Rossi: Customer's Manufacturing Process was Endothermic (Update — AR: Water Used for Cooling Purposes)

Here are a couple of exchanges from the Journal of Nuclear Physics that give us something of Rossi’s case in regard to the E-Cat customer’s use of the heat from the 1MW plant during the one year test.

Q: When you say that the Customer “used the heat” does this mean that the manufacturing process was endothermic — i.e. the heat delivered by the E-Cat was absorbed in the customer’s production process?

A: Andrea Rossi
August 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM
Frank Acland:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Q: If the 1MW of thermal power emitted from the ECAT reactors in the plant of the customer was used by the customer and not continually vented away, this seems to imply an endothermic process that trapped heat within the molecular structure of the chemical being produced.

Can you confirm?

A: Andrea Rossi
August 13, 2016 at 7:12 AM
Candice Bee Watson:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So Rossi’s case is that there would not have been the heat signature that many critics of the 1 year E-Cat test — Including Industrial Heat — have been saying should have been present if the plant was actually producing 1 MW of heat over a long period of time.

Rossi is saying that the heat was somehow absorbed in the manufacturing process, since that process was endothermic — and the heat did not need to be disposed of continually. Rossi did say in an earlier comment that there were times (he has not said how frequent) when the plant needed to dump excess heat, presumably when the manufacturing plant was offline for whatever reason, and in those cases, there was a ventilation system used to move the heat up through the roof.

Of course this brings up the question of what kind of endothermic process might be able to absorb the quantities of heat that were transmitted to the customer, and Rossi has provided no details at all about that. I would hope that he would provide evidence to support his claim of this apparently endothermic process in the court case, but I do wonder whether the customer would want to provide too many details if this was a trade secret proprietary process, which Rossi has implied that it is.

UPDATE: (Aug 14, 2016)

Here’s another possibly relevant piece of information with a question from Oystein Lande on the JONP:

Oystein Lande
August 14, 2016 at 4:40 PM
Dear mr Rossi,

Did the 1MW customer also use water for cooling purposes in his endothermic process ?

Andrea Rossi
August 14, 2016 at 7:23 PM
Oystein Lande:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

And here’s another similar question:

Rob
August 14, 2016 at 6:37 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I imagine that the JMP plant used the thermal energy for endothermic physical and/or chemical interactions, while the excess heat, if necessary, was removed by means of air and water, am I correct?
Thank you if you can answer,
Rob

Translate
Andrea Rossi
August 14, 2016 at 7:26 PM
Rob:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • GiveADogABone

    http://www.doucetteindustries.com/Portals/0/Products/CO2%20Vaporizers/CO2_Vaporizer_Brochure.pdf
    How the CO2 Vaporizer™ works
    … Bulk CO2 that is stored at -10 ̊F must be heated to between 50 ̊F and 70 ̊F for the bottling process. Traditional methods of CO2 vaporization require either electric heaters or steam heat for this operation. Electric heaters are expensive to operate, and steam heaters require full-time boiler operation that is inconvenient and costly.
    Well, buy an E-cat!!

    vapourizing liquid CO2
    Evaporate liquid CO2 from -10C to 90C
    Enthalpy change 540-175=365kJ/kg = 0.365MJ/kg
    1MW(MJ/s) of heat evaporates 1/0.365=2.74kg/s
    2.74kg/s = 2.74*60^2*24/1000 = 237 tonnes/day or about ten lorry loads/day
    CO2 discharge not a problem; just like a normal boiler flue and you cannot see it.

    • Here’s how I currently see it. The majority of heat would be vented through the two primary exit pathways that have been identified. Some heat escaping through convection to the ground and outside air. Some small percentage stored by an endothermic process.

      I think it was previously calculated that the large vent over the E-Cat area (aka ‘skylight’) could vent the entire 1 MW, so I don’t know how much would go through the shiny new pipe and how much through the skylight — I split the difference.

      • Candice Bee Watson:
        A) Would it be reasonable to say that the final product was low volume yet high in embodied energy?

        Rossi: Yes

        Perhaps the endothermic piece is more significant than shown.

      • Ged

        Very nice visualization style! Reminds me of those DoE graphs. Love it.

  • Rossi already lost all his credibility.
    The last months and weeks very interesting details about his misleading measurment methodes were published thanks to the lawsuite.

    And now look how naive Rossi’s answers are. Just “Yes”.
    Ignore him unless he doesn’t provide something with real value.

    I allways were behind Rossi. Told my family and friends about the developments of the revolutionary clean new energy device.
    And now? I’m utterly ashamed.

    Sorry guys. I’m out.

    • Keep an open mind, barty. The situation is currently extremely murky, but the lawsuit is helping us untangle the mess.

      Transfer your hope to the other reactor contestants for now to preserve your sanity. Brilluoin, Clean Planet, Lenuco, Nichenergy, MFMP and me356 can use some fans.

      • Mats002

        Add wizkid alias Tom Conover to that list.

        • I suppose Brilliant Light Power deserves a mention as well.

          The game is afoot.

      • I’m sill open minded, but I’m finished with Rossi.

        I just can’t understand why still so many people are whitewashing all this contradicting and squishy statements of Rossi.
        Meanwhile it feels like a confessional fundamentalistic sect which believes and interprets everything the “master” says.

        It’s shocking…

        • That’s not fair, barty. There is an intense effort on ECW to apply science and engineering principles to examine all possibilities.

        • Stanny Demesmaker

          You’re being irrational, most claims against Rossi are based on nothing. I read the answer of IH, they really have nothing substantial on Rossi. And btw IH still wants the e-cat licence(?). The Lugano report is also mentioned and no specific critiques are added so that report is still standing. So you have your proof, happy now?

        • sam

          Frank is the Captain of Ecat world.
          So we should stay on board
          until we reach a safe haven
          or he gives the order to abandon ship.

      • Vinney

        But they are not producing any material, very little is available on the net.
        I think they are all waiting for Rossi to produce the goods, so they can use their treasured patents to sue.
        This lawsuit must be providing them a lot of legal ‘know-how’.

    • Barbierir

      I understand your feelings but please note that IH actions so far are not less incongruous and anomalous than our Rossi. Notwithstanding the walls-of-text by their attorney or Abd (that carefully avoid the core issue). This story is far from being concluded until all evidences are presented and the claims backed by data and witnesses. And there is still a lot to explain from both sides.

    • Frechette

      Okay, so IH brought in a hit man who claimed the E-Cat instrumentation and measurements were all wrong implying Rossi and company were incompetents or worse. I’d like to hear the precise details of how he came to that assessment. I guess we may find out if this dispute ever sees the light of day in a Federal Court.

    • Frechette

      I also have told family and friends about this new energy technology but always added the caveat that tests need to verify the claims. I will feel no shame should the tests not bear out the claims.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        The only proposed mechanism for major heat removal that I have seen that is consistent with what’s known about the Doral facility is cooling with water, with the heat going down the drain. I checked the Miami rates; this would easily cost over $5,000 per month in water and sewer charges, it could be substantially more (water going down a drain can be a problem if too hot, hence more water might be used to take the temperature down to an acceptable level.)

        • MikeP

          How much of the 1 MW are you assuming goes down the drain? There are four possible energy sinks, each of which would account for part of the energy …

          • MikeP

            They could even switch the proportions, I.e. use more vertical convection at night when the outside air is cooler …

        • Bruce__H

          The plastic fittings used in plumbing begin to soften and distort at temperatures over 60 C so let’s suppose the water starts out around 20 C and is heated to 60 C before being put down the drain. Doing this you would need more than 500 cubic meters per day to shed the heat from a 1 MW plant working 24/7. It is physically doable with the sort of 4″ drain sometimes found in light industrial buildings but only if you have a steeper than 1 in 10 grade from the drain out to the municipal sewer in the middle of the street. I don’t if this is true of the site.

          Miami-Dade has high industrial water rates for large-scale water use.

          http://www.miamidade.gov/water/library/fees/rate-schedule-2015-16.pdf

          At the rate of $5.88 per 100 cubic ft, the cost of cooling 1 MW of heat and flushing it down the drains is just over $1000 per day.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Might I suggest this is a probable result.

            Some of the heat went into the product.

            Some of the waste heat went up the shiny pipe.

            Some of the waste heat was removed by the ceiling exhaust fan above the JMP plant.

            Some of the waste heat increased the temperature of some amount of city water and went down the drain.

            Why is it way some here try to get rid of ALL the heat via one means?

            Please folks, there is an industrial process happening and the heat energy will be dealt with by the above standard industrial methods as applied by the industrial plant engineers that designed the temporary plant.
            .

          • Gerald

            For me it was just answering the question if you could have a big 1MW heater in a building this size. And it can be done. If there’s a endotermic proces evolved also, it can be done with some more ease. We will know when the jury wants to know what the customer did. The answer will be simple and obvious,

          • Gerald

            Just as an example of a container use that generates a lot of heat. This was the first thing that came to mind seeing Rossie container. These are pictures from a microsoft datacenter design based on 40 feet containers. It is from a few years ago. It can hold up to about 2000 servers and that is a lot of heat produced.. Just google on microsoft datacenter container. Or google google or amazon, they all tried versions of this modular design.

          • GiveADogABone

            You need to talk to the landlord.
            http://www.the-barge-inn.com/index.php

          • georgehants

            My wife has this morning put this comment on JONP.
            ———-
            jackie
            Your comment is awaiting moderation.
            August 15, 2016 at 4:49 AM
            Dear Mr. Rossi, would you be kind enough to state the words below for us people of a spiritual nature.
            I have great faith in good beliefs and it would be comforting if you would take this oath.
            ——–
            I swear on the Holy Bible that my E-cat works as I have described,
            giving a clear output far above the input in line with a discovery
            outside of any known process.
            ———
            All best wishes Jackie

          • sam

            If they end up in Court those involved including A.R. and T.D
            will have to swear on the Bible.
            But hopefully the Lord will direct
            them in a wiser way to settle there
            dispute.

          • georgehants

            Reply from Mr. Rossi, This certainly adds to the known Evidence,moving a possible fraud into a different domain
            ———–
            Andrea Rossi
            August 15, 2016 at 7:14 AM
            Jackie:
            I swear on the Holy Bible that my E-Cat works as I have described,
            giving a clear output far above the input in line with a discovery
            outside of any process of which I have knowledge.

            Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation

          • Nicely done, george.

          • wpj

            So, we are now waiting for the lightning bolt to strike!

          • The problem with dumping the heat down the drain as water is that the heat stored in the steam is much greater than the heat stored by warming cold water (20 deg C) to 60 deg C (max drain temp by regulation) — less than 10%. You can improve that situation by running the cold water at a faster rate than the water circulating in the E-Cat. If you double the flow rate you can get to about 15% of the heat used for warming cold water and dumped. Theoretically if you’re running a huge flow of water you can get rid of most of the heat, but the likelihood is that steam is still the primary method of heat removal via the pipe and the skylight.

            Updated Sankey diagram attached.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            They need to do what they can as they don’t have a cooling tower

            So some waste heat up the shiny pipe, some out the ceiling vent fan & some down the drain.

            Plus of course some stored in the altered production product.
            .

          • Ged

            If they used an air cooled heat exchanger as found in the dairy industry, it would be a measely 17-34k CFM to deal with ~94% of the steam, leaving just 63 kW or so left to use and dissipate (probably a little more to drop the hot water fully back to 60 C). Based on the specs here http://www.windsor.co.nz/brochures/0806%20Air%20Cooled%20Heat%20Exchanger%20Capability.pdf

            The picture of the completed unit on the truck bed in the above looks surprisingly similar to the profile of the black customer thing, including the vent base. So it is a possibility that skewers the budget heavily towards one roof vent. Obvious posted a picture of what looks like a condenser too, though I don’t know what to approximate for it or quess what it may be hooked to.

          • wpj

            Also, chemical plants use (or at least, should use) valcathene piping, which is a whole different beast!

          • Ged

            That plus paying IH would come to $2000 a day all together. A little pricier than 24 MWh per day of electricity at Miami’s industrial 6.86 cents per kWh rate which would be ~$1,600 a day (the lowest rate I could find in the area; much lower than residential or commercial, both of which would be well over $2000 a day).

          • And that’s a worst case cost.

            In reality some percentage of the heat will be removed by steam/hot air through the vents, convection through the structure into the ground and air and possibly stored in an endothermic process. So cold water, if used, would only have to do part of the job.

          • Ged

            And you would still need that water anyways in this argument no matter where the 1 MW came from. Electricity is just quite pricy in comparison.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Abd,

          Heat would be divided up,

          Some into the product.

          Some process hot & moist waste heat up the shiny metal vent pipe to the roof.

          Some plant radiated waste heat as warm air exhausted by the vent fan above the JMP plant.

          Some process water used to increase the temp of city water that eventually went down the drain.

          Some into the concrete floor, walls & roof.

          Dealing with and engaging the various ways to manage the different forms of waste heat is what the engineers that designed the plant did.

          Would further suggest the warmed cooling water would normally be put thriugh a cooling tower but as this was a temp plant, no way nor reason to build one. So city water was heated by the process, maybe pooled and recirculated but eventually ended up going down the drain.
          .

          • Omega Z

            Abd and JR would have you believe that if you heat up an enclosed enviroment(Building) and not actively remove that heat, it would stay heated indefinitely. Reasoned logic has no meaning to those who want to spread misinformation.

            They refuse to except that every square foot of floor, wall, and ceiling is not just a heat sink, it is also a very large heat radiator. The heat energy in the building is straining to find equilibrium with the outside air regardless of insulation. As Florida is a moderate climate, insulation is used in moderation. Even less is used in commercial buildings.

            In addition, any vents in the roof will actively pull heat out of the building even without a fan. Hot air rises and by way of these vents will create it’s own vortex.

            FIrst they push temps being so high in this building it would melt. Followed by the wrong measuring devices. Followed by devices improperly positioned, to pipes only half filled and back to where did all the heat go to and round and round we go. If they can’t get traction on a specific issue, then perhaps they can get a little bit of traction on multiple issues. What ever it takes to create doubt.

          • This stepwise creative work by GiveADogbone, Engineer48, Obvious, AxilAxil and others is just great!

            Let me put it like this: If IH *really* hasn’t been able to reproduce the Rossi Effect, and doesn’t believe that the 1MW plant output any energy, and that the customer was fake—then they should have turned to E-Cat World readers to do the due diligence!!

            So this is what we have:

            A complete possible system description with an interesting highly endothermic process using the heat without the need for transporting manufactured items (steam methane reforming, SMR, for hydrogen production), combined ways to get rid of excess heat, reasonable connection with catalytic sponges, and a UK based company with a good name—Johnson Matthey Davy Technologies Limited—selling SMR plants.

            Not bad indeed. Lots of arguments against the credibility of the 1MW plant pulled to pieces.

          • TOUSSAINT francois

            Agreed, they did a splendid job !

          • BTW highly interesting from an LENR application point of view since SMR hydrogen production would let the Ecat provide energy to cars immediately, either through fuel cells in electric cars or in hydrogen based engines (less likely maybe).

          • GiveADogABone

            The push for container SMR plant seems to be part of the ‘Hydrogen
            Economy’. It effectively turns the standard methane gas mains and
            distribution network into a Hydrogen network.

          • Mike

            Wait a second. Have you compared the steam data (temperature and pressure) for the process and the e-cat output?

            How is the steam data for the e-cat compared to other low pressure steam boilers, better or worse? Any comparison made?

          • Alain Samoun

            I’m very doubtful that SMR Hydrogen has been used for this test, mainly because the hydrogen separation, compression, storage and transportation challenges plus the danger of explosion – I don’t think that “JM” would have got the permit necessary, especially in this location. This being said it could be an application of LENR in the future to produce electricity locally via fuel cells?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Alain,

            Simple to burn the H as it is produced and send the resultant superheated steam up the vent along with the other gasses and waste water involved.
            .

          • Alain Samoun

            “Simple to burn the H”
            Did you make the calculation of the quantity of hydrogen produced,if we have 1MW to produce it, and the calculation of the heat produced by burning the hydrogen? And beside do you think that JM had the permit to produce this quantity of hydrogen, at this location, from the Florida local authorities? I still very much doubt it…

          • Engineer48

            Hi Alain,

            What H production?

            What I suggest is ECat superheated steam, city gas, electricity and water go into the JMP test facility and superheated steam plus other SMR byproducts exit the plant via the new shiny metal 6 to 8 inch duct work and the new shiny metal roof vent. Plus some JMP production waste heat exits via the overhead roof vent fan above the JMP production area.

            The JMP plant may not be a full SMR line but just enough to test if the needed superheated steam produced by the ECat is a financially viable option that has been shown capable of driving the plant.
            .

          • Alain Samoun

            “What H production?”
            Well, you are the one talking about SMR: That process is used to produce hydrogen from methane following the reaction: CH4+ H2O CO + 3H2
            A quick computation: It needs:
            206 kJ/mol for about 67 liters of hydrogen (Atm. pressure)
            1KW-H = 3600 KJ or about the production of 1150 liters of H2
            Since 1MW=1000KW the Rossi reactor would produce 1500000 liters of hydrogen per hour!
            Even if we lower this estimate by a factor of 10 – No way you can justify your SMR speculation – Especially if you burn the hydrogen… And if it was a prove of concept, no need to have a 1 year long testing for a well known reaction.
            I have another idea: The test was used to produce oil from the Canadian bitumen! Makes sense no?… Just kidding 😉

          • GiveADogABone

            ‘206 kJ/mol for about 67 liters of hydrogen (Atm. pressure)’
            Actually 22.41 litres at STP.
            Out by a factor of 3?

            https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080619205711AAuBH5O
            What is the volume of one mole of hydrogen gas at STP?
            Best Answer:
            Use PV=nRT, where P=STP pressure of 1 atm, V= volume, n=# of moles (1 here), R=ideal gas constant (0.082057 L*atm/mol*K) which is always the same, and T =temp in Kelvins at STP= 273.15K

            Solve for V:

            V=nRT/P ; now just plug all the STP values in:

            V = (1 mol)(0.082057 L*atm/mol*K)(273.15K)/1 atm = 22.41 L

            all the units cancel out, leaving only Liters (L), which is your desired unit.

          • Alain Samoun

            What do you do with the hydrogen (1,000,000 Nlitres/h )?
            Where is the methane?

          • GiveADogABone

            MInd the steam plume!

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            Thought when you burned H the resultant was superheated steam, which is invisible?
            .

          • GiveADogABone

            Invisible until it cools after emerging from the pipe end.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            Plenty of vids on the net showing when superheated steam exits the pipe it does not become visible.
            .

          • GiveADogABone

            A couple of URLs perhaps?

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            Try this:
            https://youtu.be/8InpXBbjtPU

            Or this:

            https://youtu.be/R9uvIhgVz04

          • GiveADogABone

            Not the clearest but you can see through the base of the plume.

          • US_Citizen71

            Possible, but why not just burn the CH4 in the car instead? Only relatively slight modifications are required to do this to current internal combustion engines. The C is released as CO2 either way.

          • GiveADogABone

            Because it is straightforward to produce Hydrogen from solar PV and windmills by hydrolysis of water.

          • GiveADogABone

            And then the mysterious Mr James A Bass aka John Doe turns up as well – hopefully – to complete the party. I expect JM Chemical’s parent UK company to very cross about being accused of conspiracy and the counterclaim will be large.

          • The tragicomic fraud whisperer scenario:

            Happy as clams all the way to Summer 2015, Industrial Heat uses the MW plant to raise serious investment money. They believe they have working technology and that they have made it work themselves.

            But then when it’s time to put a bow on it they decide to hire outside experts to evaluate; a prudent double-check that they can put in their press release in 2016. But these highly skeptical outside experts whisper tales about fraud and make IH doubt all the reports. Bad flow meters and half-filled pipes and strangely uniform data entries and air-tight warehouses with no way for air or steam to escape! Then they can’t get into the customer side (as they agreed) and start to get paranoid they are being played. Lugano and all the previous tests are re-examined with the most jaundiced view; none of it is found infallible. They dismiss even their own previous internal validations. Fabiani, Penon and Johnson must be in on it, fabricating information and setting up fake companies!

            Rossi senses Darden and company pull back and goes into turtle mode, preparing records for a probable lawsuit. Surely he must be hiding something! Why won’t the customer come forward?!

            Did establishment science persuade establishment VC at the last minute they must be wrong?

          • Clearly possible scenario. And tragicomic, as you say, if true.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I vote for they didn’t want to ante up the $89Mil.

          • Gerald

            Fun to see what open minds can come to. As far as I can judge its possible to have a 1 MW heater in a a warehouse that size. And lets be honest, not the 1MW is the amazing thing these are common industry quantities. Its the source here the 1 MW comes from, the Lenr proces.

          • Obvious

            Strongly disagree.

          • I thought you agreed with Ged that venting the hot air was possible.

            What are your remaining objections?

          • Obvious

            It wasn’t done.

          • Well, only the people involved know exactly what was done. But the argument that a 1 MW plant could not be in there due to heat dissipation constraints is dead.

            People who continue to forward that line of attack can rightly be accused of spreading FUD.

          • Obvious

            Only UD. As such the case should be.

          • Depends what the F is for. 😉

          • Ged

            Do you have evidence it was not done? It is -trivial- for an exchanger, let alone supplemented by other means, and all the extreme exaggeration (e.g. the roof would melt, you would see if from space, all the people would be dead) and cries of “impossible” only proves how untrustworthy or unreliable the self proclaimed experts are if I had to do their homework for them and look up one of the oldest and most widely used heating and cooling techs in existance.

            But now that we know it could be trivially done, that doesn’t mean it was. So then, do you have evidence that it wasn’t done? That would be very powerful and useful to see.

          • Obvious

            The evidence is the Answer. And a lack of a 30″ highly insulated, heat loss proof, and totally unobstructed duct to the outside.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Of course the entire process is not endothermic or it would be very cold.

            From what I have researched, the 1st part of the SMR process is strongly endothermic.

            As for the temp, AFAIW, it can vary, depends on the catalysts and design of the reformer.
            .

          • Ged

            Actually, it looks like the overall process is very endothermic (deltaH = 165 kJ/mol of reactants or so for the entire process), from my reading. That is why it gobbles up steam and demands so much energy to do, which has held back the hydrogen economy idea (along with at orange and transportation challenges). Of course, without steam, which is one of the reactants, the reaction stops so it cannot continue below that minimal temperature.

            I need to study more on this. Steam reclamation of hydrogen from dimethyl ethylene (DME) seems to occur from 100 C to 400 C, according to one paper I found, though methane is vastly easier to get and supply.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            From Wikipedia:

            ============================================
            Steam reforming of natural gas – sometimes referred to as steam methane reforming (SMR) – is the most common method of producing commercial bulk hydrogen. Hydrogen is used in the industrial synthesis of ammonia and other chemicals.[4] At high temperatures (700 – 1100 °C) and in the presence of a metal-based catalyst (nickel), steam reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and hydrogen.

            CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2
            Additional hydrogen can be recovered by a lower-temperature gas-shift reaction with the carbon monoxide produced, in the presence of a copper or iron catalyst. The reaction is summarized by:

            CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2
            The first reaction is strongly endothermic (consumes heat, ΔHr= 206 kJ/mol), the second reaction is mildly exothermic (produces heat, ΔHr= -41 kJ/mol).

            ======================
            If I take the first reaction, 206kJ/mol (not quite sure how many mole are in the equation) and use 1MW = 1,000,000 J/sec, we get a only 5 mol/Megawatt-sec. As I recall, 1 mole is 22liters, so the gas emitted per this equation is about 110 liters/sec. for a 1MW input energy. 110 liters/sec is about 230 CFM — easily fitting though a 6″ pipe with a blower forcing it.

            I do not believe that this jives with Bruce_H’s calculation. Not sure why..

            Also, you seem to get 4 moles of gas for one mole of CH4, so perhaps the Natural Gas flow is about 60CFM. I think a typical 100,000BTU/hr home furnace is about 100CFH (about 1.6CFM), so this would require a pretty big gas pipe.

          • US_Citizen71

            What if you burn the hydrogen produced in order to produce the heat needed to reach the 700C – 1100C needed for the production of the hydrogen? This would reduce the CH4 needed for heating and change the hydrogen produced back to water making it safe.

          • artefact

            But that would also increase the heat in the building.

          • US_Citizen71

            It would reduce the amount entropy of the system. But I think it would still remain endothermic.

          • Ged

            It actually sounds like it would be recycling energy, as he has described it — absorb heat to make hydrogen then release that same heat to burn that hydrogen (but in a concentrated space). As long as there is a setup to vent all 1 MW of heat anyways, then it would be ok, I think.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Well, the methane is the source of the hydrogen. The CO is “burned” to produce some of the heat. It, however, does not produce enough heat for the reaction (only -41KJ/mol). Perhaps the hydrogen could be burned to make the heat along with the CO.

          • GiveADogABone

            Be wary of the steam plume. There are sceptics about who are looking for it.

          • psi2u2

            Indeed the accumulation of all these elements seems highly persuasive.

        • DrD

          That’s not an endothermic process.

  • Gerard McEk

    As I suggested before: Maybe JMP has been generating electricity using a Sterling principle. It will not be very efficient at about 100C and using public water and drain the waste water. I would estimate 10% as a maximum. With 1 MW of supplied heat, that results in 100 kW of generated electricity out continuously. The Ecat plant used 20 kW on average, so still a factor 5 more electricity out than in. This would explain the low level of human activities around the customer side and the thick electrical supply cable to the customer.

    • cashmemorz

      This could be the simulation I mention above to wpj. That there was enough energy to do with as claimed by both sides. Just no real process that was the normal process of a JMC plant. “Just enough activity to prove the energy coming to the JMP side was
      within the energy claimed of 1MW and the simulation was able to extract
      or use the energy in a fashion sufficient to show the user that it all
      would work in a real process”.

      • Steve Savage

        I agree this could be a strong possibility, I like the reasoning.

  • Fusionlifer

    Gerard,

    Does that mean the customer could have been paying IH with money produced by the sale of electricity back to the customer?

    For that to be confirmed, JM Products electric bills would need to be examined.

    • Gerard McEk

      Obviously yes, but only if they really produced electrical power. It would be interesting to see both the electrical bill of the customer and the public water bill.
      Also in case of an other product using an unknown chemical endothermic process for something else than producing electricity, those details are interesting.

      • Platinum metal sponge is a thing.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_black#Platinum_metal_sponge

        Good at soaking up hydrogen and oxygen gas and then being used as a catalyst.

        Platinum sponge is a porous, grayish-black form of platinum that can absorb a lot of gas, such as hydrogen or oxygen gas, allowing it to be used as a catalyst in many gas reactions such as the oxidation of ammonium. It can also be used for the ignition of combustible gases. It is used as the raw material for electronic instrument, chemical industry, and precision alloys. It can also be used as a surface active agent. It is soluble in chloroazotic acid and is formed from a mass of metallic particles.

        • A non-trivial amount of platinum on site could help explain the extra security and secrecy.

          • Ged

            That would be a lot of vulnerable money to protect!

        • wpj

          Hmmmm, asbestos then chloroplatinic acid then burning. Think not. Maybe that’s why they have the word “advanced” in there…..

          Maybe it is some other sort of supported catalyst that JM makes; there are quite a few of them. There is an online catalogue of their catalysts. I have a hard copy at work. I’ll try to find it.

  • While a heartfelt reply (and sorry to hear about his health) he never actually directly says the E-Cat works, only implies it.

  • georgehants

    A very telling sentence for a man who professes his own religious beliefs.
    ———
    “You have my honour word that what I wrote here is the truth.”
    ———
    By definition he infers that the E-cat works as stated, but does not actually confirm this, only that the events he describes have happened.
    One more P.S. with the words, I swear on the Holy Bible that my E-cat works as I have described, giving a clear output far above the input in line with a discovery outside of any known process, would be helpful.

  • GiveADogABone

    Perhaps we need to go and read the gas meter?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
    Steam reforming of natural gas – sometimes referred to as steam methane reforming (SMR) – is the most common method of producing commercial bulk hydrogen. Hydrogen is used in the industrial synthesis of ammonia and other chemicals.[4] At high temperatures (700 – 1100 °C) and in the presence of a metal-based catalyst (nickel), steam reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and hydrogen.

    CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2

    Additional hydrogen can be recovered by a lower-temperature gas-shift reaction with the carbon monoxide produced, in the presence of a copper or iron catalyst. The reaction is summarized by:

    CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2

    The first reaction is strongly ENDOTHERMIC (consumes heat, ΔHr= 206 kJ/mol), the second reaction is mildly exothermic (produces heat, ΔHr= -41 kJ/mol).

    • Chapman

      Wow! Great find!

      So, do you think that the black shipping container was a self contained micro plant for hydrogen production? Or just a testbed?

      But there is no denying that the process hits all the main points!

      • GiveADogABone

        On the scale that Air Products make Hydrogen, the shipping container is a micro plant, probably borrowed from an internal laboratory. Looking at this again this morning, I still cannot see a flaw. Even Rossi’s latest comment about some water cooling is compatible.

        • Very interesting suggestion. My only the quibbles would be the need to either compress the H2 into cylinders or store it as hydride – both requiring movements in/out of physical items – and the possibly illegal venting of CO. I suppose that the latter could be burned off along with the H2 in a suitably designed burner unit venting up the silver pipe/flue.

          • GiveADogABone

            Additional hydrogen can be recovered by a lower-temperature gas-shift
            reaction with the carbon monoxide produced, in the presence of a copper
            or iron catalyst. The reaction is summarized by:

            CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2

            I think they need this additional step for the reason you state. The Hydrogen vented goes upwards when released, so I guess is not an environmental concern or an explosive risk.

    • Engineer48

      Hi GiveADogABone,

      Posted to JONP:

      Dear Andrea,

      This steam methane reformed plant idea seems to fit all the data we engineers have been able to put together from the various clues and bread crumbs we have been given.

      Just need the ECats superheated steam, some electricity, city water and city gas. No delivery trucks in or out as the waste and product both go up the shiny JMP pipe in the JMP proof of concept plant. Highly endothermic and very high embodied energy content. Using the very low cost ECat heat, this could really drop the cost to product Hydrogen.

      Are we getting warm?

      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ecw/rossi_customer8217s_manufacturing_process_was_endothermic/#comment-2837007786

  • Mats002

    Yes by the mindset “one who not intend to honest an agreement signs anything”

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Exceedingly convenient.

    • An inconvenient truth for some?

      • Teemu Soilamo

        It would be nothing but convenient if it were true.

        • Is it really a huge surprise that a process for which 100 deg C heat is needed would be net endothermic?

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            Using superheater 0.0 barG steam to drive an absorption chiller to make very cold water is very common. With the price of the ECat’s heat it just got very cheap to make very cold water / other fluid.

  • Engineer48

    Guys,

    What if Rossi’s superheater steam ran an absorption chiller that produced near freezing water as attached.

    They will run from 0.0 barG steam pressure.

    As these normally require a cooling tower, what if JMP used city water for the cool water intake and put the warm water down the drain or mixed it with the chilled water. OK lots of water & expense but it stops needing to build a cooling tower for a short term test.

    So then we have around 800kW worth of very cold water or some other fluid to drive an industrial process.

    Or maybe the test was ONLY about generating the near freezing chilled water or other fluid as a test of the ECat to drive an absorption chiller 24/7/365?

    MAYBE CHILLED WATER WAS THE PRODUCT AND IT WAS NEVER USED!

    This would explain the:

    1) lack of internal heat

    2) lack of external heat

    3) lack of goods in & out

    4) lack of goods access to the JMP plant

    Is this madness or is it a possibility that fits the observed data? Which BTW would mean most of the 1MW of ECat heat indirectly went down the drain, mixed with lots of city water.

    • Possible does not mean probable. Because the court docs include mention of sponge metal catalysts and Mats Lewan also reported the same (second hand through an on site visitor), I think we would do best exploring that dimension.

      • Engineer48

        Hi LenrG,

        The JMP letterhead could be an inhouse joke.

        As for Mats contacts, for sure they saw something through that door. My research suggests that area is way too small to engage making metal sponges and the reaction chamber would tower over that wall.

        Making chilled water via an absorption chiller is very energy embodied as Rossi stated.

        Listen to the clues that he has given out. I know he likes dropping bread crumbs.
        .

        • Maybe everyone could just stop being so obtuse and just tell us what was happening back there.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            MYbe JMP was testing the ECat by making chilled water, which was put down the drain as it was not needed but proved the delivery of the 1MW of superheater steam could run JMP’s absorption chiller at a very low cost?

          • Doing that for a year would have been a colossal waste of money and water.

            They would have shut off after a week and said, looks great! Let’s hook it up for real.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            But less than the cost to build a chiller tower.

            If this was JM, we are talking less than pocket change to test the ECat for reliability over 1 year, when running a real JM absorption chiller.

            Then knowing the COP of the absorption chiller and the volume of chiller water produced, you have a very fancy thermal power meter.

          • I’m not buying it. It’s just as likely that JMP was experimenting with a new process related to metal sponge catalysts that doesn’t require a giant reaction chamber as it is that they were chilling water for a year for no other purpose than to test the E-Cat.

            We have two references to sponge metal catalysts and zero to absorption chillers.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            Once I saw the area JMP has, I stopped thinking metal sponge production as too small an area, plus no reaction chamber and no 2 big process water tanks.

            Sorry but the JMP site picture killed the metal sponges.

          • If your conclusion is true then the chance of fraud has just gone way up because it proves Rossi & Co. were both lying in official communications to Industrial Heat et. al. and feeding false narratives to visitors.

            That may be explainable, but it does not look good at all.

            Because if they were lying about that, then maybe they were lying about the heat too.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            As far as I know it is only Mats contact that mentioned sponge metal.

            I have never read Rossi nor the JMP manager ever mentioning sponge metal production.

            Making chilled water is production that is very energy intensive and very low cost heat would really drop the cost of the chilled water, which has a very high embodied energy content.
            .

          • It was also in one court exhibit.

          • Screenshot of 18.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            Maybe you can explain what:
            “Advanced Derivatives of Platinum Sponges”
            are and how they are manufactured?

            Or maybe this was an inhouse joke when both sides didn’t hate each other?

          • I have no f’ing idea. I was hoping a chemist could tell me.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            I did search it but found nothing, so I think it was an inhouse joke.
            .

          • wpj

            Maybe it really was a research project into these things which would explain the secrecy surrounding it.

          • wpj

            Actually, it can’t be as they claim to have been comparing energy consumption against an existing process

          • cashmemorz

            Or a simulation of an existing process. Just enough activity to prove the energy coming to the JMP side was within the energy claimed of 1MW and the simulation was able to extract or use the energy in a fashion sufficient to show the user that it all would work in a real process.

          • I posted this a few months ago:

            The simplest arrangement might have been two heat exchangers, the first steam-to-water, the second water-to-air (fan driven thermal exhaust to roof vent). Varying the fan speed could be used to simulate demand variation, while measuring flow and return temperatures and flow rate in the output of the first HE would give an accurate and very robust figure for energy produced. The whole thing could have been mounted in a third container provided by the customer. Occam’s razor and all that.

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/20/rossi-on-restricted-access-to-the-e-cat-customers-production-facility/comment-page-1/

          • wpj

            Just f’ing done it😁😁😁

          • wpj

            Oops, my mistake; it’s Adam’s catalyst (platinum oxide) which is the problem. So other Pt catalysts could be made.

          • wpj

            No such things. Made up, though “metal sponges” was used by my retired JM contact as a generic term for this type of catalysts so maybe this is just an extension of this.

            As I have said, working with Pt can cause extreme sensitisation so I doubt that could be done in that environment.

            There is plenty of room around the internal black box for storing materials.

          • Ged

            I really still think he meant a vent in the plant itself, for which we lack images, and “used” was just meaning sent from the plant to the customer. But who knows. I generally don’t read much of what Rossi posts because his English is so inaccurate at times.

        • wpj

          As stated, it was a scaled down facility. You can buy reactors of whatever size off the peg, but these are custom jobs as the metal has to be released from the bottom together with the water to cover it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Yet there was no easy way to get goids in or out.

            So maybe the goods were city water in and very chilled water out that both went into a holding tank & then down the drain.

    • US_Citizen71

      The absorption chiller could be part of the process and energy balance algebra Ged was referring to. There are inherent losses in the phase changes involved with absorption chilling so I believe it is a good candidate for possible processes involved.

      • Engineer48

        Hi USC,

        Plus the unused production product goes down the drain.
        .

    • Gerald

      Depending the water price in Florida, but using city water is a good way to chill money wise. In a one year test the cost for the water will surely be less then building a installation I think.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Gerald,

        My thoughts as well.

        Plus the heat exchanger in the absorption chiller may be the only heat exchanger used.

        It also fits as an absorption chiller will run with 0.0 barG superheat pressure as it will actually draw the steam into it’s heat exchanger.

        So it fits the description of the reactor’s outlet suoerheated steam pressure being 0.0 barG.
        .

  • Private Citizen

    Michael W Wolf: “But a con man would have just sworn by it with no compunction.”

    A con might just blame others and prevaricate at every opportunity (F8/F9) so as have plausible deniability when accused of fraud.

    • So

      F9 = I won’t know for sure until the test is over…
      and
      F8 = Be patient, still doing R&D

      scream con man and fraud to you?

      That’s just bizarre. Rossi’s behavior can be befuddling, but I’ve never seen anyone jump on his (reasonable, IMO) caution like that as evidence of dishonesty.

      • Private Citizen

        August 14, 2016 7:34AM
        LENR G:

        Yes.

        Warm Regards,
        P.C.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Rossi swore. He is either soulless or the ecat works. Plausible deniability is out the window.

  • georgehants

    A little light relief on a Sunday afternoon from the thousands of comments of conjecture, opinion and speculation on a subject with not one indisputable Fact concerning it’s high output existence.
    Below a link to a phenomenon who’s existence is beyond dispute and the Evidence is clear.
    Would a few of our scientific experts like to give their views as to how a number of people in the few hours on a dark summers night, with supposedly a few bits of plank and ropes orientate themselves to create such designs on such a scale, continually without mistakes.
    http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2016/Ansty/Ansty2016a.html
    ——-
    Admin I fully understand if my distraction goes missing shortly, ha.

    • cashmemorz

      Current tools other than planks and ropes are available to do the job. Raise a drone to approprriate height with camera connected to a computer aided measuring and manufacturing software to guide whoever is mashing the wheat stalks. A video screen attached to head of masher and the rest is dexterity of the masher. A dedicated artist would love to do it. Completely doable by ordinary people. Just that it takes away the mystery that some thrive on.

      • georgehants

        cashmemorz, very good, as this phenomenon has been occurring long before any sophisticated drones where available your answer is void.
        It would have to be an Infrared camera, lacking definition without thousands of guide markers.
        A masher capable of bending such weight of wheat would have to be very powerful.
        Afraid your explanation is lacking any credibility, unless a group of our so Wonderful scientists, who have been, as with many things doing nothing but give their comical expert opinions, actually get off their backsides and go copy this crop-circle one dark night.

        • cashmemorz

          I saw a video of them doing it . Search you tube.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, you are completely wrong, This is not Rossi and Co. please put up your Evidence of such a design being produced.

          • cashmemorz
          • georgehants

            cashmemorz,well I appreciate your putting up a link confirming my post, but I though you where going to put up a link showing a crop-circle of this complexity being formed.
            Many people on this site seem to get great pleasure out of going round in never ending circles.

          • cashmemorz

            If I am able to do what I did re Lissajous figures then others are easy to understand doing similar re crop circles. Just a lot larger. Similar complexity. At around the time that I was in high school doing this I was involved with others who had abilities to do that most would have said impossible. One was an artist that took my advice on how to make large format art. He was able to do his replications on building walls in the 1960’s when no computers or drones were around. That is why I know how to do this personally.

          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, please stop waffling, put up a link to show any complex crop-circle being produced on camera, the construction being publicized before the event.
            I have put up the Evidence for existence, only clear Evidence for explanation is of any use, not talk.

          • cashmemorz
          • georgehants

            cashmemorz, much better thanks, well known footage, they practiced many times in the daylight and then tried in the dark, as one can see immediately the circles are as wonky as a drunk man walking, plus the fake circles are easily identified by researchers.
            One must “without practice” announce that a circle as complex as the one I have shown will be produced on a certain date and where and allow the cameras to record the whole event from beginning to end.
            We are discussing proof of construction of crop-circles or high output Cold Fusion, not speculation, opinion, etc. that is never ending until the required solid Evidence is produced, or it by definition must remain an unknown

          • Toussaint françois

            The authentic crop circle show anomalies in the crop

            as if microwaves blew up the crop cells

          • cashmemorz

            There is mention of many kinds of anomalies in the environment around the “real” crop circles. The stalks are bent more “naturally”, the ground material is more polarized, the plant material is altered in some way, the ghost of the pattern remains in the ground and is seen as a snow pattern after surrounding snow is all gone, the plants growing in the next season are first to show in the pattern of a year ago crop circle. There are so many anomalies one wonders why so many? As if someone is trying to show that the more anomalies there are, then the more confirmation exists for which type of crop circles are more “real”. How many anomalies must there be to confirm which ones are more “real”? Would bending the plants cause so many other other physical processes to occur also? Even as a by product of the main bending forces? More likely anomalies are fabricated to convince more people to accept the phenomenon as being caused by other than normal human activity. Extraordinary claims require proof. Just because an unusual phenomena occurs does not mean automatically that it has non-human causes. Some crop circles are more difficult to explain. That probably means the explanation has not been found. Using as an explanation of extraterrestrial origins when other explanations don’t fit does not mean the extraterrestrial explanation is the right one. If there is an explanation that is a cause other than human then it could be extraterrestrial or it could be a byproduct of the holographic universe or it could be a byproduct of how the farmer sowed his seeds in a pattern that no one noticed or it could be many other causes if not human and also not extraterrestrial.

          • cashmemorz

            Edit. It helps to be critical of all unusual activity. That is the only way to be sure that the data one has is good or not and what one finds in the end, such as is the E-CAT really doing what Rossi says.

          • Steve Savage

            Do you mean to say that they are dragging a microwave as the stomp through the fields 🙂

    • GiveADogABone

      Go to the right pub and ask the landlord. He is the lead guy. Been on the tele.

      • georgehants

        Give, ha yes, Tom and Harry I think it was.

        • GiveADogABone

          The Barge indeed is Crop Circle Central –there’s even Croppie ale for sale – and circle aficionados arrive to camp here from all over the world: in the visitors’ book Kerry from Australia has written: ‘Great crop circles! Great people!” (Sunday Telegraph).
          Now, for being so suspicious-minded I am not going to give you the URL

          • georgehants

            Give, know well of the comradery with the crop-circle followers, been to the conference in Glastonbury and spoken to many.

  • Private Citizen

    Elsewhere a user called AlainCo observed that if all of Rossi’s heat were melting ice (very heat intensive), it would require ridiculous amounts of ice, meaning ludicrous quantities of water to take that heat away, or insane amounts of air:

    “I looked at fusion enthalpy on wikipedia and found that water is among the highest enthalpy at 333 J/g.

    for 1MW this led to 3kg/sec of ice melted, thus 10 ton per hour, 260ton per day”

    • Obvious

      And there are very few positive enthalpy reactions above 400J/g. And these require much greater volumes than water, if not a greater unit mass.

      • Ged

        Dehydrating salts for heat storage has enthalpies of over a kJ/g depending on the salt. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610212015597 There is a surprising number of these. Some salts are endothermic when hydrated (Urea is one), but I doubt that would have been used and generally they are weaker.

        • Obvious

          A kW/g is very impressive. The reactions seems to run rather hot, though.

  • Engineer48

    Guys,

    Just emailed Andrea and asked him if the 1MW reactor’s test load was an absorption chiller.

    His answer:

    “NO”.

    • Now ask him if it had to do with advanced derivatives of platinum sponges like the defendants filed in court.

      • Engineer48

        Hi LenrG,

        I asked Andrea another question.
        .

        • Gerard McEk

          I hope you asked him it it was used to generate electricity? 😉
          Anyway, I believe my idea is just as unlikely as your absorbsion chiller. As Jed says above, ‘all chillers just move (heat) energy from one location to another’ and at the end you have to get rid of even more (heat) energy (the heat you extracted from the object you cooled plus the 1MW).

  • Ged

    It completely depends on the reaction in question, unfortunately, and what its favorable temperature range is. For instance, dissolving urea in water has no waste heat from our perspective at room temp since its point of reversal is below our temperatures, and is limited by the solubility of the urea, which is temperature and concentration dependent. If you want the urea to dissolve faster, you can provide more heat than it can absorb to push the reaction far to the right by Le Chatelier’s principle.

    So yeah, it’s a multi-parameter question.

  • GiveADogABone
    • Ged

      That lawsuit one is pretty interesting, considering where that James Bass worked and with what.

      So much for such a potential person not being able to be found. Doesn’t mean it’s the same person though, but it is amusing.

  • Steve Savage

    What was the water invoice – usage for this location? I suspect that would tell us a lot.

  • Oh believe me, I’m not.

    But they have been active lately.

  • TOUSSAINT francois
  • Obvious

    So this one is too small?
    (thanks Nevanlinna)

    • Billy Jackson

      you cant even tell if that’s hooked up to anything either. it looks just pushed off to the side with the rest of that clutter.

      • Ged

        It looks like this was during set up, as the pipes aren’t there? Who knows where it went?

        • Obvious

          Yes, both photos seem to be before operation.
          That round or cylinder-like thing on top, to the left, might just be a roll of metallized ducting tape, rather than part of the condenser-like object.

  • Gerald

    I don’t think Rossi did cool the heat, but when you take cold water from the city you don’t “need” the big trane installation in the building. You just need to pump your cooling aid around. It is sometimes cheaper to cool that way then to use a lot of energy to cool your cooling aid. You need the rooftop ventilator. But then again I don’t think this was going on. Lets wait how it plays out. Even if the cop of 50 is wrong there is still a lot to learn. A total scam is almost impossible, then a lot of people were sleeping.

  • sam

    Rob
    August 14, 2016 at 6:37 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    I imagine that the JMP plant used the thermal energy for endothermic physical and/or chemical interactions, while the excess heat, if necessary, was removed by means of air and water, am I correct?
    Thank you if you can answer,
    Rob

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    August 14, 2016 at 7:26 PM
    Rob:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • cashmemorz

    George wants to believe. Enough detailed commentary on pro crop circle want to convince using additional “data” such as connection to 12000 years ago Atlantis. There is no geological evidence in the Atlantic Ocean of such a place in the area that is that age. Language of such sites talks in a way that can be construed as leading the reader into a direction to accept the crop circles as” authentic” meaning caused on purpose to get some kind of message to us humans about the environment supposedly. Not very good communication since it is so ambiguous.

    • Chapman

      Oh. So he is a true believer.

      You know, I was prepared to analyze the hell out of the topic, and cut it to pieces with only a few logical observations – but I fear I am far less inclined to screw with someone who has an honest belief, even if I think it is silly. It is the disingenuous troublemakers I like to mess with, as they do what they do with evil intent. But someone’s honest view must be shown respect, as long as they are not trying to force me to agree, or to support silliness myself.

      Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It was quite well done, and kind to George. You are a Gentleman.

  • Obvious
    • Ged

      In the completely opposite direction, simply because it’s cool, here is one sweet, tankless 3.5 MW boiler with a meer 61.5 ft^2 footprint. http://www.gasmaster.ca/html/newModels.html

      Back on topic, these air cooled heat exchangers used in the dairy industry to reclaim steam heat in the form of hot air are also surprisingly small for impressive liquid cooling (air heating) ability (100 kW – 25 MW). http://www.windsor.co.nz/brochures/0806%20Air%20Cooled%20Heat%20Exchanger%20Capability.pdf

      The nominal specs given as an example are nearly double the needs of the case we have here (61,100 kg/day steam in the example, instead of 36,000 kg/day for the plant). Also, the 70.7k kg/hr of air needed for the example exchanger specs comes to about 33,990 CFM (1
      CFM approximately equals 2.08 kg/hr of air at sea level in standard conditions, this will
      change a bit with the density of air given temperature and humidity of
      the source, but not too terribly I think, if the math is right).

      Size and shape seem right for what we (barely) see of the customer’s doohicky. There is a 6% steam bleed however.

      • Obvious

        That thing I posted a picture of below (also in the hallway of the “new” Doral photo) looks like a condenser.

      • Engineer48

        Hi William,

        I believe the 1 year test ECat will run unattended as enough data is sent to the central computer to allow good control as long as the thermal load is fairly constant.

        Here is what I believe is the BlueCat 1MW reactor control system, what is sensed and sent to the remote computer and what controls the remote computer can send to the reactor control box to successfully operate the reactors.

        I design and build such control systems and I believe this system is fully capable of being run by a central computer with no manual intervention.

        What is the key is the circuit which senses the EMF induced on the heater coil that functions as the internal heartbeat of the strength of the “Rossi Effect” reaction and allows the central computer to monitor that heartbeat 10 – 20 times a second and adjust reactor water level and heater excitation to maintain the thermal gain of the reactor to stay just below thermal runaway and achieve the max SSM and COP.

        This data is not conjecture. It is based on the available photographs of the BlueCats and the BlueCat reactor control box.
        .

        • One thing about all this: the exceptional amount of effort involved and demonstrated over the years makes fraud extremely far-fetched.

          Most free energy scams are some stupid magnet thing or a single device that has some hidden inputs. Leonardo, on the other hand, has built hundreds of reactors and engaged in complex engineering. You can even trace the evolution in the engineering prototypes based on the pictures and released test reports.

          So, if it’s fraud, it’s exquisite fraud, with an A+ for effort.

  • You put the words into Rossi’s mouth.

    Rossi needs attention, and you give it to him.

  • Barbierir

    How much time does Rossi have to answer IH counterclaims? I read somewhere it’s another 21 days.

    • Ged

      I don’t think Rossi has to answer necessarily as it goes to Discovery (could totally be wrong). But JM, Fabiani, Penon, Johnson, and Fabiani’s company all have to respond in 21 days I think, starting after the summons went on the 12th, since they are fresh new parties dragged into this.

  • Billy Jackson

    That’s good enough for me. I will take any man at his word until he proves he’s a blatant habitual liar. I have yet to find that in Rossi, a misdirection here or there when he does not want to answer something but never an out right lie.

  • Frank Acland

    I don’t consider the shiny pipe out.

    I think what Rossi meant was that there were times when for whatever reason they were not supplying steam to the customer’s unit behind the wall and in those cases they dumped the excess heat from directly the plant with a venting system which he says is not shown in the photo.

    • Bruce__H

      Yes. The venting system that is not pictured (and so is not the shiny pipe) would be like a relief valve for times when production or water cooling is offline.

      But then in what way is shiny pipe “in”? Is it venting that is supposed to be used during normal operation? But I thought that was out too. I took Rossi’s comment that “The heat was used, not vented away from the Customer” to apply to times of normal operation.

      • Why are you interpreting ‘used’ as meaning ‘gone’?

        The customer used — then by any reasonable logic — vented/cooled any waste heat. Rossi’s comment seemed to be making the point that the customer did in fact use the heat and that it was not secretly vented away from them. Remember, people are accusing him of having a fake customer. He’s saying, no, the customer was real and used the heat.

        See the Sankey diagram I posted below for a reasonable approximation of our best understanding of where the heat went at this point.

        • Engineer48

          Hi LenrG,

          JMP used / consumed 1MWh/h of thermal energy to make the product and drive their production line.

          If they made 1 product per hour, that product had 1MWh of embodied thermal energy plus any electrical energy consumed.

          It matters not if some of the thermal energy was wasted. It was still needed to be consumed to make the product.
          .

          • While the 1 MWh/h was likely fully needed for the customer’s process, the percentage of that energy captured as embodied energy in the final product is likely quite small. The majority of the energy would still need to be vented or drained.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            Agreed.

            To make 2 x the production in the same time would need 2NWh/h.

            So to the reactor it was all used to make the product and for the customer they embodied all the heat they purchased, plus all electricity they purchased plus all the water they purchased, to make the product, no matter what % of the total energy input was endothermic, it was all embodied.

          • Ah yeah, ok. The definition of embodied energy includes energy used in all processes and stages to make a product.

            So approximately all input energy embodied but some likely small percentage stored in chemical bonds via an endothermic reaction.

          • GiveADogABone

            I would disagree. All the 1MW entered the production process.

          • I misunderstood what embodied energy included. I agree it likely included all of the energy delivered to the customer.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            Suggest LenrG meant endothermuc.

          • GiveADogABone

            There are two reactions involved. The first reaction is strongly ENDOTHERMIC (consumes heat, ΔHr= 206 kJ/mol), the second reaction is mildly exothermic (produces heat, ΔHr= -41 kJ/mol).

          • How the heck do you know THAT?!!!??

            You know the exact reactions taking place in the customer process?

          • GiveADogABone

            CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2
            CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2

          • Are you claiming to know this definitively?

            Or is this conjecture?

          • GiveADogABone

            A full explanation is further down this thread.

          • So, conjecture.

            Conjecture involving methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas.

          • GiveADogABone

            Rossi might give you more confidence

          • How so?

            Do you expect him to comment on this matter or for this process to be revealed in the next wave of court docs?

            (That is, do you have inside info or are you just trash talking?)

          • GiveADogABone

            If you have any considered views about any errors then I would be interested to see them.

          • I haven’t checked your numbers but they look good. My main concern is all the dangerous gases involved.

          • GiveADogABone

            The waste products are (CO2+H2) up the flue pipe along with (CO2+N2) from the combustion.
            The input gases/vapours are CH4 and H2O

            Why would the methane here be any worse than any other gas-fired industrial equipment? The exit gases CO2 and N2 are just the exhaust gases from any fossil-fired boiler, so the issue is just the H2. Vented from the rooftop, the only way is up for Hydrogen, so I do not see any risk of forming a cloud at ground level. How long for the exhaust plume to reach the lower explosive limit? It is already diluted by the CO2 and N2, which by excluding the Oxygen from the exhaust pipe ensures no potential internal explosion in the pipework. Yes, a concern but I feel one that can be answered.

          • Here are some of my concerns; maybe you can allay them.

            * Seems like special regulatory compliance might be required when handling and generating potentially dangerous chemicals. There are no visual signs or any paper trail of any such special precautions.

            * If the point of this process is to generate hydrogen gas, then the gas would have to be stored and transported out. If you’re saying they just let the hydrogen gas escape because it was just a test, then I have trouble believing they would do that for a year.

            * This appears to have nothing to do with metal sponges, for which there are two references, one in the court docs and one from an eye witness.

            * Although these reactions are strongly endothermic (net), the majority of the waste heat would still have to be vented as steam. With E48’s claim that warm water drainage was not used, as hinted by his sources, we still have not put that issue to bed.

          • Ged

            For the last part… Air cooled heat exchanger perhaps? Same general size, shape, and vent extension as the black thing we see poking above the divider wall. Nominal specs handle up to 61,000 kg/day of steam with ~34k CFM of air ( http://www.windsor.co.nz/brochures/0806%20Air%20Cooled%20Heat%20Exchanger%20Capability.pdf ), double what is needed, which even just one good sized ceiling vent like we see would easily handle. 6% of the steam is bled (not cooled by the end), but at that point it seems a trivial amount of heat for the space and other fan cooling. And, we have been told some water cooling is also happening, so there’s that too.

          • If it’s just heating air then the problem is worse. Getting rid of heat via dry hot air requires much more air flow than with steam. If the heat from the heat exchanger is used to dry stuff then we just get the steam back.

          • Ged

            Just 70,700 kg/hr of air for 2,500 kg/hr of steam, which is ~34,000 CFM at sea level (according to their specs). Doesn’t seem a problem, let alone worst. Do you mean you’d rather have the heat vented as steam?

          • Yes, the steam can carry out much more heat.

          • Ged

            Yes, that is true, but it is not a problem to turn it into air at these rates. If we are just talking cooling strategies, both work very nicely for what we see.

            But yes, you are right, a lot more air mass is needed than steam mass. But air benefits from being invisible and allowing recycling of the water. So either or is possible.

          • Ged

            Actually, easier to miss than one thinks. Gotta have the proper IR camera setup and the proper calibration. That is the sort of stuff we would have to know.

            Cameras are made to look through air (screen out air as background noise) and focus on solid objects. Even solid suspensions in air like smoke and dense water vapor quickly lose their IR signal once they start mixing with air, from what I have personally seen.

            I have also actually seen the IR imaging of a warehouse roof with design and vents very similar to this one’s using a very high end camera able to distinguish a tenth of a degree. You will see the vent and a small circular radius around the vent as being hotter than the background roof, but no air plume at all in that case. It may well be possible, but it is not easy, particularly with air at a moderate breeze pace.

            Anyways, without data, there is nothing to engage–maybe it exists and shows what it claims by the right methods and results, and maybe it doesn’t. A scientific mind doesn’t simply believe a narrative that is supposed to be biased in favor of the side giving it. I don’t take as fact Rossi nor IH’s claims, only the data.

          • GiveADogABone

            Get simulating!
            Build your own model and throw it about.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_process_simulators

            http://dwsim.inforside.com.br/wiki/index.php?title=Downloads
            DWSIM is open-source software and will always be

            Windows Installer
            DWSIM v4.0 Full Installation Package for Windows (55 MB Executable file)

            Linux / Windows Portable Packages
            DWSIM v4.0 Binaries (56 MB ZIP file)

            Linux Packages
            Build 6055 Debian Installer Package (44 MB DEB file)
            This package installs DWSIM on Debian Linux distributions (i.e. Ubuntu), taking care of required dependencies.

          • Bruce__H

            Cool! I think.

            I just want to confirm with you that this is actually from you and hasn’t been placed here without your knowledge by a 3rd party using your account.

          • GiveADogABone

            I am not sure how I do that because I could still be a 3rd party but of course I can give every assurance as any con artist would.

          • GiveADogABone

            I guess they just vent it, along with the CO2 and N2.

          • cashmemorz

            JMP did not necessarily have to use the exact process that they normally used for actual production. Any other process that exactly uses the heat budget in/out of the actual process is all that they had to use. For the simulation they would have had to put together a process that also cost much less than the actual process. As far as JMP is concerned the simulation only has to prove out the incoming heat as existant in quantity, rate, enthalpy/temperature and constancy, dependability. If a simulation then it also hides the actual IP of their actual process and lowers the cost of the test installation. A heat exchanger might do. Just add on all the needed sensors etc to get accurate reading s of the in/out steam factors.

          • cashmemorz

            Technically this would be accurate in Rossi’s statement that the heat was use for production. If it was a a simulation of production then it was accurate enough to call it production from the point of view of JMP if the activity was only needed for the sake of proving out the E-CAT supplied steam. The only sticky point is the embodied heat portion would need to be accounted for in the simulation somehow, so as to avoid venting more than necessary. The simulation, to be accurate, would need to vent only as much as the actual production process.

          • GiveADogABone

            IF you read up on SMR (Steam Methane Reforming), it is the basic process for producing bulk Hydrogen around the world; its huge. What I am suggesting goes up the vent would normally be separated in a further plant and the Hydrogen would go out to end users. I am suggesting that it all goes up the vent stack in the test and what happens downstream does not affect what happens upstream.

          • GiveADogABone

            1: They received regulatory clearance to operate this 1MW test but that does not prove it was this miniature SMR(Steam Methane Reforming) setup. That said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

            2: If they could vent the Hydrogen for a year, what would be the objection? Money? You could argue the cost of the Hydrogen was the cost of the methane and steam($1000pm at full power) plus the electricity but the overall cost of the rental of the building, staff employed, equipment installed, etc would dwarf that. For a global multi-national’s research budget this is a pinprick, bearing in mind the potential savings.

            3: The first process USES Nickel catalysts and the second a variety catalytic materials. The mistake is to assume they were MAKING catalysts.

            4: The 1MW of steam enters the reforming chamber 100%. By the exit from the chamber it has all changed to CO and H2. There is no steam to vent. Where cooling is needed is before the second process(CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2) that runs cooler and Rossi has just stated that the process needed cooling. After that it is up the discharge pipe. Rossi’s statement implies, clearly in my view, that discharge to drain is possible but the heated cooling water could be fed to the secondary side of the heat exchanger, prior to evaporation.

          • Engineer48

            Mate I owe you a beer!

            Well done!!!!!

          • GiveADogABone

            Next time in Oz I will hold you to it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            I trust you also would like to try a really good Aussie red, say a Shiraz? At the cellar door of the wine maker?
            .

          • GiveADogABone

            My in-laws are Germans from the Barossa valley. I guess you know what that means.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            Yup.

            1.5 hour drive from my home, well if you do not stop at a few other cellar doors along the way.

            My neighbour is a horticultural consultant to the wine industry and before retiring wrote all the teaching and reference books used all around the world about how to grow and process wine.

            Guess you know what that means?
            .
            .

          • GiveADogABone

            No but I know people who will.

          • GiveADogABone

            Just bash your buzzwords into Google and recompute. Iterate for as long as it needs. It is almost brainless and often boring.

          • 1 – I would expect some kind of indication. But you’re right, I can only speculate on this point.

            2 – For argument sake, let’s say it’s Johnson Matthey (JM). So JM runs the test for a week or a month and says holy smokes it actually works… this could save us a fortune! …aaaand then for the next 11 months keeps trucking in methane and sponge nickel and pumping out hydrogen, for no good reason, except to help Rossi finish his test, at significant cost. Without immediately demanding more plants or making immediate business plans with Leonardo. Just patiently biding their time, wasting money. You can say, sure because that’s what they agreed to do. But I will counter that no sane business presented with such an opportunity would behave that way.

            3 – That’s good. Any chance it could use Platinum sponge catalysts instead (good source of hydrogen and oxygen)?

            4 – The heat doesn’t just magically disappear though. There would still be extremely hot gas to vent even though it’s not vaporized water. So similar problems related to air flow remain.

          • GiveADogABone

            2: Burn Hydrogen and what do you get? A very obvious steam plume. This setup was all about secrecy and it worked.

            3: I am not a chemist. Ask wpj ; he is the resident expert. That said, on my reading of background material it is always Nickel in the reformer.

            4: I lost the plot here. All the plant is well insulated, as is the exhaust pipe. So the gas is very hot when it exits the pipe up on the roof and the building stays cool. That is exactly what you want; to get the heat out of the building. Where is this air flow that concerns you?

          • Some detractors have calculated monster air flows to evacuate the necessary mass of steam.

            I don’t know who is right, but I do know there is no consensus yet.

          • GiveADogABone

            There is not enough to work with really. I can imagine that from the steam outlet on the secondary side of the evaporator to the inlet to the reformer is only a matter of a few metres of lagged pipe. Inside the reformer the steam disappears into the reaction.

            Of course, if you blasted the full steam flow out into the building interior at low level, then you get whacky calculations but surely we are past that scenario. What detractors said weeks ago seems to me to have no relevance at all.

          • Ged

            Keep in mind, LENR G, that the “monster airflow” (120,000 CFM), which is still doable, is only if you are trying to move the entire airspace if the building’s interior, assuming 1 MW of heat is being distributed throughout that entire space -directly- and purposefully like a space heater. That much airflow would have to counter it.

            However. If the air is being directly forced through an exchanged and out, the volume is much smaller. That is what my original calculations were looking at that gave me 21,000 CFM. That is how much is needed to move all that heat if you directly try to vent it. We see the same with the specs of the air cooled heat exchanger. Not monsterous, and doable to the point of trivial.

            Keep the steam insulated till the heat can be directly forced out before the warehouse starts to heat, and you are done. Try to move all 840,000 ft^3 of warehouse space after all 1 MW of heat has entered it and it is a bit more involved though still doable with what we see.

            Assume other cooling routes taking from the budget and it all changes more and more favorably.

          • Obvious

            The “monster airflow” was previously determined by the necessary amount of humid air to carry the heat away. I don’t understand how less air can carry the heat from an exchanger, unless it becomes “super-heated” steam itself, and expands. Which brings us back to square one.
            (21000 CFM turns into 120000 CFM by heat expansion).

            Portions of this heat are fine, but the same mass-heat problem should apply, even if proportionately, within the heat transfer capability of the humid air that is being used.

          • Ged

            See, that’s what gets me too, so I could be completely wrong. But when I tried two different ways to calculate this just looking at carrying away the 1 MW power both came to the same result within conversion rounding, and heat exchanger specs are giving me the same numbers. Yet your calculations, which look at it correctly from another way, and the calculations I did based on room cooling rule of thumbs came out with the larger number.

            Only difference I can see is the smaller numbers are when you heat the air and force it out like district heating and exchangers, while the larger is when you simply replace air to cause cooling.

            Heat doesn’t cause huge air expansion. Going up by 20 degrees C is just a 6-7% expansion in volume if pressure and mass stay the same. So 21,000 CFM will not become 120,000 CFM even if you heat it from 30 to 100 C. Be more around 29,000 CFM. Also, hot air is not steam, as the absolute water content stays the same, but relative humidity drops greatly, so it is actually drier.

          • Obvious

            Yeah, there is something being left out somewhere, one way or another.
            I saw the exchanger you were looking at.
            I don’t know why the answer comes out so differently.

          • Ged

            This has been bugging me since I started looking at it all those days ago. I would really like to find the answer.

          • Obvious

            Well, I guess a look at similar exchangers, and the assumptions used in the heat carrying capacity of air calculations are in order. Something has to give.

          • Ged

            Ok, so I just redid the calculations:

            Since the air is at normal air pressure and is free to move and vent out, that means volume is not constant, so we should use the heat capacity value for a constant pressure. Cp at 25 C is about 1.005 kJ/kg per K (or C). So, if we take our air from 25 C to 100 C (the most we can get from 101 C steam or so), that will take 74.875 kJ/kg.

            So, 1000 kW/74.875 kW/kg = 13.36 kg per second.

            13.36 kg/s * 60 s/min * 60 min/hr = 48,080 kg/hr of air to vent 1 MW of power.

            Since 1 CFM is approximately 2.08 kg/hr at standard conditions, that gives us 48,080/2.08 = ~23,115 CFM needed to dissipate 1 MW continuously by a heat exchanger.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            If, however, you use evaporative coolers where water is evaporated to reject the heat, the energy content dramatically increases, and the flow drops by the same ratio. For moisture saturated air (100% relative humidity), the energy content roughly doubles for each 10 degree C temperature rise. Saturated air at 95C carries about 2^^6 times or 64 times the energy of 25C air. For the precise number, look it up on a psychrometric chart. Look here for details:

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

          • Obvious

            Yes.
            I came to the conclusion that the only difference is that we are heating the air much hotter, so we can use a smaller volume. Before we were heating the air 10 or 20°C above ambient.

            I did one from 20°C to 104°C, (to see if a MWminute could go up the shiny pipe), which came out to 20147 cfm yesterday, but forgot it almost as soon as I was finished with it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            The steam seems to be on a one way trip inside the SMR reactor.

            Where does the return condensate flow to the reactor come from?

          • GiveADogABone

            It has slipped your mind that there is a heat exchanger. The primary side is E-cat steam in, E-cat condensate out. The secondary side is water in direct from the towns main or via the process cooler. The secondary outlet side supplies the production plant steam and that is a one-way trip, as you state.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            Burn the H and send the resultant superheated steam plus the other waste gasses up the shiny pipe.
            .

          • Thomas Kaminski

            The reforming process requires steam, methane, and heat. The heat typically comes from combusting the CO with O2, produced in the first phase of the process. What I am suggesting is that the LENR process can provide the energy to produce the hydrogen and CO. If you read the paper I referenced above, it does show how the process can be optimized with heat exchangers. Typically the process runs at 800C, but my conjecture is that “JM” (“Customer”) has developed a new catalyst that does the reforming at lower temperatures. Use the LENR heat instead of combusting the CO to make heat.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            Have posted your plant idea on JONP.

            Maybe Rossi will give us a bread crumb?
            .

          • GiveADogABone

            Crumbs are the best we ever get.

          • Ged

            For now. Discovery should give us an entire baguette.

          • GiveADogABone

            and indigestion?

          • Ged

            If it comes with cheese and whine, most probably.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I really like this idea — if you can generate hydrogen efficiently from natural gas, then you have a path to direct electricity generation through a hydrogen-air fuel cell. Bloom Energy corporation has a number natural gas UPS units that do that using high-temperature solid oxide fuel cells. Some of the methane is converted to heat in the process to break down and liberate the hydrogen from methane. Here is a link to one of their units:

            http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/es5-data-sheet/

            The way, the unit referenced above unit also emits about 250kW of heat energy in a 30x5x7 foot unit. Instead of venting the hydrogen, you could use a traditional air-hydrogen fuel cell to produce electricity.

            Oh, by the way, Johnson Matthey published a “Fuel Cell Technology Review” here:

            http://www.technology.matthey.com/pdf/273-274-pmr-oct12.pdf

          • GiveADogABone

            The British competitor is Ceres Power http://www.cerespower.com/
            Supposed to be producing a domestic CHP unit. This uses methane and can run off the normal mains supply.

            The other thing is that the SMR process is the standard method of producing bulk Hydrogen worldwide, so there is no novelty in that.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Hi GtDaB:

            Interesting — it makes home-scale CHP a feasible technology. The only problem is that it uses natural gas, the majority of which is a carbon source. If, however, it is derived through anaerobic digestion, it is potentially carbon neutral.

            A German graduate student (attending the university of Wisconsin, Madison) I had a chance to work with on solar thermal measurements now works for a French company who has a similar SolidOx process that he claimed could work with anaerobic digesters — the key was cleaning up the gas stream to remove trace gases that spoil the process. His claim was that they could take corn, stalk and all, and produce electricity with up to 40% total energy conversion. Much better than burning the biogas in an engine as is now done.

        • Ged

          Albeit, it looks like air cooled heat exchangers could take care of ~94% of that 1 MW steam for 17k-35k CFMs, and look very much like what we can see poking up in the customer’s area. So the ceiling vent could take up almost all of the budget in that scenario. Shrruuuug.

          The hot air from those exchangers is also very useful–could dry out some >1 kJ/g salts with that and sell them off as dessicants for dehydrators (CaCl2 is apparently popular in industrial dehydrators). Probably more exotic uses for such air though. Or just dump it and use the remaining steam. All modulatable.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Frank,

      Highly endothermic / embodied energy product production is in.
      Shiny pipe is in.
      Roof exhaust fan above JMP is in.
      Use of city water for cooling is in.
      Drain is out.

      Helping anybody to get warm?

      • Why is drain out? Where does the cooled water go?

        • Engineer48

          Hi LenrG,

          It was not cooled water after it was used in the JMP production line. Probably ended up too hot to dump down the drain.
          .

          • Simply a matter of using enough city water coming in at ~19.5 deg C (Miami cold water temp, I looked it up!) to cool the water down to 60 deg C, the max temp accepted by regulation.

            Not saying they did that, necessarily, but it’s a clear possibility to dispose of some or even all of the heat (with lots and lots of water).

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            At the moment 2 sources are suggesting JMP didn’t use the drain.

            Part of the heat from the plant & maybe a bit of electricity could be used to sent that water up the shiny pipe.

          • Interesting. Public sources or private sources?

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            One of each.
            .

          • So are these sources in a position to actually tell you how all of the heat was actually disposed instead of us chasing our tails?

          • Engineer48

            Hi LenrG,

            I’m not that well connected.

            It is my nature to find bread crumbs and to be offered others 2nd hand info.

          • Bruce__H

            Who is the public source?

          • Ged
          • Thomas Kaminski

            A fairly technical paper on the process is available (and beyond my knowledge comprehension) at this Air Products site:

            http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/industries/en-analysis-of-thermal-efficiency-limit-of-steam-methane-reforming-process.pdf

            What struck me is that a commercial optimum process makes extensive use of complicated heat exchangers. I recall hearing that the “customer” had a complicated heat exchanger from someone.

          • Ged

            I recall that statement too, but also confess I didn’t pay attention to it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Thomas,

            Rossi told me the heat exchanger setup was complex.

    • GiveADogABone

      What happens if the E-cat and production plant are running and the production plant trips? You want the E-cat to continue running. In that case you need to vent the steam discharge from the secondary side of the heat exchanger up to the roof until the production plant is restarted. The shiny pipe is the prime candidate for that job and its visible presence would cause no comment; just a relief valve discharge pipe to the roof.

      The production plant main discharge duct is a different matter; that needed to be hidden. The main discharge duct carried the waste product gases from the production plant to the roof and was thus in almost continuous use.

  • There’s a ~6″ newly installed vent to the roof with a condensation trap — looks like it anyway. The shiny pipe is not out just because of something Rossi said. Who knows what picture he was talking about or what ventilation system he was talking about.

    And there’s the large vent above the plant area.

    I mean if Planet Zero wants to pretend that this was some kind of air tight warehouse with no way to vent hot air/steam, then be my guest. But that’s ridiculous.

    • Bruce__H

      I think that the shiny pipe is out because of what Rossi said in direct response to Frank Acland’s question about IH’s amended Answer. The photo the Rossi refers to is one of the photos (or most probably all of them) in exhibit 26.

      • You can’t wish away the pipe, Bruce__H.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        Shiny pipe is involved with JMP but not a part of the reactors ability to dump heat JMP did not use.

        • Bruce__H

          Interesting. How do you know?

      • Ged

        As everyone is now pointing out which I said at start, we don’t see full pictures of the plant itself or any of possible release vents (why not? Why will no one show photos of the other side?), so that is one point of reference and what Rossi could be talking about. And the place is not completely set up for running in those photos, like the missing connection pipes to the customer side.

        Photo evidence trumps poor English accuracy for me at any rate.

        • Bruce__H

          There are 3 photos in the new exhibit IH attached to its amended Answer. Together they cover the entire ceiling from the point of view of someone (an IH representative I suppose) standing in the Rossi plant area (i.e., not the customer area). If you read the Answer itself you will see that the photo coverage of the ceiling is meant to show that the possibilities for venting through the roof are inadequate for dispersing 1 MW of heat.

    • Engineer48

      Hi LenrG,

      Might suggest Rossi is taking about another system, not visible but on the reactor side of the wall, that the reactor used to dump heat that JMP did not consume.

      Doing this maintains a very stable thermal load on the reactor such that long period SSM is possible and allows the COP to exceed 50.

      • Bruce__H

        Dump heat to where? Not up through the ceiling because the photos in exhibit 26 show the part of the ceiling above the plant area.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bruce,

          Above the JMP plant area is a 4ft dia exhaust fan. Can be seen in the roof shots. You should also note there are 2 at least 4ft dia fans at the rear of the red container, hanging down from the ceiling to push any exhausted reactor superheated steam toward that fan.
          . https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b07787103b01e3aab37de846a682e933f12470aed94914d3195ec378221039e4.jpg

          • Obvious

            I see the date is Jan 24, 2016 in that shot.
            Looks like nothing has changed up there in 10 years.
            This one is much more clear: (Jan 20, 2015)

          • Obvious

            Here it is in 2010:( I don’t know what the date is.)

          • Obvious

            Here it is in 2007. (2006 and 2005 are really rough photos).

          • Ged

            Sadly, the 2016 image is so poor, though it does look like something is there just to the top right of the office A/C? Amusingly, you can see a new vent was added to the unit above the one in question (in the pictures) between the 2007 image and the 2010 image.

          • Obvious

            The large vent is best imaged in 2007 it seems. 2013 is pretty good, but the other photos are a bit overexposed/washed out when zoomed in. This is as close as I can get without pixelating it too bad.

          • Obvious

            Semi profile. From the front of the building (looking east).
            RH side is 7861, 7863 on LH side.

  • Ged

    The pictures in Exhibit 26 were not during operation, so who knows what was not assembled and present that would have been in the photos if the place was running (the flow pipes for one). And what we do see does not support the rep’s claim as currently presented.

    • Bruce__H

      This is true. I’m not exactly sure when the were taken. Does anyone know?

  • Ged

    Yep, that is why that line rather died out, as the directly absorbed heat is not necessarily specified so we can’t be sure of our calcs. Still a very intensive process making such foam, but we don’t yet know the heat needed for each stage.

  • I don’t know.

  • Little do we know that on the other side of the wall the only thing there is a 90″ TV screen where ‘James Bass,’ occasionally joined by fellow conspirators Rossi, Fabiani and West when the coast was clear (and Penon and Johnson too when they were around) binge watched cable series all day.

    How much energy does a 90″ TV use?

    Can we see any popcorn on the floor in the hi-res photos?

  • Axil Axil

    The reaction that Rossi’s customer has come up with is just as mysterious as the one that Rossi is using. How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding their technology very closely?

    A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of this secretive customer. Ross must use the product of this customer. There must be a pre-established longstanding relationship between this customer and Rossi.

    Rossi must get a precursor of his nickel powder from this company. We have heard the the reaction that this mystery company uses is a variation of the one that Johnson Matthey uses. So this endothermic mystery reaction must be one that produces a nickel based catalyst because we fairly much know that Rossi uses nickel powder.

    IH must not know what nickel based catalyst product that Rossi is using, and Rossi is not about to let anybody know who this company is and what product that this company generates.

    Rossi must have wanted to improve this company’s cost effectiveness for his own benefit to reduce the cost of the catalyst that he is using. There must be a friendly relationship between the secret company and Rossi that would inspire this company to get involved with Rossi.

    When the test was setup, Rossi must not have envisioned that the identity of this company would be an issue in a court case.

    The takeaway from this speculation, being part of Rossi’s product supply chain, the degree of secrecy that this company was subjected to must be integrally linked to Rossi’s own technology.

    Nano-skeletal catalyst: https://www.google.com/patents/US9023754

    Quote: “The oxide etching apparatus preferably employs a supercritical etch solution, while the leaching apparatus preferably employs a supercritical leaching solution. In certain embodiments where the use of leaching is appropriate, selective leaching with a basic solution is preferably used to remove the substantial portion of the filler material from the bulk structure. Preferably, the filler material left is present in a relatively stable alloy phase (e.g., the alloy phase is more stable than other alloy phases given the set of materials).”

    The production of Nano dimensioned nickel requires multiple leching operations using water near the boiling point. The aluminum substrate must be removed to reveal the microparticles of nickel with nano dimensional surface features. multiple leaching operations using a fluorine based gas or acid may be used and the application of plasma treatment as was seen in the Lugano powder. The waste heat would be flushed down the drain on repeated cycles until all substrate material is removes from the nickel micro powder.

    Evidence of plasma sintering and the presence of molybdenum, chromium. and rare earths upon assay examination of the Lugano fuel was a mystery until the plasma sintering of equal parts aluminum and nickel micron sized particles with additives is revealed in the nickel Nano-skeletal catalyst patent. Acid or gas etching of aluminum oxide to remove the aluminum substrate using multiple etching cycles would be needed to produce a highly purified resulting product.

    For every leaching cycle, how much heat would be required to bring 500 gallons of 55C ground water up 75C optimum leaching temperature. How many leaching cycles are required to purify a batch of nano nickel powder. The leaching process must use a double tank configuration to maintain the constant flow of steam with one tank receiving steam while the other tank is being drained down the effluent disposal.

    Rossi will not allow IH to see this process since it is central and pivotal to the functioning of his technology.

    • Andre Blum

      If I remember correctly, Rossi has said that he stumbled upon this customer while in the waiting room of his attorney.

      • Axil Axil

        Andrea Rossi
        April 8, 2016 at 9:54 AM
        Teemu:
        I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They were enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because they were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in Europe. They wanted not to be exposed, though, therefore incorporated JM Products and made a plant for their production to make the test and appointed President their Attorney, who was also, as I said, my Attorney. IH knew all this and agreed, obviously, on this, making a rental agreement with JM Products to make the test in their factory. When IH met with the President of JM in Raleigh, I was present and I explained that he was also my Attorney. No problem has been raised by IH.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        • Axil Axil

          Please allow me to revise my speculation on the relationship between the 1 year test customer and Rossi as follows:

          Rossi and the customer were introduced when Rossi submitted his nickel powder preparation process patent. Rossi was informed that his powder preparation was already patented by the customer and a meeting of the minds regarding licensing fees on IP between Rossi and the customer went on in Rossi’s lawyer’s office.

          • Chapman

            Well I’ll be damned Axil! That is some pretty good logical analysis.

            My hat is off to you. Right or wrong, it is a nice bit of logic.

          • Eyedoc

            Yes Axil ! …..So now , who has such a patent ??

          • Axil Axil

            I think the name is JM chemical products llc.

            http://florida.intercreditreport.com/company/jm-chemical-inc-k92251

            Date Of Incorporation 5/28/1989

  • Axil Axil

    Temperature limitations for PVC-U DWV pipe

    Thermal cycling tests for PVC drainage pipes require that a test installation withstand alternating 90 second cycles of 34 litres of water at 88°C to 95°C with 34 litres of water at 10°C to 15°C without leakage or excessive deformation.

  • Axil Axil

    http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf

    A NEW FAMILY OF NICKEL POWDER FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS

    Quote: “The specific surface area values using BET method show that the chemically processed Ni powders have a very high specific surface area (> 60 m2/g), which recommend them for electrical applications, especially for electrode applications. For Ni carbonyl powder the specific surface area was found 0.68 m2/g.

    The evaluation of the chemisorption characteristics by using hydrogen selective adsorption method shows that the modified Ni powder exhibits high power of hydrogen adsorption (600 µgH2/g), which recommend them as catalysts in hydrogen addition reaction”

    • Eyedoc

      Nice find Axil (though I can’t access it)

    • Slad

      Don’t know about the US, but over here, civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities, rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I think it’s all based on early common law, so the country shouldn’t matter.

      • Ged

        Yes, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is generally for criminal cases only, in the US.

      • Alain Samoun

        CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2
        Needs 206kJ/mole or about 70kJ/mole of H2
        Among others see:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
        This is the theoretical measurement, obviously, in real industrial production, you will need more energy due to lost of heat in the process and efficiency of hydrogen production.
        Not in contradiction with the real process described in the air product document.

        • Ged

          Ok, that makes sense! Yay stoichiometry.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Pure hydrogen is also safe. You would not need to add air if the pipe was properly filled with H2 (or H2 and CO).

          • Alain Samoun

            The pipe goes out from the roof with several hundreds litres of hydrogen per second.
            We may light a torch like in petroleum refineries?

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Interesting question, but NASA, in anticipation of the National Aerospace Plane filled a jet with liquid hydrogen (much denser!) and simulated a crash. Compared to jet fuel, the hydrogen was much less destructive. The main fireball quickly rose, allowing passengers to survive (simulated passengers, of course!). The jet fuel hung around the crash site and did much more damage.

            When I was planning for a 3KW fuel cell with pressurized hydrogen tanks, the safest place was outside. Any leak would quickly diffuse away. Storage of the hydrogen indoors was the problem, especially since even a small leak would quickly accumulate at the ceiling, producing a hazard. Since presumably the LENR-to-hydrogen process could be stopped at any time, no hydrogen will accumulate.

          • GiveADogABone

            Adding air to the pipe would be a danger and should not be done. Hydrogen mixed with CO2 and N2 is not explosive or even combustible. The only thing is the exit temperature of the gases needs watching. The quoted autoignition temperature of Hydrogen is 571C which leaves scope for a substantial safety margin.

  • Michael W Wolf

    I’ve called it, no answer. Probably just a number he used at the test facility.

  • Axil Axil

    The water warmed from 13C to 75C at 1 MW/second is 3.66 gallons per second.

    There must have been a on demand relationship between the customer and the reactor such that the demand for heat varied with the “maximum heat production rate” being limited to 3.66 gallons per second. Rossi’s reactor control mechanism must self throttle to reduce heat production based on demand. The reactor must automatically reduce power production based on the heat required by the customer on a heat required per second basis.

    The high power rating of the reactor provides fast water warmup. This would have produced a high productivity capability to the customer by reducing water process warmup time

  • Ged

    Air cooled heat exchanger takes care of the issue completely, without breaking a sweat (no pun intended). That point in Exhibit 5 is apparently wrong, along with the flow meter, and IH claiming Vaughn isn’t a manger despite that being his title since January 2012 (and him having managerial duties as a Director, no matter what definition one uses of “manager”)…

    • Obvious

      The air-cooled heat exchanger works, if the hot air is directly vented outside.
      Otherwise it a whopper of a space heater.

      • Ged

        What, you think it’d be vented into the bathroom ;)?

        • Obvious

          Welll…

        • Engineer48

          Sure looks to be a shiny, metallic new roof vent was installed to replace the existing much smaller diameter PVC roof vent.

          For sure they did not replace the existing roof vent to better exhaust hot farts from the toilet. What was vented out was hot for sure but it was not toilet gasses.
          .

          • GiveADogABone

            For sure a vertical soil pipe duct is a good place to put a hidden pipe that has to get to the roof.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            The replacement shiny metallic new roof vent is a dead giveaway.
            .

          • builditnow

            MorganMck, yes, the possibility you propose makes both IH’s and Rossi’s behavior reasonable from each others perspective.

            IH is very upset after repeated failures to get the reactors they make to work. Rossi not giving them all the details so he still has cards to play. Additionally, it could be to Rossi’s advantage to have a US federal court decision to shore up the contract before IH becomes worth several trillions and he is only worth a few million. Once this court makes a decision, it’s practically iron clad in the US. It could also be very clever of Rossi, if he found a heavily endothermic production process that could cause most of the heat to “disappear” and help hide the whole test site and further confuse observers.

          • Engineer48

            Hi BuildItNow,

            I believe as do the Lugano team, that the DogBone reactors IH built and sent to Lugano did work as the Lugano team claim.

            I also note the reactor control box IH also sent to Lugano probably did not support SSM and so the DogBone reactors were driven with continual excitation and almost no thermal foldback as they were designed to do.

            From the Six Cylinder ECat reactor we can see how those reactors were designed to operate. ie slid the DogBone reactor into the stainless cylindrical outers and then joined with others to heat water to steam.

            Why the Lugano team were sent bare reactors and not the complete reactor inside the stainless outer housing is something I don’t understand. To me it was like IH and Rossi wanted to show off the DogBone but to not show it off too much nor in its commercial build.
            .

          • The Lugano investigators stated that they chose not to enter SSM intentionally. They did not say they were unable to enter SSM because of limitations of the equipment.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Thanks for posting the pictures in one place. It is the first time I looked critically at the wiring. The three-up wired assemblies show that the heaters were wired with one common connection and three individual connections that go off image. The common is also connected to the case of each assembly. From this, I conclude that the three devices were probably connected to a separate phase for each one. This could be referred to a “Floating WYE”, but the connection to the case would likely be connected to the neutral line for a WYE connected three-phase power source. This gives a more stable voltage across the heaters in the event of current or resistance imbalances.

            It was certainly the case that the Lugano device had three heaters wired as a Delta connected three-phase load. Perhaps that was the reason — they sent a single one that could connect to the three-phase heater controller.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting small scale Steam Methane Reformer (SRM) as attached.

    The size 46 x 10 x 12 is a good fit for the JMP plant at 70 x 10 x 10 with the heat exchanger taking up the additional 24ft of length. Of course there may be similar SRM plants that do an even better volume fit.

    OK maybe a bit too tall but we do not have a image of the plant as installed. All we have is a during install image with no steam pipe from the ECat to the plant and a later image with the steam pipes but just showing the end of the JMP plant.

    What this example shows is it is possible to fit a small SRM plant into the volume Rossi stated the JMP plant occupied.
    .

    • GiveADogABone

      No attachment that I can see

      • Engineer48
        • GiveADogABone

          Thanks. Images received.

        • Engineer48

          Here is another compact Steam Methane Reformer that fits the JMP plant volume.
          .

          • Thomas Kaminski

            If you google the SMR technical papers, there are new catalysts that allow the process to work at 400C and some even imply the process will work at 200C (though not as efficiently). One might guess that a “new” catalyst invented by the “customer” extended this down to 100C.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Thomas,

            An “Advanced Derivative of Platinum Sponge Metal”??

            Bit old from 2009.
            Platinum catalysts for the low temperature catalytic reforming of ethanol:
            http://www.aidic.it/acos/09/09/011.pdf

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Engineer,

            I just looked up some of the original patents issued to Randy Cortright of Virent in Madison WI. They used an aqueous reforming method that could run at substantially lower temperatures to produce hydrogen. I frankly do not understand the chemistry, but their patent here discussed several possible approaches down to 100C:

            https://www.google.com/patents/WO2003045841A1?cl=en

            A still unanswered question is where the feedstock come from to embody the energy given H2 production. Cortright used sugars as feedstock.

      • Engineer48

        images

        • Engineer48

          Better small image resampled. This is also a Linde SMR plant which may fit the JMP plant image better.

      • Engineer48

        Hi GiveADogABone,

        Interesting statement

        “We are a UK-based development and process engineering company, operating as part of Johnson Matthey’s Process Technologies Division.”
        .

        • GiveADogABone

          Yes. JM bought Davy in 2006.

    • Axil Axil

      The customer must be able to take as much heat in the form of steam as he needs and is not forced to take more than he requires. This is how boilers work. The E-Cat must function in the same way,

      • Engineer48

        Hi Axil,

        With a SMR reactor as a load, it runs 24/7 at the same thermal load.
        .

        • Axil Axil

          But what does the reactor do if the customer need a highly varying heat load?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            I expect the SSM periods will be much shorter and the COP lower as the thermal load volatility increases.
            .

          • GiveADogABone

            The E-cat in the current state of development cannot deal with it. Every load Rossi choses is steady state: desalination, district heating scheme, continuous steady process SMR, etc. Rossi is now trying to engineer the control systems that might make it more flexible and provide push button stop/start.

          • Axil Axil

            What you describe is not a sellable product. Rossi says that this E-Cat is for sale. Please explain.

          • GiveADogABone

            The 1MW test plant is clearly not a fully developed commercial plant but that does not stop it being useful. That is why Rossi had to be inside it eighteen hours a day.

            With that experience Rossi now has to produce the next iteration of the design and he needs what he calls ‘pioneer customers’. I interpret that as customers with the engineering knowledge to handle problems sensibly and not just get on the phone and say ‘useless’. It seems to me at this stage that it is just a question of adding on the necessary control gear.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            Have been told the next round of 1MW ECat plant installs are being planned and will be done by Leonardo in the US and by HydroFusion in Sweden.

            Have asked for my team and myself to be involved in those installs.

            I suspect the existing plant is more stable than you give it credit for and I don’t believe Rossi had his hand on the throttle all the time. From what I understand he needed to be there to observe and to fix any issue that occurred such that it can be designed out in the next generation of plant, plus maybe to stop any sabotage by parties that may have an interest in the plant not performing as expected.
            .

          • GiveADogABone

            The E-cat ran steady state for one year at 1MW except when a slab came off line and the power dropped to 750kw. There is no issue about steady state. The problem is the load imposed transients and the lack of an overarching control system.

          • Engineer48

            Hi GiveADogABone,

            My info says the ECat control system is more than capable of running the plant 24/7 without human intervention.

            I suggest Rossi used the opportunity to see how far he could push SSM and the COP beyond the stated COP 6 minimum, to be there 1st hand when anything went POP in the dark and to be there to stop “Strange” things from occurring that might shut down the plant.
            .

          • GiveADogABone

            Where were the load imposed transients that tested this control system?
            Any data?
            There is no issue about steady state.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            As I have stated elsewhere, Bloom Energy states that their “Bloombox” produces 250KW of electrical output with about 500kW of evolved heat, for an approximate efficeincy of 50% (Electrical out to heat in). Natural gas (or other methane sources) are used to provide the reforming heat and methane stream used in their SolidOx fuel cells. If Rossi is substituting the heat with E-Cat derived heat, then the process would be even more efficient. I do not know what the H2 to electricity conversion efficiency is, but other fuel cells are in the 90+ % efficiency range. One can therefore assume, if done correctly, the energy out in H2 is at least as efficient (50% or better).

            Here is the spec on their product:

            http://www.bloomenergy.com/fuel-cell/es5-data-sheet/

          • Gerard McEk

            What the real efficiency is depends on the use of natural gas. Maybe we should ask AR if electricity was produced by the customer. As you may have read I have suggested this also, but this seems a more efficient way.

          • artefact

            On JONP:

            “Frank Acland August 16, 2016 at 9:00 AM
            Dear Andrea,
            Is there any truth to the suspicion of some observers that the customer’s plant was used for the production of hydrogen?
            Many thanks, Frank Acland

            Andrea Rossi August 16, 2016 at 10:27 AM
            Frank Acland:
            I repeat that I cannot give information, obviously either in positive ir in negative, about issues to be discussed in Court.
            Warm Regards
            A.R.”

          • Ged

            No excitement, I was just being agreeable to your request and showing it was no bother helping you find what was in this thread.

            But it shows that 120k CFM is not necessary at all, which was what the discussion had been about earlier (the two large 67″ diagonal fan hardpoints could handle upwards of 160k CFM with 75k CFM vent fans, such as http://www.industrialfansdirect.com/IND-FA-R-M/LFI-RTA60T32000M.html , but 20k CFM is trivial in comparison and even smaller fans like this handle that http://www.industrialfansdirect.com/IND-FA-R-TXB/SP-TXB48RHULXH3S.html ). People have tried to say it would not be possible, but that is demonstrably false. That was the main point; and you seem still stuck on it as you show in your reply to LENR G below.

            To repeat, the discussion was about what was -physically possible-, not what was actually done as we don’t have sufficient evidence about what was or was not done as of yet.

            Anyways, a more easier to understand metric is that it would be 16.3 miles per hour of wind speed for 23K CFM in those large vents (or 12.1 mph for the 17k CFM). Not that fast at all.

            Also, I don’t think 100 C air would make a big plume for an IR camera. Take a look what happens to the heat signature of a smoke flare going off after it leaves the actual combustion zone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxB0KdARKAg . It quickly disappears from the camera’s contrast (pretty much immediately). We also have seen no IR imaging or proof of it at all, so we can make no assumptions in any direction about if it was done or what it saw. So, we cannot take that as assumed done, as nothing of such is presented in IH’s defense as far as I have seen.

            In summary, the discussion has been about -what is possible-. Getting rid of 1 MW of heat constantly is not only possible with the space and fan hardpoints we see, but trivially easy.

          • Ged

            Mr. air cooled heat exchanger using 23k CFM to vent all that heat says hi. http://www.windsor.co.nz/brochures/0806%20Air%20Cooled%20Heat%20Exchanger%20Capability.pdf

            The warehouse is coolable for all 24 MWh of heat energy per day even with just the two main fan hard points and pulling from outside air. But use a heat exchanger and you barely need anything to push it all away. So, it is completely possible no matter how you try to slice it. Doesn’t mean it was done, but it sure as heck could have been with just air, let alone anything else helping.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            Note the connecting pipe from the ECat reactor to the JMP plant are not yet installed.
            .

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I suspect the customer wanted to make hydrogen and also assess the lifetime of the catalyst. Electricity production was not necessary for the test. An interesting question is whether natural gas was piped into the facility.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            High load volatility may stop the ECat from being delivered to some customers but there are heaps that will happily use the steady heat that the existing plant can deliver.

            In my city, my team took 3 days to locate and quality 2 potential clients for which the existing plant would work fine.
            .

          • wpj

            As I have said before, if they can replace the steam by Dowex and control at 180C, this would feed into many chemical plant operations that function 24/7.

          • Omega Z

            As long as steam demand doesn’t exceed the E-cat capacity, there’s no problem. You can just dump the excess heat. This would effect the economics, but if the energy is cheap enough, it’s still beneficial.

            Rossi’s Quark is aimed at addressing these short comings further down the road. Start/Stop in minutes or seconds with adjustable output in 100 watt increments. It is these specific new qualities that will actually make E-cats user friendly for private residence.

          • GiveADogABone

            Fair comment.

    • wpj

      Where does the hydrogen go? Additionally, I did not think that there was a gas supply there.

      • GiveADogABone

        No gas would be fatal. Needs help from locals in Miami, Dade.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Wpj,

        As it is a test site, maybe up the shiny pipe to the roof and then out the shiny new vent to atmosphere with the rest of the waste exhaust?

        • wpj

          I certainly would no like to work there; slightest spark and whoosh!

          Besides, wouldn’t your people be buying these things up if it could operate at the 700-1000C required for reforming?

          • Ged

            I guess as long as the hydrogen was below its lower explosive limit of 4%, or above the upper explosive limit of 75%, it would be ok and safe. Be worried about keeping it out of that range though.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            If the shiny pipe was used to remove hydrogen, it could first be purged of oxygen on startup (CO2 or Nitrogen?). Once purged, the H2+CO waste gas could fill it at concentrations above the explosion limit.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Not so. If you had a continuous generation process that could be shut down, hydrogen evolved would not reach dangerous levels that would constitute an explosion risk. If it is continuously combusted and the hot combustion gasses went up the shiny pipe, you could easily eject the energy. High combustion temperatures for 2*H2 + O2 generates hot H2O, AKA “Steam”.

            While at a local technical college, I prepared to install a 3KW hydrogen fuel cell used as a backup generator for a radio transmission site. The problem I had with inside storage was not the fuel cell, but rather the hydrogen storage. In the end we decided to place it outside where any hydrogen leaks immediately dissipate. If you can limit the evolved hydrogen, and have in place hydrogen sensors, it is feasible to have a fuel cell, or a hydrogen generator.

            There are a number of small-scale hydrogen generators that are used to recharge hydrogen on fuel-cell driven fork lifts. These fork lifts are used in areas such as drug manufacturing warehouses where propane or LNG is not tolerated and standard battery power is to cumbersome for recharge.

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.miamidade.gov/water/library/fees/rate-schedule-2015-16.pdf

    It looks like to me, the water billing for non residential customers in dade county is based on the size of the meter, not how much water is used in excess of the maximum rate per month gallage. For example, for a 3 inch meter, the cost is under $100 per month no matter how much water that is used.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Secondary/customer side of the heat exchanger, which would produce the SMR reactor’s steam, is driven by pressurised city water?
    .

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    http://www.linde-engineering.com/en/process_plants/furnaces_fired_heaters_incinerators_and_t-thermal/steam_reformer_furnaces/index/hydroprime.html

    http://www.linde-engineering.com/internet.global.lindeengineering.global/en/images/HydroPrime%20Cut%20Sheet%20January%20201519_160823.pdf

    Then JM Davy have their own unit:
    http://davyprotech.com/what-we-do/licensed-processes-and-core-technologies/core-technologies/reforming/specification/

    There appears to be a new and growing market segment for container sized compact SMR plants. Just maybe JMP was testing a new unit and that is why JMP did not want anybody in their area as a new compact SMR would be highly NDA, “Your Eyes Only” stuff.
    .

    • Ged

      I think that is wrong.

      If we use the earlier paper that Thomas linked, it said the lower limit for the energy use in the reaction by a typical SMR plant is 12288 to 13777 kJ/Nm3. So, at the lowest end, we get 7,031.25 cubic meters of hydrogen per day for 24 MWh.

      http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/industries/en-analysis-of-thermal-efficiency-limit-of-steam-methane-reforming-process.pdf

      “It is reported that the specific energy consumption for a typical
      commercial SMR process ranges from 12288 to 13777 kJ/Nm3
      on the low heating value basis.1 This translates approximately
      into 13628 to 15204 kJ/Nm3 on the high heating value basis.
      Therefore, the efficiency of a typical commercial SMR process
      ranges approximately from 80 to 90% on the high heat value
      basis.”

      • US_Citizen71

        As I replied above:

        “What if you burn the hydrogen produced in order to produce the heat needed to reach the 700C – 1100C needed for the production of the hydrogen? This would reduce the CH4 needed for heating and change the hydrogen produced back to water making it safe.”

        • Ged

          Well, on the surface, if all the hydrogen was burned, it would basically return the system to square one, as if no hydrogen was made. But combusting hydrogen is -286 kJ/mol, while making hydrogen by SMR is +206 kJ/mol, so there would be some additional heat added.

          The only advantage I currently could see for doing that would be to concentrate the heat… but how would one make hydrogen to burn for rising the temperature to the 700 C – 1000 C needed for making the hydrogen in the first place? Seems like a paradox?

          I think, most likely, if hydrogen was actually being made and the customer actually does have super secret IP, that IP would be for allowing efficient hydrogen production at 100 C. Or the steam was compressed to rise the temperature by city water or what not as another poster pointed out.

          • US_Citizen71

            Yes it does seem a bit perpetual doesn’t it.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            My guess is that if H2 is produced, it is done with some secret IP. That goes along with the “No one on the customer’s side” edict. If you look at the SMR process, it is the equilibrium concentration of H2 that is optimized at 700C. What if the H2 produced was absorbed in some metal sponge catalyst? Perhaps a packed bed could absorb the H2, allowing continuous product of H2 at a low level. After reaching some loading, the bed was cycled to something that depleted the H2 in a manner similar to a pressure swing absorption process. There are H2 generators that use PSA to concentrate the hydrogen and eliminate impurities that would foul a fuel cell.

          • GiveADogABone

            What you need is to see an computer simulation with a set of relevant data. the Colorado School of Mines have one on the web.

        • GiveADogABone

          You produce a steam plume, if you are not careful.

  • If you read through this entire thread you will find the answer to that question.

    In summary, a viable customer process and the exact channels via which heat would be transferred out of the facility have been identified.

    This is not to say that the customer and its process are proven.

    However the contention that there is no possible way there could be a real customer doing real things and not get baked alive have been demonstrated to be false.

    • psi2u2

      Very good summary.

  • We already went over that, Bruce__H.

    • Bruce__H

      I found your interpretation strained. My point of view is that when Rossi says the heat was not vented away from the customer he means that the heat was not vented away from the customer. This backed up by Rossis’s further information that heat was used by the customer in an endothermic process and that wter was used for cooling.

      • Ged

        I hope the irony isn’t lost as to how adamantly you hang on to “Rossi says…” but only in this one case. And additionally take it to mean unfailable the maximum interpretation, because it aligns with a favored narrative. Something we must all guard against.

  • Ged

    Of course! This thread has gotten deep and the posts on it are rather burried.

    Post with link to one such exchanger product that handles and cools nearly 2 MW of steam with ~34k CFM air at nominal specs http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/14/rossi-customers-manufacturing-process-was-endothermic/#comment-2838802786

    And then additional math just looking at the case in general http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/14/rossi-customers-manufacturing-process-was-endothermic/#comment-2839207247

    • Engineer48

      Interesting images of 7861.

      Sorry IH but even though your interior photo failed to show the roof vent over the JMP plant area it is there. As it the new shiny pipe and roof vent. Even have a photo of 2 guys talking.

      So why did IH show a shot of the back roof vent but not of the front roof vent over the JMP production area?

      BTW I suggest the 2 large fans hanging from the roof at the rear of the reactor contain ensure an air flow from the door end of the warehouse to the roof vent fan on top of the JMP production area. You see this way of the reactor has to vent some invisible and superheated steam, it will be forced to flow toward the JMP roof fan and be exhausted.

      • I also believe this could be the case.

        • sam

          From Ego Out blog
          A mini-interview with Andrea Rossi

          EGO OUT is dedicated to Problem Soling, can you please tell us what
          basic principles new ideas in technological development have you learned, and can teach us- during your E-Cat years?

          I got an enormous experience related to the behavior of the materials of every component, an experience that gave to Leonardo strong advantage upon the competition.
          To teach is problematic respective to the IP and I must remind the IP is fundamental to allow the investments necessary to make massive our production. Nobody invests seriously in some thing he has not the ownership of.

          • sam

            Mats
            Do you know who Magnus is.
            Andrea Rossi
            August 16, 2016 at 4:16 PM
            Magnus:
            I am studying this paper.
            Thank you to bring it to the attention of our Readers and me.
            See you soon in Stockolm,
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • artefact

            Maybe Magnus Olofsson, CEO Elforsk Swedish Electrical Utilities’ R & D Company
            Maybe not.

          • Frank Acland

            I think possibly Magnus Holm of Hydro Fusion

      • Ged

        Mr. air cooled heat exchanger using 23k CFM to vent all that heat says hi. http://www.windsor.co.nz/brochures/0806%20Air%20Cooled%20Heat%20Exchanger%20Capability.pdf

        The warehouse is coolable for all 24 MWh of heat energy per day even with just the two main fan hard points and pulling from outside air. But use a heat exchanger and you barely need anything to push it all away. So, it is completely possible no matter how you try to slice it. Doesn’t mean it was done, but it sure as heck could have been with just air, let alone anything else helping.

        • psi2u2

          Hahaha. Can that settle the issue? This entire line of argument that Rossi would have overheated the building appears to me (not being that technically inclined but willing to listen to any perspective on it) completely dead in the water. If that is true, it tends to support the idea that IH and Jed and etc. are slinging desperately flawed arguments for want of anything more substantial. There just seems to be way to many variables that could account, singly or in conjunction, for the consumption and/or dissipation of the alleged excess heat.

          • GiveADogABone

            Clearly, some ECWers are not happy with venting Hydrogen from a SMR plant, so why not put the syngas into a Fischer-Tropsch converter? I think the SMR plant is right but not the whole story; forget the water shift gas reaction and substitute FT.

            http://davyprotech.com/what-we-do/licensed-processes-and-core-technologies/core-technologies/gtl-fischer-tropsch/specification/
            Fischer Tropsch (FT)
            In the Fischer Tropsch process, carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) gases react to produce a range of mainly paraffinic (alkane) hydrocarbons. The generalised reaction for this process is as follows:

            Carbon Monoxide+Hydrogen==>>Paraffin+nH2O
            nCO+(2n+1)H2 ==>> H-(nCH2)-H + nH2O

            JM Davy have collaborated with BP to produce our proprietary fixed-bed Fischer Tropsch (FT) technology – a simple and robust system which forms the heart of our gas-to-liquids (GTL) process.

            Unlike slurry reactors, the JM Davy/BP fixed-bed FT reactor has no moving parts and requires no continuous catalyst addition or separation. Instead, the proprietary BP catalyst runs at constant conditions and delivers a high-purity product that is easy to upgrade.

            The exit stream from the FT converter comprises:
            Heavy paraffin products (liquid)
            Light paraffin products (gas)
            Reaction water vapour
            Unreacted syngas
            Minor impurities
            This stream is recycled back to the FT converter giving an overall conversion of 95%.

        • My2c

          Are we talking about the roof vents, which Engineer48 shows on those photos, ore are we talking about what could theoretically be done ?
          Of course, there are ways to get rid of 1MW waste heat. The normal way would be using a cooling tower (as I have linked a picture in a previous thread). – But apparently there wasn’t anyone there, same as for the air cooled heat exchanger which you have linked.

          • Ged

            The customer area has what looks like the same general dimensions and shape as an air cooled heat exchanger, even with the same vent base rising out of it. It would easily use the roof vent.

            So, it could very well have been there, no need for a cooling tower or anything else. We don’t know for certain it was there, but there is no evidence against it or proof for it, just that it could have been based on the visual evidence we see.

  • wpj

    The Italian work (roughly in English) is “manuality”.

    You can have as much written down on paper as you want, but you really need people to hand hold you for several runs. I experienced this when I had to keep going back to Spain with a pharma product which they were trying to manufacture to tell them why it was going wrong. With a little thought, they could have diagnosed it themselves.

  • Engineer48

    Hi EEStor,

    NO. Rossi needs to finish his work on the latest generation ECat reactors 1st.

  • Engineer48

    Hi EEStor,

    From what I have seen of the new generation of compact SMR plants, they are designed to be container size. I mean they are designed to make H inside a customer’s plant so they had better fit through a standard container sized rolladoor.

  • Ged

    Or people acknowledge the ambiguity and await clarification ;).

  • sam

    Was the replication supposed to be a one time event to give proof
    to I.H. that the technology worked.

  • Ged

    ” No corresponding heat signature.”

    Where is your evidence and proof for that? If you have it, please post it, as it will be interesting to see.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    Simple to walk 1/2 way down the corridor to the toilet , turn 90 deg right and take a photo of the roof fan vent above the JMP production area so the underside of that fan vent is clearly visible as it is on the roof.

    The from the same spot to take a better image of the 6 to 8 inch diameter shiny metal vent pipe that had clearly just been installed and the just installed shiny metal roof vent.

    But for some reason those 2 very visible and obvious ways to remove waste heat from the JMP production process were ignored in the IH photographic evidence.

    Wonder why?
    .
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89c9fa3d48dbb4f68da09919f142c9288111aa3bfcd407ba6020c0c5cfc6a80e.jpg
    .
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2a1178b36a784b3939f2cd8548eedbfe29fbc68a7b8b7b6624d70840a69bf960.png
    . https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ee52e32b89f9350daeae216ffc3969428741bf6a403d3fc7bfd12bcd79900061.jpg
    .
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/044ae09ad64fb4a78955d1a16d4675c58a8fb3285aa337b74c0b7b2833a92340.jpg

  • Engineer48

    Would seem Leonardo and Rossi have added another law firm to their legal eagle team:

    http://pbyalaw.com/

    • Axil Axil

      Since IH is now taking Rossi to court, Rossi may need more lawyers to cover the new legal action.

  • Alain Samoun

    My own calculation based on 70KJ/mole of H2 gives
    1500000 liters of hydrogen per hour!

  • Ged

    Awesome work, Bruce. Thank you for sharing this data and numbers.

  • psi2u2

    It sounds like a very reasonable summary to me.

  • US_Citizen71

    I still think my original idea of a laundry holds merit. They simply could continuously wash and dry the same laundry as a test no need for delivery trucks. Heating the water for a hot wash and drying would use a considerable amount of energy and would dispose of some of the heat down the drain and the rest could be vented through the famous silver pipe.

    • Alain Samoun

      1kW-H = 3600kJ
      1MW-H= 3,600 000kJ
      So to use it all for the laundry you will need at least 4,800lb load to wash and 4,800 gallons of water per hour…

  • Alain Samoun

    This discussion about methane reforming was, at least for me, interesting. It made me realize that 1 MW of heat is really a lot of heat,especially for people who are not use to industrial applications. What I wonder is if Rossi has not been too optimistic to do that test at this point. A reactor 10 times or even 100 times less powerful should have been a lot easier to handle. Results would have been probably as spectacular – He could have for example produced electricity to light the all building and some. IH people could have had their hands to the power switch from the grid and see the result. Anyway maybe some learning lesson for future tests. The first car did not run at 150 MPH and the first plane did not cross the atlantic ocean…

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Alain,

      It is also interesting to find some method of using the 1MW that could possibly exist in the confined space. The H2 production is one. It also begs the question of where the feedstock came from. If the embodied energy could be converted back to electricity and pumped into the grid perhaps it is feasible. I like the idea of generating hydrogen and then getting rid of it. Still, what is the feedstock and how does it get into the facility?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Thomas,

        According to this:
        http://www.miamidade.gov/propertysearch/#/?folio=3530220260420
        the whole area is rated Heavy Mfg.

        We do know this unit had an electricity feed of 300kW so it should be safe to assume it also had a significant water, gas & drainage connection.

        That is after all what a Heavy Mfg Industrial Park is all about.
        .

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Hi, Engineer.

          I looked up pressure drops vs flow and I think all that is needed for the natural gas feed is a 2″ pipe. That seems doable if it is an industrial area.

    • Ged

      From the perspective of what your body can handle, 1 MW is a lot of heat power. But from the perspective of the cooling power available to that space? No, 1 MW is not a lot of heat. You could run 10 MW there (~100k CFM); though most of the floor space would be gone between the 5 2 MW exchangers, the plant, and the control container. And in the perspective of those Linde plants making 2.4 million cubic meters of H2 per day, it is just a drop in a bucket.

      I guess I just feel a bit incredulous given all the math that has been done to put this in perspective for you and everyone.

      A single 48″ diagonal roof vent fan could cool double what is needed here (>40k CFM), but the place here has two 67″ diagonal hardpoints, one medium hardpoint on the office side, and what looks like two or three small hardpoints (not counting the bathroom’s) for cooling.

      1 MW could be dissipated with 17k-23k CFM by air cooled exchanger. If the hydrogen hypothesis is right, then 1 MW could be cooled by 17k CFM of flow safely venting hydrogen under it’s 4% air content limit. If part of the heat was taken by hydrogen reformation, and part of the heat was by air cooled exchanger, then you would still need about 17k CFM air flow but with proportionally less hydrogen. Use city water to cool some of this and now you need less total CFM for your budget.

      So, no… According to the perspective of the math, 1 MW is not a lot of heat for this place or industrial scale in general.

      And we know Rossi has always been aiming for a 1 MW plant for years, so he could target industrial customers, as they are the most likely to give him a try and benefit. If he did less, you would be complaining that it would not be enough for industry and by no means show he could scale to 1 MW, wouldn’t you? And if you were testing your production product, then would you not test the scale you wish to sell at? I dunno, just feels like a sort of cognitive disconnect, but I certainly understand the perspective you are coming from. Afterall, this was ostensibly more a test of a product, than a test of a technology.

      • Bruce__H

        What is a hardpoint?

        • Ged

          A place you can mount something, aka a vent slot in this case. It’s more a military term, but it also insinuates flexibility. For instance, a fighter jet’s wing hardpoint could mount a missile, or it could mount a fuel tank for range extension, so it is neither a missile point or a fuel tank point, and instead is a hardpoint. I use it that way to not presume a fan is in any of the slots, just that there is such a spot available.

  • GiveADogABone

    Yes but the logs I have seen only show 1MW or 750kw. The 750kw is one slab under repair, as the obligation on Rossi was to use his ‘best efforts’ to get it back on line.

    It is a no on a fifth slab. It was 4x256kw but I think inside those 256kW there were spare 20kW units. The last ditch backup was the 50x20kw container but Rossi never used it except for the first four days as a trial run.

  • There is an easy analysis to see if 1MW was produced but as Rossi claims, was absorved by a process so that no hundreds of kW of waste heat have toasted workers.

    I see few possibilities of heat absorption.
    remember that heat produced is just above 100C, so Carnot efficiency with room temperature of 20-30C (tropical climate not even considerdd) is not high.

    First way is good old cooling by a fluid, or gas, or powder. it depend on heat mass (dunno US translation), which led to huge consumption of fluid, which was not noticed

    a variant, more efficient, is phase change. wit Ice , one of the highest enthalpy around room temperature, you need a dozen of monster trucks every day, which were note noticed, and a huge storage surface if you wait one day.

    finally what Rossi claim is endothermic process, which even if chemical, can be considered as a conversion from heat to mechanical energy (creating bonds).
    It respects Carnot cycle and thus, as we observe for cooking, there is a huge waste heat, that would also cook meat inside the small (I was surprised how small it was) room where the client is supposed to be.

    note that you have to find a solution that match all Rossi’s claims, endothermic process, platinum sponges…

    good luck.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Alain,

      SMR fits the bill and there are 3 ways to get rid of any excess waste heat from that or any other process.

      So YES the elimination of the waste heat from any process JMP may have engaged is very doable.

      It breaks down like this:

      Some of the heat as endothermic input to the process.

      Some of the waste heat from the process and maybe some of the production products exits up the newly installed 6 to 8 inch diameter shiny metal duct work and the newly installed shiny metal roof vent.

      Some of the waste heat from the process exits via the roof fan vent located above the JMP production area.

      As water was used by JMP, that heated water may dispose of some of the waste heat from the production process down the drain.

      Which breaks the heat down into 4 sections to either be used in the process as endothermic input or released as post production waste heat and disposed of via 3 methods. Which means no one method needs to dispose of 1MW.

      Platinum catalysts are being trialed in SMR processes and JM Davy is doing just this research work.

      As for the small room comment, heat rises and thus has all the warehouse volume of air to buffer the increase in air temp. It could have been a bit warm just under the roof level but at the ground level it was not hot.
      .

    • Bruce__H

      The Carnot efficiency for a process with inlet temperature of 103 degrees C (376 degrees K) and outlet temperature of 60 degrees C (333 degrees K) is [376-333] / 376 = 0.114.

      So are you saying that any endothermic process captures at the most only about 11% of the input energy?

      • Ged

        Is Carnot just for reversible processes doing work, such as gas expansion and contraction driving pistons (from whence it was derived)? I am honestly unsure, though it would be really useful to know if it applies to chemical processes like the hypothezised SMR.

        • Engineer48
        • Zeddicus23

          Ged,
          Yes. The Carnot efficiency limit is just for heat engines, e.g. converting heat to mechanical work. It is the maximum efficiency (e.g. fraction of heat from the high-temperature reservoir) that you can convert to work. If you could violate this limit, then you could transfer heat from cold to hot without any net work. An endothermic process, e.g. the melting of ice by air at room temperature, can be 100% efficient, all of the heat of melting of ice is taken from the air.

          • Ged

            Thank you, Zeddicus, I appreciate it. I was caught off guard, but your insights and some quick reading helped being me back up to speed.

            Nevermind that “mechanical work” is defined as only when the point a force is applied to displaces in the direction of that force. Not chemical, not electrical, not heat transfer, etc. Hence fuel cells, which directly turn chemical into electrical, are more efficient than the Carnot limit. Same for electric motors.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        How about 68% total system efficiency?
        .

    • Ged

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/14/rossi-customers-manufacturing-process-was-endothermic/#comment-2843983172

      From my understanding of the SMR hypothesis put forward, SMR uses catalytic metal “sponges” of nickel or platinum or cobalt alloy, or ceramics. So I guess that fits your bill.

      Also, the Carnot cycle applies to a reversable heat engine involving isothermal expansion of a gas and abiabatic process. http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Thermodynamics/Thermodynamic_Cycles/Carnot_Cycle I think you are possibly misapplying it.

      • carnot cycle applies to any process that transform heat into mechanical energy (ie also charge displacement, magnetic storage, chemical bonds, kinetic energy).
        that is the problem.

        • Ged

          Yeah, it applies to heat engines exactly as I said. The problem is the mechanical energy part–where in the blue blazes are you seeing any arguments for mechanical work being done as the principle use of the energy? -No one- has claimed that, as far as I have seen. Doesn’t this mean you are creating a false dilemma from no where to construct a scenario you falsely think you can assail? I cannot respect that.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Alain,

          Check out the attached.

          68% total system efficiency.

          • Ged

            If all things were bound by the Carnot, we and all life would all cease to exist. Our bodies are amazingly efficient with chemical energy, upwards of over 700 miles per gallon equivilent for a person who is biking. Endotherms don’t even make enough waste heat to drive their own processes, and we exotherms specifically create heat through intentional inefficiencies by Uncoupling Proteins in our mitochondria.

            Carnot is an efficiency limit only for mechanical heat engines. Many other thermal dynamic processes are close to 100% efficient (always a bit of entropy in there keeping 100% impossible).

          • Zeddicus23

            Yes.

          • muscles convert chemical potential energy (ATP), not heat into move, with 25% efficiency about. not bad.

            I don’t know any Carnot Cycle kind of biological process… there are some probably…

          • Ged

            I don’t know of any either, actually. Biology generally doesn’t flow down a heat gradient to extract work (Carnot), but uses chemical or electrochemical gradients. Even photo-electrochemical (photosynthesis).

          • it seems chemistry efficiency.
            anyway 68% (which temp) let 32% out, here 320kW

            any production of coherent reversible work (chemistry, mechanic, electric) requires waste of incoherent energy as heat, or it would reduce total entropy, and thus create a perpetuum mobile.

            anyway you can use phase change and fluid heating to absorb that heat totally.

            it just consumes space, few 45T trucks every day.

          • Ged

            Entropy waste disorder is not the same as the Carnot Cycle and associated theorem (it is a subset). Fuel cells and electric motors all perform above the Carnot limit, as that limit is for mechanical work of heat engines and heat engines only. It is a more complex consideration, particularly as steam in SMR is a direct chemical reactant.

          • fuel cell exploit chemical bonds which is coherent energy, not heat.
            electric engine transform coherent energy.

            however thermoelectric generatoir, like thermionic converters, who exploit temperature difference respect carnot.

            maybe all chemist deserted here .

            another point, 2nd law of thermodynamics, Carnot cycle limit, and Heisenberg inequality are the same law (they are proven equivalent).

          • Ged

            Carnot is a subset or corollary to the second law. But it’s basically using a heat gradient to drive work. Thermoelectrics do the same, using a thermal gradient, but sadly don’t get close to Carnot even though they should in theory.

            Endothermic reactions are -not- work done by a thermal gradient. That I think is where you are going wrong? Melting ice, breaking chemical bonds, all are -not- limited in efficiency by Carnot cycle or we would not exist and physics wouldn’t work. There is no hot and cold reservoir, and no difference between the two driving work.

        • Zeddicus23

          No. This is not correct. The Carnot limit on efficiency corresponds to the conversion of HEAT (from a high-temperature reservoir) to WORK, or the conversion of WORK to COOLING or refrigeration (heat transfer from cool to hot reservoir). Also chemical bonds are NOT mechanical energy, they are (negative) potential energy and they do not “store” energy – precisely the opposite. If chemical bonds are formed then energy can be released, e.g. TNT explosion involves formation of strong N2 chemical bonds and release of heat, combustion of gas involves breaking of gas chemical bonds (which initial energy or heat to start and presence of O2 gas) but leads to formation of stronger CO2 chemical bonds and release of excess heat and so is exothermic. Similarly, a process which involves the net breaking of chemical bonds (e.g. Cl_2 + heat -> Cl + Cl) is endothermic since it takes energy to break the bonds. An example which does not involve a chemical reaction is the melting of ice, as ice heats up at 0 C in an atmosphere which is at room temperature, heat is transferred from the surrounding air, the bonds are broken and it is converted to water, while the room (air) temperature is reduced.

  • Ged

    Where are the pipes from the plant to the customer side? The images we have of that area are not set up for operation. But the base vent is positioned in line with the roof vent, so it would not take much extension to allow air flow to carry it all the way out.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Ged,

      Correct.

      Those images were taken BEFORE the ECat pipes to the JMP production area were put in place.

      So these photos were not taken by Murray as he was not employed by IH back then.
      .

  • GiveADogABone

    This is how it looks to me today :-
    Companies are :-
    JM plc – Johnson Matthey, a UK plc [The customer is not Johnson Matthey.]
    JM Davey Ltd – a subsidiary of JM, a UK entity and the customer.
    JM Chemicals INC – a USA subsidiary of JM Davey, a UK entity
    Mr James A Bass, Director of Engineering of JM Davey Ltd

    Process is SMR(Steam Methane Reforming)+FT(Fischer-Tropsch)
    Inputs are methane and steam to SMR
    Steam is supplied by 1MW E-cat
    Methane from the yet undiscovered gas pipe.
    CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2
    Outputs of SMR is syngas.

    Inputs of FT is syngas from SMR
    nCO+(2n+1)H2 ==>> H-(nCH2)-H + nH2O
    Outputs are paraffins and waste products of water and minor impurities

    How many claims by IH does that knock out, if the above statements are true?
    None, some or all?

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Give: What is the output mass flow rate? How much space do they take up?

      • GiveADogABone

        http://davyprotech.com/what-we-do/licensed-processes-and-core-technologies/core-technologies/gtl-fischer-tropsch/specification/
        We know the max steam available to the SMR process at about 36m^3/day. I would think that everything else would have to fit.

        http://www.compactgtl.com/technology/overview/

        • Thomas Kaminski

          So putting n=1 in the relationship, the amount of paraffins is about the same 36m^3 as the input H20 and it also produces 36m^3 of waste water. That is about one shipping container of paraffin a day…

          Is my estimate correct???

          • GiveADogABone

            Doing the easy bit first and looking at CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2 all the Oxygen comes from the steam, so at n=1 it would be 36m^3 of waste water.

            Paraffin wax density seems to be about 900kg/m^3 and paraffin oil 800kg.m^3. There is a coincidence here in that the molecular weights of methane and water are close, so I think you are right with a bias to greater volume for lower density. I agree your estimate on that basis and its an interesting calculation because somebody has to shift this stuff on a daily basis. The slight niggle is that n=1 gives you methane but it won’t shift the result much.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Ohhh. Duh! Start with methane and end up with methane! So how does
            “n” relate to the densest product? My guess is that most are going to still be around the density of paraffin. Not sure, though.

          • GiveADogABone

            n=1 is a fault condition if you get your reaction wrong! You want to get ‘n’ up to much higher numbers and as far as I can make out you always get a spread of ‘n’. The higher ‘n’s become the waxes with long chains of -CH2- repeated. Recite after me methane, ethane, propane, butane….

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Yes, teacher.. methane, ethane, propane, butane….

            My lack of chemistry is clearly apparent..

          • GiveADogABone

            …pentane, hexane…

          • GiveADogABone

            Thomas,
            You may just have won a gold star for your chemistry today! What if you did deliberately mess it up and make n=1? You make methane. What do you do with the methane? Effectively, you shove it back in the gas main.

            That achieves two things :-
            1: It reduces your gas bill no end, and
            2: you do not have a container full of paraffin wax to dispose of every day.

            You have star potential without a doubt. Make it two gold stars 🙂

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Hmmmm.. Sounds like the Energy “Black Hole” equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Methane gets recycled, but suck up a boatload of energy in the process…

          • GiveADogABone

            But it runs the 1MW test with an industrial process load and the production plant owner gets all the data to design a commercial product. Who cares if it round-trips; it’s a test.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I just looked at the FT reaction — highly exothermic, so it is not an energy black hole since SMR is endothermic and FT exothermic.

            Bummer…

          • GiveADogABone

            The fact that you take methane and steam and mess about with it by heating with a catalyst to make CO+H2 and then take the CO+H2 and make methane and steam which you cool should tell you a lot about the energy balances.

            Of course the heat for reforming comes from combustion and the cooling comes from the towns water supply, so there is a net inflow of mains gas and a net outflow of heat down the drains, compared to the incoming towns water.

          • GiveADogABone

            Distribution of ‘n’
            http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2013/cy/c3cy00080j
            Selectivity of the Fischer–Tropsch process: deviations from single alpha product
            distribution explained by gradients in process conditions

    • Slad

      At what rate is syngas produced, given an input of 1MW, at normal efficiencies?

    • Frost*

      I’ve gone off the Johnson Matthey theory a bit as no direct connection can be found as far as i can see.. The James A. Bass guy may be the one behind Reactance Engineering, Inc – but it’s just speculation as usual.

      • GiveADogABone

        Which UK entity would you prefer bearing in mind all the constraints?

        • Frost*

          Dunno, maybe that’s all a big red herring by AR to impress punters. Some of the memo headers had the JM bit removed so it could be claimed that it was a mistake (but leaves the name in the back of your mind). AR could be playing mind games.

          • psi2u2

            Or you could be.

    • Alain Samoun

      Sound more and more complicated Doggy. It was a all industry complex behind this door! 😉

      • GiveADogABone

        Yes. Amazing what you can fit inside a transport container’s overall dimensions. A mini industrial plant.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Alain,

        Rossi did tell me the heat exchanger and JMP production process was complex.
        .

        • Alain Samoun

          I meant “industrial complex”

    • psi2u2

      A lot, if it is correct. I am leaning more and more to the idea that IH got stampeded by orthodox “experts,” called in as independent checkers, who may have really fucked things up for all involved because they substituted their own ignorance about certain concealed processes with presumptions of Rossi’s guilt. That would certainly explain where we are now.

      • GiveADogABone

        I share that view and the timing is right as far as I can see. The likes of Murray have a lot to answer for.

  • I wondered how the physicist who bashed cold fusion could have accepted the theories of Parks and Huizenga, of taubes, assuming a nearly Nobel of chemistry was more incompetent in calorimetry than a MIT or Caltech beginner …

    How they could still say there is no paper, no evidence, no replications, while there is many.

    how they could not see the frauds of MIT, the incompetence of Caltech, …

    how they could not see the general bias in physicist community, the impact of funding bias…

    now I experience understanding, and this is painful.

    • Ged

      Hey now, no need to sound the victim or martyr. You’re fine.

      But of course bringing in mechanical work (a force displacing an object in the direction of that force) is an idea that is going to be challenged based on the evidence we have. Not that it matters as you can dissipate 1 MW of heat with an exchanger with an easy bit of airflow, anyways, and don’t need mechanical work to do it. But so far as we have seen, there is no evidence heat driven mechanical processes were done as a major use of any supposed output. Maybe such evidence will turn up later though?

      • psi2u2

        The trouble I have with this line of reasoning is that it makes Rossi into a liar, and that is not a place I will go to. Rossi has exaggerated, he has been over-optimistic, he has taken strategic claims to ward off competitors, fiercely defended his intellectual integrity and intellectual property, and has even sometimes overwritten the truth when not doing so would have violated his NDAs and created problems of trust with his business partners and strategic allies. These are all the acts of a rational man.

        I still don’t think Rossi’s a liar who would say there was an industrial process when there wasn’t — and that being the the case, I can only conclude that such evidence will most likely eventually come to light. I know some people are intolerant of that position, but its still where I find myself after all these months and years of following the Rossi LENR saga.

        • Ged

          I was very skeptical of the SMR hypothesis when it was first put forward (and am still rather leery). But after doing the math, it turns out to be surprisingly possible (only missing piece for me is the gas hookup)–the size and shape of the equipment we see is apparently correct for the new generation of such plants and/or heat exchangers capable of dealing with all that heat.

          In any case, I am right there with you in that whatever the truth is will come to light; particularly with the other folks now pulled into this. The wrestling lately has just been cutting through all the fact-less claims to get the discussion grounded in reality using math, and I think we’ve come to that point. But as to what actually has happened or not, we simply lack any information to determine; only that nothing about the set up we so far see is impossible for it to have functioned as claimed, as long as it falls within the criteria space we’ve found works (or similar).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            7861 is located inside a Heavy Mfg industrial park.

            For sure there is a suitably rated Electrical, Gas, Water and Drainage service to service that zoning.
            .

        • roseland67

          Psi,

          I have never seen any of Rossi’s
          NDA’s, (have they been published)?
          So I don’t know what he can and can’t say to maintain them.

          • psi2u2

            No, sorry, I have no info on this matter. I am inferring based on his denials of an association with Cherokee and his denials of a Johnson Mathey connection at present. In both cases he may not have technically been lying, but he was not forthcoming and it is also not difficult to see why this might be the case under NDAs.

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      What are you talking about ?

      • it is so hard to admit one screw up, and it is better to imagine complex escape theories that other screw up.

        I screwed up, and I will again. My only pride it to admit it as soon as possible.

        I wish the uncertainty ends quickly. for me it is done.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    On second though (Actually I wasn’t thinking before so this would be my first thought.), I don’t think they would be doing the hydrogen forming activation step at this sight.
    http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-JO765_0814hi_G_20100814162559.jpg
    Perhaps this is not the entire process. Maybe this is just a slurry of the nickel and sodium aluminate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_aluminate reaction products from the exothermic activation step that was shipped to them from another production sight. Perhaps the heat is needed to keep the sodium aluminate in solution so that it can be filtered away from the nickel (They may just be testing out a way to rework off spec batches.)

    • Alan DeAngelis

      ..thought…(I’m a hopeless case).

      • GiveADogABone

        Best keep your Hydrogen in one of these!
        Towns gas is 50% Hydrogen 50% Carbon Monoxide so I guess 100% Hydrogen would be OK.

    • wpj

      As I have said (too many times…….)

      – It would be too dangerous to do the processing of the very fine material there
      – It is most likely they would be making “honeycomb” type (bigger chunks) which requires “multiple boils
      – The release of hydrogen in these “multiple boils” is very slow due to the low surface area and the venting would not be a problem
      – About half of the hydrogen is absorbed by the nickel during the process

      http://www.matthey.com/sustainability/in-action/archive/2012_13_case_studies/reducing_the_use_of_critical_raw_materials

      • Ged

        Your thoughts are great and appreciated, don’t think they go unnoticed :).

        • wpj

          Sorry, didn’t mean it to come over badly, it’s just that things get lost here are Disqus seems to ignore time lines.

  • GiveADogABone

    Lets call it energy, rather than heat. The bulk of it gets embodied in liquid and solid long-chain hydrocarbons. Some waste heat from combustion goes up a flue stack and some goes into towns water cooling.

  • Engineer48

    Lest we forget.

    Here is the video Mats Lewan shot during the 1MW ECat test 28 October 2011.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lOYlFyotXk

    Note the massive noise increase generated by the fans driving the heat dissipators as Mats lifts his camera over the enclosing wall to video the 1/2 MW of heat being turned back into water.

    Now imagine the noise inside 7861 if, as Jed and others have claimed, all that was in the JMP production area was 1MW worth of fan driven heat dissipators.

    No way could the noise from the required fans be masked.

    I suggest that unless visitors to the 1MW ECat reactor reactor had to wear hearing protectors, the idea that all there was inside the JMP production area was fan driven heat dissipators is false.
    .

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Ah, perhaps they were using this to mask it.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho9rZjlsyYY

      • Engineer48

        Hi Alan,

        As Andrea would say: HeHeHe.
        😉
        .

    • SD

      The noise factor is an interesting idea to bring up.

      However H think you are misinterpreting the claim of Jed and co. They are claiming that the plant was not producing 1MW, and that the need to use/dissipate that supposed heat is more evidence to that claim.

      The noise issue is actually helping Jed and co’s argument.

      No noise=> no fan driven heat dissipation => less chance that there was 1MW of heat produced.

      • Engineer48

        Hi SD,

        No matter what the ECat output there would still need to be a fan driven heat dissipator, if we follow Jed’s COP = 1 and fan driven heat dissipator in JMP production area” so “No Noise” is not a correct statement. There would need to be the noise of high speed fans transferring the heat to the air.

        Of course Jed has never backed that COP = 1 claim with any data. Saying the flow meter was half filled or the flow was full of air has basically been shown to be highly unlikely, so the COP = 1 claim from Jed has no basis in revealed data. Then how to fool a flow meter that had a claimed flow of 30kg/hr (COP = 1) and reported a flow of 1,500kg/hr (COP = 50) has never been shown to be possible.

        Which means we can add to the list against COP = 1 and fans in the JMP production area claim to be highly unlikely as there was no reported noise of those fans.
        .

        • SD

          At first that seems like a good point on the COP=1 case still being noisy.

          However, isn’t the COP=1 case corresponding to around 20kW only? Wouldn’t that be easy to deal with without noisy fans?

          (I’m skipping the rest of your post because it’s a whole other side of the story)

          • Engineer48

            Hi SD,

            20kWh/h is still a significant amount of heat to dissipate. As I’m not a thermal engineer and have no coal face experience with 20kW heat dissipators I’ll let other give their opinion.

            What I do know is the flow for COP = 1 would need to be 30kg/hr of water into the 4 x Tiger/slab reactors (7.5kg/hr into each Tiger/slab reactor).

            From photographic evidence it is clear that there were 6 x 18kg/hr pumps on each Tiger for a total of 24 pumps. That same photographic evidence shows the 24 pumps all in Green status and delivering 18kg/hr of flow except for 2 that were set to 50% or 9kg/hr. If the computer controlled pumps were not delivering the programmed flow, Yellow and Red warning lights would be flashing to indicate a flow error. But all we see are Green lights showing the pumps are working OK and delivering the flow they are set to deliver.

            This is then a total flow of 414kg/hr or a COP of 13.8. The rest of the 1,086kg/hr flow needed to deliver a COP = 50 was delivered by a master pump.

            This photo would suggest the claimed COP = 1 is false and that the ECat reactor delivered at least 276kWh/h just from the flow of the topping up pumps.

            Have attached a plant schematic I created from the photographic evidence that shows how the master pump and the individual reactor topping up pumps were arranged and operated. This schematic is not conjecture as it is based on the released photographs.

            If there was no customer, the heat dissipators in the JMP area would need to discharge at least 276kWh/h of heat or around 1/2 of the 500kWh/h that the heat dissipators in the October 2011 1MW ECat reactor test.

            It would be very noisy in the whole warehouse, due to the concrete walls and floor. Yet it was not and the topping up pump lights stayed Green as they delivered 414kg/hr to the reactors.
            .
            .
            .

    • Engineer48

      With the 28 October 2011 1MW ECat reactor demo, no one has been able to show this test result was false.

      For 5 hours the plant produced 1/2 MWh/hr of thermal energy with no electrical input to the reactor heaters, the only energy consumed was for the pumps and control systems. During the SSM mode, the COP was infinite as there was no energy input to the reactors.

      Of course the thermal load in this test was very constant. Additionally Rossi was not at the controls to continually adjust the reactor control system.

      So here we have a clear example that back on October 2011, the ECat reactor control system was able to automatically maintain SSM mode for 5 hours without any human intervention.

      So why it is so surprising that in 2015, a 1MW plant, several generations beyond the Oct 2011 plant was able to run 24/7/350 without human intervention, except for breakdown assistance?
      .

    • Ged

      I am really not sure how noisy 20k CFM or so is if the fan is on the roof, so that most of the sound is blocked by the roof. I would expect the roof to have the normal noise level such roofs have with those fans, but the interior may not be as impacted by sound as much as expected (I can’t hear the roof vents that pull way more air than that were I work, from inside, but can when outside). Either way, if hydrogen is being vented a similar amount of airflow is needed to keep it safe.

    • Obvious

      Look at the water meter. LOL

  • Engineer48

    To further show the COP = 1 claim is not correct, we can see the 24 computer controlled pumps that are set to 18kg/h flow (well 22 are set to max and 2 are set to 50%). That gives a total flow from those 24 pumps of (24 x 18) – 18 = 414kg/hr. Assuming the total flow into the reactors was 1,500kg/hr, that leaves 1,086kg/hr to be provided by the main pump.

    Even if the only pumps operational were the 24 x 18kg/hr pumps, the COP would be 414kg/hr / 30kg/hr (COP 1) = 13.8.

    Who needs a flow meter when we can read the flow volume manually programmed into the 24 x 18kg/hr pumps?

    Would seem the COP = 1 claim is “BUSTED”.
    .

    • Obvious

      The COP is less than 1

  • GiveADogABone

    The ultimate SMR+FT Compact Plant?
    I suggest that the E-cat supplies cooling steam to the FT reaction vessel where its temperature is boosted and then it is mixed with methane before entering the SMR reactor where temperatures are boosted again in the ‘feed preheat zone’.

    It is all laid out in the URLs below :-
    http://davyprotech.com/what-we-do/licensed-processes-and-core-technologies/core-technologies/reforming/specification/

    http://davyprotech.com/what-we-do/licensed-processes-and-core-technologies/core-technologies/gtl-fischer-tropsch/specification/

    http://davyprotech.com/what-we-do/licensed-processes-and-core-technologies/licensed-processes/gas-to-liquids-and-ft-process/specification/

    • Elegant.

      • GiveADogABone

        Now you know where that scruffy, hand sketch came from 🙂

  • Ged

    Since it starts with 60 C water and ends with 102 C steam, your delta T for water is 40 C, and then most of the energy is bringing it above 100 C as steam.

    Adding salt to water causes a very interesting phenomenon. At first, every 29 grams of salt per kg of water increases the boiling point by 0.5 C. However, this stops around 102 C, and seawater boils at 102 C (and the average steam temp of the plant was above 102 C, so even if seawater, it would have been super heated). Once the salt content of water is high enough, the heat capacity of water decreases, so seawater actually boils -faster- than fresh water as it reaches it’s boiling point quicker. Salt also provides nucleation spots for steam to form, so it can make it easier to boil water faster though total energy stays the same.

    Basically, the practical energy to boil water doesn’t change with additives. See here for a good discussion on it http://www.swri.org/10light/water.htm

    So, it’s all just city water anyways. Those pipes and pumps would never stand seawater.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I doubt that the exhaust from a reaction would be vented directly into the room where there are people. I would think that the reactor would have its own exhaust stack to the outdoors (even if it’s just an emergency pressure release valve). That’s why I think it’s just an endothermic washing step that they are testing at this sight.

    http://www.coatingspromag.com/uploads/images/2015/01/DSC03805.JPG

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, I’m sure you’re right but the point is that you wouldn’t be venting the contents of a carbon monoxide, CO producing reaction (I think I’ve seen that proposed here, I could be wrong) into a room with people.

    • GiveADogABone

      It got a mention and was rapidly discarded on the grounds that it is highly toxic but that was for venting up at roof level. Do it in a room and everyone would be dead.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        I was away from my computer for a few days so I have some catching up to do on what people said. I was watching dragonflies on a lake (then I went to a big city and saw flies on my pizza).

  • Ged

    Yeah, I very much understand how you feel.

    I think most of the time everyone is ignoring the energy componant of heating the liquid or its density/viscocity, and just looking at water’s vaporization to avoid having to deal with those questions.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Energy is needed to keep the sodium aluminate (a salt that is created in the activation step of the Raney nickel process) in a concentrated aqueous solution so it can be filtered away from the fine nickel powder.
    http://www.4college.co.uk/a/O/solution.gif

  • GiveADogABone

    The header article for :-
    Industrial Heat Amends Answer to Rossi’s Complaint on Aug 11th (Update #2 — Rossi: “The Heat Was Used, Not Vented Away”)
    quotes IH’s amended answer :-

    ’82. … Murray also recognized that the building in which the Plant was located had no method to
    ventilate
    the heat that would be produced by the Plant were it producing the
    amount of steam claimed by Rossi, Leonardo, and Penon …’
    A bit of a problem here? No, the heat was embodied in hydrocarbon fuels.

    ‘… such that persons would not have been able to work in the building if the Rossi/Leonardo/Penon claims were true. ‘
    Not
    a problem. ALL heat, bar the last few kilowatts was embodied in
    hydrocarbon fuels and the ambient temperature would have been fine.

    ‘This
    conflicted with the claims of individuals who had been in the building
    when the Plant was operating, all of whom claimed the temperature in
    the building was near or not much greater than the outside temperature.’
    The ‘claims of individuals’ were correct, in my view.

    83. ‘… when in fact it was simply recycling steam from the Plant and sending it back to the Plant as water.’
    Doing
    that would require a condenser to turn the steam into water, which is
    actually what happens. The issue is what the heat removed by the
    condenser does and where it goes.

    In my view claims 82 and 83 fail.

    Overall Thermal Analysis of the Production Plant Process in the 1MW test in Doral, Florida :
    Note: All this depends on there being a gas supply.

    Consider
    a transport container that contains the whole production process of
    SMR(Steam Methane Reforming) and FT(Fischer-Tropsch). Another
    container contains an E-cat producing 1MW of steam and receiving a
    condensate return flow.

    Inputs to the SMR+FT container :
    1a: Air for combustion @ 20C
    1b: Methane for combustion @ 20C
    2: Methane for process raw material @ 20C
    3: Towns water for cooling @ 20C
    4: E-cat steam that goes to a heat exchanger @ 100C
    Electricity to run the plant

    Outputs from the SMR+FT container :
    1: Flue Gas from combustion @ 60C
    2: Liquid+solid hydrocarbons @ 60C
    3: Towns water return from cooling @ 60C
    4: E-cat return condensate from heat exchanger @60C
    Heat loss from container surfaces is zero.

    1:
    The combustion of air and methane is clearly inputting to the SMR+FT
    container considerable quantities of heat and the flue gases are cool;
    no different to a domestic central heating boiler. This air flow is
    taken from the ambient air inside the container and maintains the
    ambient air at a reasonable temperature. The air eventually emerges
    from the container via the flue gases, so the container must have a
    grill through which the outside air can enter when the doors are shut.

    2:
    The methane is the raw material for making the liquid+solid
    hydrocarbons that are things like diesel, paraffin, avaiation kerosene
    and solid paraffin wax. They contain a great deal of embodied energy
    that can be released by combustion at a later time and another place.
    These are fuels that are storable and transportable.

    3: With so
    much heat around there is going to be a need for some cooling by air or
    water at 20C. How much cooling? Perhaps 20kw for the water.

    4: The E-cat supplies 1MW of net enthalpy.

    Where did the 1MW of heat from the E-cat (and more from the combustion) go?
    Into the liquid+solid hydrocarbon fuels where it is stored.

    Where did the most of the mass of methane go?
    Into the liquid+solid hydrocarbon fuels where it is stored. Some went up the flue gas pipe as combustion products.

    How much heat was released into the Doral factory?
    About
    20kw via the towns water cooling return and that went into the drains,
    so nothing escapes into the building, except perhaps in a bit of warmth
    in the liquid+solid fuels that are made. Even the heat from the
    lights inside the SMR+FT container goes into the liquid+solid fuels.

    Now
    you know why IH are on a hopeless quest to find a heat signature,
    except perhaps from the flue pipe and that will be as cold as the
    exhaust from my domestic condensing boiler.

    • Brilliant GivADogABone!

      Ironically, Jed Rothwell who insists that ‘a megawatt of heat in that space would have killed everyone, yet people say it was no warmer than any normal building,’ covers exactly this kind of process in his pdf-book ‘Cold Fusion and the Future’ (see below).

      Not only that! In the excerpt below he also describes the process of making oil from organic waste, which Rossi worked with in the 80’s, and which some people still claim was fraud.

      Enjoy:

      – – – –

      ‘I have asked experts: “Could you synthesize oil from raw materials? If I gave you carbon and water, could you make any hydrocarbon petrochemical you like?” They say yes, but it would take fantastic amounts of energy. It would take as much energy to synthesize oil from carbon and water as you get from burning the oil, plus some overhead. This would be the most uneconomical chemical plant on earth. It does not occur to them, at first, that the plant would be cheap to run if energy costs nothing.

      A synthetic oil plant would resemble today’s oil refinery. The only major ongoing costs would be for the wear and tear of the equipment, such as pipes and pumps. The carbon might come from carbon dioxide in the air, or it might come from coal, garbage, or sewage, which cities will pay the plant to take. Oil is already being synthesized from organic waste in Japan and in Pennsylvania, in thermal depolymerization plants. “Personal computers, old tires and even turkey bones and feathers” are converted into oil. The Chief Executive at one such plant explained: “We are supercharging that process and doing in minutes what the earth would naturally do over hundreds of thousands of years.”

      Critics charge that the resulting oil is too expensive, it may not be useful for many applications, and the process itself consumes too much energy. With cold fusion, it will be much cheaper, and it will be widely developed in many different variations until it meets all applications for petrochemicals, from asphalt to lubricating oil. Smaller versions of these plants will be installed at factories that produce plastics. It will be more convenient, cheaper and safer to synthesize petrochemicals where they are needed, rather than pumping them out of the ground and transporting them over great distances.’

      (From Cold Fusion and the Future, Jed Rothwell, Fourth Edition April 2007, Chapter 13, p 108-109).

      • GiveADogABone

        Not finished as yet.

      • GiveADogABone

        ‘It would take as much energy to synthesize oil from carbon and water as you get from burning the oil, plus some overhead. This would be the most uneconomical chemical plant on earth.’
        MISTAKE : Coal is made of Carbon!!

        websearch: CTL coal
        CTL – Coal to Liquids
        http://www.caer.uky.edu/podcast/Gibson-KESummitOct2007r.pdf
        Coal-to-Liquids can provide energy security to countries with large coal and small oil reserves
        Sasol’s Iron low-temperature technology is ideally suited for the production of diesel from Coal (CTL technology)
        Page 33 : gasification of coal and use in CTL

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction
        Coal liquefaction is a process of converting coal into liquid hydrocarbons: liquid fuels and petrochemicals.

        I think this book Jed wrote needs another edition with the mistakes removed.

      • GiveADogABone

        Much better.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Most chemical research centers have their pilot plants some distance away from the other research labs on the sight. Some chemical companies even have their own fire trucks. They’re not a Mom and Pop organization. They wouldn’t put a synthetic fuel pilot plant here.

      • GiveADogABone

        Not even if there was a $billion profit in it?

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Especially if there’s $billion in it.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    It just doesn’t look like a place where you would set up a synthetic fuel production operation (even if it’s just a pilot operation). For safety reasons it would be segregated from other businesses. This looks more like a place for let’s say the batching of cosmetics or the production of fish food pellets.
    http://www.fish-fish-fish.com/ekmps/shops/fishshop/images/Jmc-High-Protein-Fish-Food-300g-19570-p.jpg
    It’s a rather boring endothermic process.
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x33vn65
    This is a rehash of what I said before.
    http://disq.us/p/1787ybu