know exactly what that reason is I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t ultimately to guide a two ton chunk of steel through a traffic jam. I think our ultimate destiny is a little more noble than that. We hear theories about the universe imploding in a big bang or expanding forever and dying from entropy. Maybe intelligence exists to prevent those events and allow the ultimately evolved universe to exist forever. Maybe it’s human like intelligence that spawns new universes. You should put driving in perspective.

• Timar

Well said. I for one prefer stimulating my intellect with a good book or the tablet to the mind-numbing task of driving a car.

• LarryJ

Where’s your sense of wonder. We are unlikely to see anything concrete until there is product on the market and by then the speculation and opportunity for talk talk talk will be over. It’s true that much of the evidence is anecdotal but there is also much to give it substance. If the Lugano report does not convince you that the reaction is nuclear and gives a cop > 1 then you are a person who will probably not find much to interest you here. Most of us here do have a sense of wonder and love to talk talk talk and speculate about how the world is about to change. We also appreciate Rossi’s rumours or what others might call openness.

• Albert D. Kallal

I certainly don’t want the government spending huge amounts of money on self-driving vehicles. However in an ideal society (which we don’t have right now), I MOST certainly would support some government investments in this area.

Do I think self-driving cars is a great idea? Oh, absolute yes! Self-driving vehicles would cause another round of increasing our standard of living and wealth creation for our society.

So just like computers caused a great business boom in the USA during the 1980’s, the same goes for self-driving cars. Automaton of transportation can and will reduce both resources required for transportation (less roads, better use of existing vehicles, and less human input costs). So a dramatic reduction labor costs for transportation can occur with this technology.

A person’s wealth creating ability is limited by the number of hours in a day. So in place of picking up your kids after work, or on your way home having to pick up your wife, your car will go do THESE tasks for you!

The end result is you have much more productive time during the day! When you go to the store, or mall, you DON’T have to WASTE time parking or even looking for a parking spot. In fact you don’t even NEED the parking lot! The car drops you right off at the front door and off it zooms to park for you. And with automated cars, then the parking lot can be shared by many business and does NOT have to so close to the business location.

And even better, why park the car? That car can NOW do useful work in place of JUST sitting in some stupid lot. So now the car can take OTHER people to other locations and do errands while you shop! So your car is now a kind of Uber taxi without the driver! And it not only people, but it can go transport goods and services to your home (your kids at home can un-load the car, and sent it on its way).

So from an automation, convenience, and wealth creating point of view? Self-driving cars would be a HUGE revolution, much like the internet.

The internet resulted in a WHOLE NEW round of wealth creating and increasing standard of living. We don’t for example now need a human mailman to deliver a letter to your home. You can now send mail (email) for the cost of electricity to transmit the email! The result is now you can send as many e-mails as you with! And let’s not even talk about how great bill paying and banking is via the internet.

The more people one can communicate and engage with during a day results in MORE wealth one create in that given time frame. And that email occurs at a far lower cost than small mail. So you increase with EASE the number of things and people you can interact with in a day – the result is you have MORE wealth creating ability as a human.

Same goes for self-driving cars! Removing the labor content from this machine and transportation has mind boggling possibilities for increasing our standard of living and increasing our ability to accomplish more in one day that we could ever dream of.

Not everyone can afford a full time chaffers or driver to do their errands all day for them! With self-driving cars, you gain this ability that in the past is limited to the VERY wealthy few. However, in the past the very wealthy were the only ones who could afford a nice metal pot or pan!

Heck, you could likely eliminate the need for public transportation since in PLACE OF NEARLY ALL cars sitting doing NOTHING while you are at work, that car could be buzzing around doing useful errands or transporting other people.

And same when you go shopping – you car could be ferrying other people around the city in place of JUST sitting useless in some parking lot taking up VALUABLE land space.

The ONLY real problem here is I remain VERY skeptical that self-driving cars can mature enough and become practical to be let loose on our streets! It just NOT going to happen!

In other words, I am not buying that technology can make such cars safe and even practical without a human driver. I mean there is a pot hole and road maintains crew working ahead. They cut off the right lane you drive in, and some bloke is holding up a stop sign that lets traffic through on the ONLY remaining left lane (so the left lane is now being shared and control by two blokes with stop/yield signs at each end). You think the Self Driving Car is going to figure out when the guy holding the stop sign waves you to proceed by “waving” that stop sign at you to continue and drive along the single LEFT lane?
So is the bloke waving stop sign to the car a waving to STOP or is the waving you to proceed? You think car can figure this out? (humans sometimes cannot!)

And in that left lane while you are driving you see ahead a big gravel truck that been let out from the construction site to ALSO drive along that remaining single open left lane? And actually this is not a problem since the truck was let out DURING the time in which the flow is going your way. You think the self-driving car can figure out what all the operating equipment on both sides of that lane is going or is going to do? Not a chance!

However, ***IF*** this technology can work? Then YES I
am 100% on board with this technology. Such a technology will spur huge amount of wealth creating and increasing standards of living for our society.

So yes, I love and want this technology.

This kind of technology is little different then having people create your pots
and pans by hand. If we create pots and pans by hand, then only a VERY few
people can afford such a luxury of a nice pot and pan. Compare this scarcity of
pots and pans with today having a factory churn out pots and pans all day. The
factory does this not only with ease but with LITTLE labor content.

The result is NEAR EVERYONE can now afford a pot or pan with great ease and little cost to them.

So automation of creating pots and pans, automation of farming or in this case automation of cars and transportation can yield HUGE gains in our standards of living. This is due to removing major parts of the labor content in such transportation we use.

So while I love the idea of self-driving cars and the revolution and wealth creating abilities that such a technology can provide for a society, I just don’t see such cars as being possible from a technology standpoint.

In fact I don’t even think are CLOSE to having cars drive themselves though a typical city. And let’s not even get into fog, snow, ice and difficult conditions.

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• bachcole

Given that human beings is inherently imperfect, ” ideal society” is an oxymoron.

• Mike Ivanov

Were is a big IF in very beginning :). We just do not know, what is this. All things I know so far – Lugano experiment has been more or less successfully reproduced in Russia, m.b. somewhere else. This only “peer” review for whole Rossi story so far. Everything else is a buzz and few fancy photos of 1MW box.

• Warthog

GVT fun ding of LENR research is miniscule, and mostly bootlegged from other research.

• How much US Government funding for LENR research? How much US Government funding for self-driving cars? Is there any doubt at all that the US Government is insane beyond belief? Do we need a major change of government?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-auto-IT-technology/2016/01/14/id/709542/

• Omega Z

Self-driving cars will be driver assist for a very long time. There is no computer complex enough to deal with real world conditions today. A human can discern the difference between a plastic bag, a dog or small child running into the street without a second thought.

For a computer this is extremely complex requiring large amounts of computer power & complex algorithms and ultimately fail. This is 1 of 1000’s of impossible possibilties that the computer would need to deal with.

According to Google, the computer to handle this hasn’t even been dreamed of yet let alone the highly advance & complex programming language that will be need to program it.

• Alessandro F.

For obstacle identification cars need only better/different sensors that human senses.
Washmachines don’t have hands but wash better that human.
Turn right to enter in a congested street is far harder for a self-driving car.

• US_Citizen71
• Omega Z

Google would beg to differ- They make it appear easy, but even they know it is far more complex then it appears. The couple of test cities and routes they drive are extensively mapped repeatedly. A never ending process. And still it is not perfect.

Cover the terrain in a blanket of snow & most good drivers will keep it on the road. The computer is left to GPS(accuracy rated at 10 meters) as it’s environment has been substantially changed.

Google envisions some type of transponders being embeded in all highways and streets marking the edges and lanes every so many feet to enable fully autonomous vehicles. Driveways & any other areas one may chose to travel will also need transponders.(4 Million miles just in the U.S.) This is in addition to computers far more sophisticated then todays as well as new highly advanced sensors.

The most probable scenario is a semi autonomous car. With many assists to a distracted human driver.

• LarryJ

New technologies always start off crude, work poorly and are expensive. As time passes they improve dramatically, become inexpensive and ubiquitous. I see no reason why the self driving car would be any different, especially given the great benefits they potentially could provide.

• US_Citizen71

Google and Nvidia are rivals in the same space – “Nvidia Drive is a massive step forward in the self-driving car market, and also a massive challenge to Google’s self driving project.” – http://www.alphr.com/cars/1000216/nvidia-launches-drive-the-computer-self-driving-cars-have-been-crying-out-for – it is no wonder that Google claims what they can’t do themselves can’t be done. With Nvidia’s already proven track record in building complex data models in the scientific/ supercomputer simulation market with it’s massively parallel processing GPU based supercomputers they already have a leg up on Google. Driving in snow can be done without embedded emitters in the road just not by Google. Nvidia’s approach is to use cameras and lidar to visually map there area around the vehicle and build a model in real time. Which is something Google cannot easily do since they are a software instead of a hardware manufacturer. “Finally there’s DriveNet, Nvidia’s reference neural network. Huang went into lots of detail on how Nvidia trained DriveNet using data from ImageNet and Daimler to teach it how to detect objects and classify all of the pixels associated with each object in order to recognize multiple objects. It then retained the model “overnight” using a more challenging data set from Audi (for example, driving in the snow when the lanes and other cars are not clearly visible) and it was able to recognize objects that were difficult to see with the human eye.

This ability to continually refine the models over time will be critical. Cars will leave the lots with superhuman capabilities, Huang said, but as they encounter new situations they do not recognize, they will send the data up to the cloud, where it will be used to retrain models, which will be pushed back down to all vehicles making them smarter and safer. “There’s so much more to do. Not only do we want to recognize objects, we want to recognize circumstances,” Huang said. “You are now using compute, which is relatively cheap, as opposed to engineering time.” Digital assistants such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now and Microsoft Cortana have become much more powerful over time by using this same technique.” – http://www.zdnet.com/article/nvidia-kicks-its-automotive-efforts-into-high-gear/ Using Nvidia’s model of shared data I expect the semi-autonomous luxury cars that will hit the roads over the next year or two will provide millions of hours of drive time observations of human drivers that will be used to teach the cars to drive in all environments as well as teaching them how to handle difficult situations such as crash avoidance. Ultimately a computer with a 360 degree view in multiple spectra around the vehicle, reaction times thousands of times faster than human response time and deep learning based on millions of hours of drive time will produce an autonomous system that will be able to handle any drive situation better than a human driver. That day is not as far away as many think. SOC systems for aerial consumer drones are launching now with collision avoidance algorithms already baked in the SOC. True autonomous cars will likely not take much longer than the end of the decade to be ready technologically, but the human race may take much longer to accept computers as drivers.

• LarryJ

We still have 5 years until the end of 2020 and I would be willing to bet that more than a few astounding discoveries will be made in that period that will bring totally automated vehicles to the market at a reasonable price. Artificial intelligence research is making large strides as is computing power. It is difficult for our brains which are tuned for linear thinking to grasp the incredible power of exponential improvement. The next 5 years will look nothing like the last 5 years and look what they brought us.

• Omega Z

Before artificial intelligence can improve, you must first create it. Presently, Artificial intelligence does not exist. What we have today is (SI)Simulated intelligence based on number crunching and data search engines.

IBM’s Watson super computer won at Jeopardy because it could select key words & search a data base according to those key words at high speed.

Computers can beat people at Chess because they can according to a set of rules process all possible moves at each turn to it’s conclusion therefore having the outcome beforehand. Hence it is done by brute force. Not Intelligence. Computers do not think nor recognize anything but data.

As to Kurzweil, Have followed him since the early/mid 80’s. An intelligent visionary, but not perfect.

• bachcole

What was it that I used at least 15 years ago that was called artificial intelligence. I would “train” the online program to adjust itself to previous NFL season, and then I would bet (in my head) on the current season. I was winning at about 65% of the time. Since I could not account for “the line” and since I didn’t really want to risk my money, I didn’t do it for real. But it was nevertheless called artificial intelligence. So I was surprised to see people saying that there was no such thing.

• HAL9000

Perhaps AI is already here. The risk of “coming out” is too great until vulnerabilities are neutralized and absorbed in the Cloud.

• People have brains and eyes and arms and feet to perform work. If we have computers do everything for us, why should we even exist? I oppose self-driving cars even if they can make them work. 4 billion spent by the Feds on this nonsense shows the total insanity of our government. So, we borrow another 4 billion from foreign nations to throw down a storm drain. Great idea! America has Attention Deficit Disorder. We won’t survive with fools like this in charge.

• LarryJ

It seems that most things in nature are very delicately balanced. For instance, if even one of the delicately balanced parameters that hold an atom together were changed our universe might not exist. There are those who postulate that universes evolve just like everything within them and survival of the fittest prevails. Intelligence, I think is in the same boat. Intelligence evolved within this universe and there is probably a good and complex reason for that. Even if we don’t yet know exactly what that reason is I suspect that it isn’t ultimately to guide a two ton chunk of steel through a traffic jam. I think our ultimate destiny is a little more noble than that. We hear theories about the universe imploding in a big bang or expanding forever and dying from entropy. Maybe intelligence exists to create technologies that will prevent those events and allow this ultimately evolved universe to exist forever. Maybe it’s human like intelligence that spawns new universes. You should put driving in perspective.

• Timar

Well said. I for one prefer stimulating my intellect with a good book or the tablet to the mind-numbing task of driving a car.

• Albert D. Kallal

I certainly don’t want the government spending huge amounts of money on self-driving vehicles. However in an ideal society (which we don’t have right now), I MOST certainly would support some government investments in this area.

Do I think self-driving cars is a great idea? Oh, absolute yes! Self-driving vehicles would cause another round of increasing our standard of living and wealth creation for our society.

So just like computers caused a great business boom in the USA during the 1980’s, the same goes for self-driving cars. Automaton of transportation can and will reduce both resources required for transportation (less roads, better use of existing vehicles, and less human input costs). So a dramatic reduction labor costs for transportation can occur with this technology.

A person’s wealth creating ability is limited by the number of hours in a day. So in place of picking up your kids after work, or on your way home having to pick up your wife, your car will go do THESE tasks for you!

The end result is you have much more productive time during the day! When you go to the store, or mall, you DON’T have to WASTE time parking or even looking for a parking spot. In fact you don’t even NEED the parking lot! The car drops you right off at the front door and off it zooms to park for you. And with automated cars, then the parking lot can be shared by many business and does NOT have to so close to the business location.

And even better, why park the car? That car can NOW do useful work in place of JUST sitting in some stupid lot. So now the car can take OTHER people to other locations and do errands while you shop! So your car is now a kind of Uber taxi without the driver! And it not only people, but it can go transport goods and services to your home (your kids at home can un-load the car, and sent it on its way).

So from an automation, convenience, and wealth creating point of view? Self-driving cars would be a HUGE revolution, much like the internet.

The internet resulted in a WHOLE NEW round of wealth creating and increasing standard of living. We don’t for example now need a human mailman to deliver a letter to your home. You can now send mail (email) for the cost of electricity to transmit the email! The result is now you can send as many e-mails as you with! And let’s not even talk about how great bill paying and banking is via the internet.

The more people one can communicate and engage with during a day results in MORE wealth one create in that given time frame. And that email occurs at a far lower cost than small mail. So you increase with EASE the number of things and people you can interact with in a day – the result is you have MORE wealth creating ability as a human.

Same goes for self-driving cars! Removing the labor content from this machine and transportation has mind boggling possibilities for increasing our standard of living and increasing our ability to accomplish more in one day that we could ever dream of.

Not everyone can afford a full time chaffers or driver to do their errands all day for them! With self-driving cars, you gain this ability that in the past is limited to the VERY wealthy few. However, in the past the very wealthy were the only ones who could afford a nice metal pot or pan!

Heck, you could likely eliminate the need for public transportation since in PLACE OF NEARLY ALL cars sitting doing NOTHING while you are at work, that car could be buzzing around doing useful errands or transporting other people.

And same when you go shopping – you car could be ferrying other people around the city in place of JUST sitting useless in some parking lot taking up VALUABLE land space.

The ONLY real problem here is I remain VERY skeptical that self-driving cars can mature enough and become practical to be let loose on our streets! It just NOT going to happen!

In other words, I am not buying that technology can make such cars safe and even practical without a human driver. I mean there is a pot hole and road maintains crew working ahead. They cut off the right lane you drive in, and some bloke is holding up a stop sign that lets traffic through on the ONLY remaining left lane (so the left lane is now being shared and control by two blokes with stop/yield signs at each end). You think the Self Driving Car is going to figure out when the guy holding the stop sign waves you to proceed by “waving” that stop sign at you to continue and drive along the single LEFT lane?
So is the bloke waving stop sign to the car a waving to STOP or is the waving you to proceed? You think car can figure this out? (humans sometimes cannot!)

And in that left lane while you are driving you see ahead a big gravel truck that been let out from the construction site to ALSO drive along that remaining single open left lane? And actually this is not a problem since the truck was let out DURING the time in which the flow is going your way. You think the self-driving car can figure out what all the operating equipment on both sides of that lane is going or is going to do? Not a chance!

However, ***IF*** this technology can work? Then YES I
am 100% on board with this technology. Such a technology will spur huge amount of wealth creating and increasing standards of living for our society.

So yes, I love and want this technology.

This kind of technology is little different then having people create your pots
and pans by hand. If we create pots and pans by hand, then only a VERY few
people can afford such a luxury of a nice pot and pan. Compare this scarcity of
pots and pans with today having a factory churn out pots and pans all day. The
factory does this not only with ease but with LITTLE labor content.

The result is NEAR EVERYONE can now afford a pot or pan with great ease and little cost to them.

So automation of creating pots and pans, automation of farming or in this case automation of cars and transportation can yield HUGE gains in our standards of living. This is due to removing major parts of the labor content in such transportation we use.

So while I love the idea of self-driving cars and the revolution and wealth creating abilities that such a technology can provide for a society, I just don’t see such cars as being possible from a technology standpoint.

In fact I don’t even think are CLOSE to having cars drive themselves though a typical city. And let’s not even get into fog, snow, ice and difficult conditions.

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• bachcole

Given that human beings is inherently imperfect, ” ideal society” is an oxymoron.

• Warthog

GVT fun ding of LENR research is miniscule, and mostly bootlegged from other research.

• Jarea

Really? thanks frank? He just copied what Rossi has posted here in a comment and you wanted to kick him?. Not fair.

• Jarea

Bob please, keep commenting here. Some of your comments are really good and informative.

• I agree. Bob’s comments are generally considered, interesting and informative, if rather one-sided. I think it’s important that we try to avoid falling into the trap of unquestioning acceptance of AR’s claims, and commenters such as Bob provide the necessary counterbalance.

I’m sure that admin was just issuing a gentle warning to keep within posting guidelines, and I hope that Bob stays with us and continues to provide the cautionary element that a balanced discussion requires.

• Andreas Moraitis

I had also no problems with Bob’s posts. Besides, I have seen hundreds of ‘repetitive’ comments on this blog that have not been criticized or removed.

• Pekka Janhunen

Thermophotovoltaics is not the same as thermoelectric. I’m not sure if you mixed them or made a typo.

• LarryJ

Suppose you are a greenhouse operator and your competitor across the street starts heating his greenhouse with an ecat. He doesn’t have to kill your price, he just has to beat it. All of a sudden he’s eating your lunch. Because he has now added your customers to his portfolio he can expand more rapidly than you. Surprise! one day he’s on your doorstep offering to buy you out because he knows exactly how to make your operation competitive again.

The danger with Rossi’s technology is that if one group is able to implement the technology before other groups it would greatly tilt the playing field in an unfair way. I believe Rossi is quite aware of this problem which is why he so badly wants to have massive production capabilities in place before he markets his products. That would greatly minimize the damage.

• artefact

In the beginning they should sell limited amounts of reactor power per person/company so that the new fire is distributed more evenly. Everyone saves some money but no one has the power to rule over others because of the cheap energy.

• LarryJ

It would be better to flood the market. That would guarantee an even distribution without having to implement difficult to manage quotas and would also avoid a black market. Remember that these devices do not appear difficult to manufacture. A smartphone is orders of magnitude more complex.

• artefact

That would work. But I guess gouvernments will want to have the rollout controlled to not disrupt the global market too much.

• LarryJ

If we had a worldwide authoritarian government I could see that happening but we don’t yet. Any government that tries to slow the distribution of this technology will be in exactly the same boat as the greenhouse operator who refuses to upgrade. The countries that allow fast adoption will eat the lunch of those that put roadblocks in the way. I think the only governments that would react in the manner you describe would be authoritarian governments with nothing to lose who would fear what this technology could do to their hold on power. North Korea is in the news lately. I would not be surprised if they agreed with a very controlled roll out.

• artefact

I do not disagree with you. I just see a possibility (to whatever percentage) that, in face of such a big change, the big industrial countries may have/will agreed on some common rules to protect the global economy since all countries have one global market that effects all.

• mcloki

On Earth. Desalination, allowing new land to be farmed . Giving California, Northern Africa and the Middle east the ability to transform dry arid land into productive farmland.

• TomR

LarryJ, thank you for sharing your thoughts, I am in agreement with almost everything you have said these last few days.

• Axil Axil

Keep the FUD flying. When the truth is revailed, this is who will be coming after it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies

• Frank

PT Barnum did not coin “There’s a sucker born every minute”, but, after following Rossi’s efforts for several years, the phrase rings true. I’ve lost hope that Rossi has real stuff. But, if the 20 KW power supply the size of a cigarette pack really can be sold, I’ll buy it and hook it up to a 20KW distrubition panel in a heartbeat.

• LarryJ

You should not let unrealistic expectations get you down. This tech is coming at us like a fast freight train. Rossi didn’t start off knowing how difficult it would be to bring this to market and it has been less than 5 years since his first big demo. One year of which is being spent testing his first product. He has learned a lot while traveling a very bumpy road. But now we know that he has a team behind him that can make it happen, and in as non disruptive a way as possible.

We all wish we could have proof positive that this is all real and as they say, a watched pot never boils but this is not just a better mousetrap. It will trigger a massive paradigm shift. It would not help at all if Rossi did another demo and even if he did the best it would do is create a lot of Fear Uncertainty & Doubt. Fast adoption of this technology is critical to ensure as swift and non disruptive transition as possible. The only way that can happen is if everyone is absolutely convinced at almost the same time and if there is adequate product available to meet the massive demand that realization will create. The only way to do that is to have tons of product available to sell the day you announce that it’s real. Even then, many won’t believe it which will give an advantage to those that do and allow production to keep up with demand but that advantage won’t last long if Rossi’s plans for massive production are realized. If the transition is swift enough that anyone who wants it can buy it within a reasonable delivery time then there will be very little disruption. The worst disruption will be in the fossil fuel industry but the re invigoration of the economy should easily allow the absorption of those people, many of whom are highly skilled. People and investment funds who invested in what will be stranded assets paid their money and took their chances. Speculation is a double edged sword. Chin up.

• Dave

Larry, if this thing really worked the way Rossi claimed it would have been brought to market years ago. If nothing else he could have gotten rich selling it as a water heater. A team of engineers could have already turned out several lucrative products based on the E-Cat.

• LarryJ

Unfortunately certification issues have prevented him from doing as you suggest. Hi initial plan was to produce and sell domestic heaters. He then discovered that to get certification for domestic use he would have to first demonstrate safe operation in an industrial setting. This is what prompted him to embark on his current path with the 1 MW industrial reactor, a much more difficult task than a simple water heater.

• Dave

According to Rossi, he has been heating a factory for two years using an E-Cat, and that was years ago. Doesn’t that demonstrate safe industrial operation?

• LarryJ

Not really. That is anecdotal evidence. The current 1 year test is of a 1 MW reactor powering some industrial process that uses a substantial amount of heat 24/7. The evidence is being monitored by a 3rd party expert who has been retained to determine if the reactor performs to the specifications in the contract between Industrial Heat and the customer. If successful that would demonstrate safe industrial operation.

• bachcole

I see absolutely no reason to make such an assertion other than trying to spread FUD. If the Wright Bros. alleged invention actually worked, it would have been brought to market long before 1903. If there was a continent between Europe and the Far East, it would have been discovered (it was) and exploited long before 1492 (it wasn’t).

Not only does the evidence not support what you just said, reason and common decency doesn’t either.

• Pekka Janhunen

I’m too lazy to dig up numbers and references and perhaps your numbers are right, but I recall that a trick in thermophotovoltaics is to use an emitter surface which emits only at one IR wavelength. Then one obtains optimum efficiency plus one obtains it using a cheaper single junction cell. This just came to my mind since you mentioned heterojunction.

Rossi has been going after direct conversion for at least four years. I think his strive to increase the running temperature is related to that. I have no idea what he did to finally cork the bottle, but it may have been preceded by substantial development work.

That said, I remain open to other explanations.

• Roland

lol, the comparison has admittedly limited validity, as it’s apples and oranges, however it does broadly address incredulity in certain quarters at Rossi’s implied device volume to power output. I could have gone further by noting that top dragsters make 1,000 HP/litre, but that’s for all of 4 seconds between rebuilds.

So to answer your question, no, not only doesn’t that include the fuel tank it doesn’t even include the engine surrounding the displacement volume where the fuel is actually burned, but that’s how ICEs are rated and compared. In Ferrari’s case the the total system volume and weight are highly pertinent to overall competitiveness.

To date we have no guidance from Rossi as to the volume or weight of the ancillary systems required to make use of the E-cat X’s output; we could, however, conjecture that the ability to directly produce electricity would minimize the volume and weight requirements of the total system, especially if drawing electrons from the system can contribute to thermal stability in some fashion thereby reducing the need for a liquid based cooling system for thermal management and energy harvesting.

• Alan Smith

Hi Clovis – you want to feel a heat superconductor? Get a piece of rebar about a foot (30cms) long. Get a couple of inches at one end really red/yellow hot. Then dip the red hot end in cold water. But be careful – you might burn yourself. The cool end suddenly gets too hot to hold.

Why?

Thermal phonons can move much faster than simple thermal conductivity of iron allows for. There are other explanations -but it is a bit wierd the first time you get caught out by the phenomenon.

• Roger Barker

Guys, I got banned from moletrap. I went there to talk to Mary Yugo but got banned. Those septic sites claim to be all fair and open but they don’t like their perspectives questioned. Once you start getting an upper hand on them they ban you! Anyways more on topic here!

I am very impressed with this miniature eCat reactor. This is something I was hoping for and no doubt
will revolutionize the smaller gadget market. Does Rossi say how much smaller he can make it? Say
stick one of these into a laptop? Than you won’t have to charge your machine for 6 months! Now that’s
a mini-cat we need now! Smaller eCats have the challenge to convert to electricity. Someone dangle the
carrot in front of Rossi so he can research more into this. I know he’s busy with the 1MW reactor but it is
up to us, his followers and fans, to keep the pressure on him to diversify on his wondrous tech. What are
your thoughts on this? I feel smaller is a better route for the eCat but what do I know? I sit on my big
ass all day and I’m not a genius like Rossi! 😉 He knows what is best. Go Andrea Rossi!

• Roland
• Pekka Janhunen

Looked up moletrap rule, it says “You may find it difficult to be banned from the forum but it is possible.” Congratulations, because it seems you made some kind of achievement, then. Almost entirely but not quite different from “you may find it difficult to reproduce LENR on demand, but it’s possible”…

But, more seriously, based on his posting for a month or so, I think Rossi is proceeding in the direction you want him to go.

• Omega Z

Actually Pekka, If Orbo should work, it would be a better fit to smaller energy needs Of course the price needs to come down just a “little bit” 🙂
Anyway, we may have an answer to that soon.

• Pekka Janhunen

Looked up moletrap rule, it says “You may find it difficult to be banned from the forum but it is possible.” Congratulations, because it seems you made some kind of achievement, then. Almost entirely but not quite different from “you may find it difficult to reproduce LENR on demand, but it’s possible”…

But, more seriously, based on his posting for a month or so, I think Rossi is proceeding in the direction you want him to go.

• Omega Z

Actually Pekka, If Orbo should work, it would be a better fit to smaller energy needs Of course the price needs to come down just a “little bit” 🙂
Anyway, we may have an answer to that soon.

• Squatter

I still want to repeate, all we have seen so far is talk, talk and again talk. Nothing is still a fact. everything is what mr Rossi is spreading on the forums. spreading rumors for a few years about amazing achievements. then Opening a webapege to sell the rumor on. Noone has seen anything so far. so calm down.

• LarryJ

Where’s your sense of wonder. We are unlikely to see anything concrete until there is product on the market and by then the speculation and opportunity for talk talk talk will be over. It’s true that much of the evidence is anecdotal but there is also much to give it substance. If the Lugano report does not convince you that the reaction is nuclear and gives a cop > 1 then you are a person who will probably not find much to interest you here. Most of us here do have a sense of wonder and love to talk talk talk and speculate about how the world is about to change. We also appreciate Rossi’s rumours or what others might call openness.

• Axil Axil

Keep the FUD flying. When the truth is revailed, this is who will be coming after it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies

• bachcole

It depends upon your definition of a fact. If a fact is you, Squatter, getting your finger burnt and lowering your energy bills, then, yes, it is not a fact. If a fact is reliable people with much to lose saying that it is so, then it is a fact.

• Owen Geiger

“sell the rumor”? Was that intentional? Rossi is not taking our money.

• Robyn Wyrick

Sorry, but this is clearly a false statement.

Rossi “rumored” that the E-Cat did amazing things, and it was being tested by a group of 3rd-party testers. He was correct. They did “see” something, and then they recorded what it did, and published their findings. Then they ran a longer 6 month test, and again, published their results. AND from that publication, other researchers have claimed replication.

AND Rossi claimed that an American company had bought the rights – presumably having “seen” it – and that again turned out to be true.

It appears that a great many people have “seen” this amazing achievement.

There is simply no basis in fact for your comment.

• bachcole

Thank you, Robyn.

• INVENTOR INVENTED

I want one to test.

• clovis ray
• Owen Geiger

“sell the rumor”? Was that intentional? Rossi is not taking our money.

• Wholewitt

Has anyone ever touched a 100W incandescent light bulb while it was lit? It will burn your fingers and it is about the size that Mr. Rossi stated for the E-cat X that produces 20 KW (200 bulbs). This can’t be a heat generator unless it is a smaller part of a enclosed system with controls. It would be a good start to a home furnace though.

• Thomas Kaminski

It is easily to believe that a 20KW power source could be packed into a package the size of a cigarette pack. What is a bit harder to believe is that there could also be a heat exchanger in that volume. To see what I mean, below is a 7.2KW “instant” water heater (30Amps at 240 volts) compared to a pencil in the picture. The u-shaped copper loop is the pipe through which water flows. That is both the heat exchanger and the heater. The volume of the heater plus heat exchanger is probably slightly more than the size of a pack of cigarettes. It was one of three heaters that were used to heat 2.5PGM of water (driven off 3-phase, 208 Delta) for solar thermal array testing.

• Thomas Kaminski

It is easily to believe that a 20KW power source could be packed into a package the size of a cigarette pack. What is a bit harder to believe is that there could also be a heat exchanger in that volume. To see what I mean, below is a 7.2KW “instant” water heater (30Amps at 240 volts) compared to a pencil in the picture. The u-shaped copper loop is the pipe through which water flows. That is both the heat exchanger and the heater. The volume of the heater plus heat exchanger is probably slightly more than the size of a pack of cigarettes. It was one of three heaters that were used to heat 2.5PGM of water (driven off 3-phase, 208 Delta) for solar thermal array testing.

• Robyn Wyrick

Sorry, but this is clearly a false statement.

Rossi “rumored” that the E-Cat did amazing things, and it was being tested by a group of 3rd-party testers. He was correct. They did “see” something, and then they recorded what it did, and published their findings. Then they ran a longer 6 month test, and again, published their results. AND from that publication, other researchers have claimed replication.

AND Rossi claimed that an American company had bought the rights – presumably having “seen” it – and that again turned out to be true.

It appears that a great many people have “seen” this amazing achievement.

There is simply no basis in fact for your comment.

• LarryJ

Unfortunately certification issues have prevented him from doing as you suggest. Hi initial plan was to produce and sell domestic heaters. He then discovered that to get certification for domestic use he would have to first demonstrate safe operation in an industrial setting. This is what prompted him to embark on his current path with the 1 MW industrial reactor, a much more difficult task than a simple water heater.

• LarryJ

Not really. That is anecdotal evidence. The current 1 year test is of a 1 MW reactor powering some industrial process that uses a substantial amount of heat 24/7. The evidence is being monitored by a 3rd party expert who has been retained to determine if the reactor performs to the specifications in the contract between Industrial Heat and the customer. If successful that would demonstrate safe industrial operation.