80 W E-Cat QX Reactors for First Plants

We’ve heard different numbers from Andrea Rossi over the years about the power rating for the E-Cat QX reactors. He has mentioned 20 W and 40 W in the past, but on the Journal of Nuclear Physics yesterday he has confirmed the rating for the reactors to be used in the first plants at 80 W each.

This would mean that to make a 1 MW plant, he would need to combine 12500 individual reactors together. Rossi has said in the past that a single controller can drive 100 reactors. If that holds true for the plants, then a 1 MW plant would need 125 control systems. In addition, Rossi has stated that there will be redundancy built in to allow for uninterrupted operation when E-Cats need to be replaced by fresh ones.

We have heard recently that newer, much larger individual reactors of 10 kW and 100 kW are being tested, but Rossi has emphasized that they are still in the R&D phase, and require extensive testing before they can be considered viable. He wrote this today:

Andrea Rossi
March 9, 2018 at 6:10 AM
Svein Henrik:
You must make a distinction between what I am sure of, what is possible and what I am not sure of. While the 80 W QXs are a reality that works and we are industrializing, the big reactors ( 10 kW and 100 kW ) are prototypes far from being ready for industrialization NOW. Therefore I answered to you on the base of future possibilities, while to Frank Acland based upon the situation related to the year 2018.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So he considers the 80 W QXs a reality that work well enough for industrialization, while other options need further work.

  • gdaigle

    80W is in the range of a 48″ x 20″ solar panel. Is Rossi focusing upon that wattage as a plausible alternative to solar panels?

  • frank

    So, it seems that Andrea Rossi completed without any saying his Sigma 5 tests for this new 80W reactor design, that will be mass-produced in the coming months for sale. What a performance, after completing 10W, 20W QXs, and having now already new reactors with kW power in R&D.

    • Omega Z

      The QX was originally “designed for 100W” operation. The QX reactors at the demo were operated a 1/3rd power of the 60W plus they operated at for the 1 year long Sigma test. With improvements in the controls, he has bumped it up to 80W or 80% of the QX design capacity. Thus the issue is not about the QX sigma, but controlling it not to exceed design capacity of 100W.

      • Dr. Mike

        See my arguments above as to why the new 80W QX device is either a larger device or it is operating at a much higher temperature (>3600K). The QX reactors in the demo were three parallel 20W devices operating at 1/3 power (7-8W each). The only reliability testing that we know Rossi did in his Sigma 5 test was verifying the 20W QX devices could be turned on and off some large number of times over a period of time that approached one year. While the on-off function is one aspect of the QX device that needed to be checked as part of reliability testing, the on-off function represents a small portion of what would be needed to verify the reliability of device before it could be sold commercially. An analogy would be verifying the reliability of an automobile by only checking to see that it could be started many times without failure when in reality there are thousands of other factors that could affect the automobile’s reliability.

  • Dr. Mike

    To increase the QX output power by a factor of 4, the temperature of the reactor must be increased by a factor of the 4th root of 4 (1.41) or the surface area of the reactor must be increased by a factor of 4 (diameter increased by a factor of 2 with the same length?). Either of these changes would require starting over on any reliability testing. It seems doubtful that there would be time to do sufficient reliability testing on 80W QX modules before the end of 2018 even if a large quantity of 80W QX modules (and controllers) was available today. Does Rossi plan on offering a product to the market that has not been fully tested for reliability?
    It seems likely that an 80W QX device will not have the same ON and OFF impedance as the 20W device. This means the controller will have to be re-designed if it is still to be capable of driving 100 of the 80W reactors. While this should be a fairly straight forward task, the new controller may have to deliver higher voltages to turn on the 80W QX reactors and will have to deliver higher drive currents. Higher voltages and higher currents mean there are more potential issues with the reliability of the controller (components within the controller over-heating, for example). It may be quite hard to test the reliability of the controller until it is tested driving modules of 80W QX devices. Perhaps it will be possible to demonstrate a product by the end of 2018, but there doesn’t appear to be sufficient time by the end of 2018 to begin selling a proven reliable product.

    • Rene

      This driving multiple QX tubes in parallel has me questioning the validity of the claim. When any one or more of the tubes strikes an arc their impedance drops significantly, so the likelihood of the other tubes striking an arc drops to near zero. This is the same principle as quench tubes. There will be variations (tiny dimension differences, gas pressure, temperature) in each tube that changes when an arc strikes. Unless the RF stimulation strongly mitigates quench effects, I do not see how one controller can consistently keep all QX tubes ‘lit’ up. Any suggestions how?

      • Dr. Mike

        It seems to me that all of the devices need to turn on within a very short time or operation of 100 devices from a single controller may be difficult. An equally important issue is with these small variations that you have mentioned, will all parallel devices operate at the same or nearly the same output power (and temperature) or will some devices get too hot while others have a low output? We may have to wait to see an operating module to understand how these problems have been overcome.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi’s limits are determined by the input/output lines of the controller which is apparently 100. 100 QX’s can be separately turned off/on with 1 controller regardless of each reactors output in watts. There’s also no reason that controllers with far more input lines can’t be designed for this purpose.

        Consider a single 1 Gigabyte memory stick has 1024,000,000 bytes x 8 bits each that are individually set to on/off at any millisecond. Obviously, a controller for Rossi’s needs would need to be larger in scale to be able to handle the energy used tho with many fewer switches, but the design concept is already a reality.

        These controllers are not an issue beyond design and manufacture. The technology is known. The real issue is how many decades will it take to fulfill a market with many Billion’s of power Units (not individual Qx’s in them) that have to be replaced every year.

        • Rene

          I’d agree with you if there were individual wires going to each QX tube, but I recall he said one line, all QXs in parallel. I’ll try to search the e-cat forum to find that quote. If you find it or otherwise, please post it. Thanks.

          • Dr. Mike

            I agree that the demonstration did not have individual wires going to each device. Rossi said the 3 QX devices were connected in parallel. Perhaps Rossi has 10 outputs from a controller each operating 10 parallel devices, but 100 individual outputs from the controller would create a wiring nightmare. I believe your concerns about operating parallel devices with a controller are quite valid.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi has stated that they can be connected in parallel or series

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I think that the problem of “igniting” multiple tubes at once is an interesting one. My guess is that there are multiple anodes/cathodes but one gas envelope. I also think that Rossi has come up with some means of paralleling the devices that allows them to share current correctly. Maybe the process is similar to the technique used to tie multiple small MOSFETs in parallel to get higher current MOSFETS (see “HEXFET” references). For an individual FET, increased heating causes an increase in channel resistance, dropping the current. This effect regulates thermal runaway that would otherwise cause burnout. Bipolar transistors, on the other hand, decrease collector to emitter resistance when heated, leading to the “hot” transistor getting more and more current, leading to burnout. I think that a very short, high voltage pulse to “ignite” the parallel devices is feasible. Getting the devices to share current correctly, however, might require some “magic”.

        Dr. Mike’s concerns over temperature and/or area required to generate/dissipate the energy is also an interesting question. To me, one of the mysteries is how to pack multiple devices together (density) yet still get the heat out. For semiconductors, getting the heat out of a powerful device is often the limiting factor in power density. Perhaps there is some sort of a heat pipe effect in the materials. Very interesting question.

        • Dr. Mike

          Very good points. Current flow to parallel bipolar transistors can be regulated by adding a small series emitter resistor to each emitter such that if one transistor gets hot and begins to draw more current, the increased current results in a larger voltage drop across the emitter resistor, lowering the voltage to the transistor emitter-base junction. Perhaps Rossi is using a similar technique to make sure that all parallel QX devices operate at close to the same output power? I agree that getting the heat out of closely packed devices is a real issue as my experience with multiple emitter bipolar transistors has shown.

          • Rene

            This, to me, looks like another round of control issues. The original 100W unit had to be derated significantly because of problems, though not disclosed, that suggest nonlinear instabilities. This is the same old design issue Rossi keeps running into. Derating output is a harsh but effective way to reduce the nonlinearities, to bring them into a zone of reliable control, but at a cost of lowered performance and complex scale-up problems.

            The problem of ganging a series of plasma tubes and making their power consumption/generation linear (within some operating limits) is known art. Positive temperature/current coefficient resistive elements on each tube could achieve that. Getting them to ignite reliably in tandem requires some thought in higher voltage pulse trains to get the avalanche to happen at the same time every time.

            But extracting heat and designing for collector ‘plates’ that minimize glass destroying hot spots across the entirety of the power delivery spectrum is quite the challenge.

            I agree with with DrMike that this new higher output device is not a 2018 production candidate. And, creating a high output device using thousands of 20W or 40 or 60W devices present their own reliability challenges that I think makes for a rocky 2018 production delivery. We shall see, what transpires.

    • Omega Z

      The QX was originally intended to be 100W. Rossi then ran them at 60W for a year. They were operated at about 30% during the demo to avoid Murphy’s law: An epigram that is typically stated as: “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong”. With improvements of the controls, Rossi has merely raised the operating range to 80W or 80% of it’s original design.

      • Dr. Mike

        I believe you are correct that the original QX device was to be a larger 100W device, Some type of problem forced Rossi to adopt a smaller 20W version, of which I think 3 parallel devices were run for 1 year at 60W (total output for the 3 parallel devices). In the demonstration Rossi ran 3 parallel nominal 20W devices at about 30% power (a total of just a little more than 20W). Stefan Boltzmann’s law does not permit the 20W reactor to output 80W unless the temperature is increased by the 4th root of 4, meaning the reactor temperature would have to increase from about 2600K to 3680K. Since it is extremely unlikely that Rossi is operating the QX reactor at this high of temperature, he had to increase the size of the reactor to achieve an 80W output. The new reactor could be the size of the original 100W reactor, but the initial problems with the 100W reactor would have had to have been solved. I’ll stay with my assessment that there is insufficient time to evaluate and prove the reliability of the new 80W reactor in 2018.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Boltzmann’s law implies heating by radiation. There might be other thermal pathways that would get the heat out without requiring higher radiation temperatures. Perhaps the devices offer some sort of a quantum heat pipe.

          • Dr. Mike

            Rossi was using Stefan-Boltzmann’s law in the demonstration to calculate theoretical heat output.

        • greggoble

          Perhaps the size/dimensions haven’t changed at all and it’s simply been ‘powered up’ to 80W as AdrianAshfield and others have pondered?

          It’s not a new 80W reactor… that’s how I see it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

          • Dr. Mike

            We will have to get the answer from Rossi. The size can remain the same in going from 20W to 80W if the operating temperature is raised by the 4th root of 4. Do you think Rossi has found a way to operate his reactor at >3600K?

          • Omega Z

            I’m sure you’ve watched the video of the demo. As you can see, it is pretty much hands off wait and see. Computer monitoring and a web cam and all one needs to do is check it periodically. Point being Rossi had an awful lot of free time to do many other things. Making batches of QX’s at a time and testing them in many various ways.

            From Rossi’s statements, he has operated the QX’s at 3000 K for long periods of time. In fact that was one of the “minimum” requirements of the concoction he created for the QX housing for sustained operation. In addition, he has done an untold number of stress tests. This translates to pushing them over and over to self destruct. Beyond these small details, we don’t know how hot he can operate the QX. If you ask, the answer would be “It’s confidential”. As this appears to be a plasma process, the logical limit would be the temperatures the housing can sustain.

          • AdrianAshfield

            This has now been confirmed by Rossi. It appears it was originally designed for 100 W and run at lower power for the demo.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Isn’t a control system scalable via high voltage transistors and such? I would think that a single professionally designed custom controller would be sufficient to drive all the cores, I would find it difficult to believe if someone were to say that there is no statistical control benefit to averaging the variations in output of greater numbers of cores, which would provide refined output stability.

    With that said the circuits would be relatively inexpensive components. I would make the control and power circuits triple redundant with automatic fail over.

  • Jimr

    I’m sure ABB ,whom I believe is designing and building the controllers, has variable controller ( voltage, current, rf generator,etc) that is used to try different configurations ( 20,40, 80, 10k, etc ). They may develope a formula to calculate what is needed for almost any size unit.

    • greggoble

      ABB certainly would benefit from adopting E-Cat energy for their industrial processes. I imagine their energy bills are quite high. Slashing them would give them an edge up on their competitors while proving to be an excellent in-house testing ground; while still inserting E-Cat tech into the global energy market.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Rossi said earlier that the QX test was going to be run at 1/3 power, so the jump to 80 W is not that great.
    Seems to be very good news: I had thought that 20W was a bit small and would lead to complications.

    Earlier I I sad I thought the MW installations would be better from a QX turbine. I still think it would be, but a 10 or 100 kW E-Cat would work too.

    • Omega Z

      The advantage of small besides easier heat transfer is output control. It would be easy to scale your output needs whether that be the1MW design of any percentage less then that. As I’ve posted before, cheap energy isn’t cheap if you need to operate the cat at full power 24/7 when you only need 10% for some periods of time.

      • AdrianAshfield

        As you can start and stop the QX instantaneously, what’s the problem?

        • Omega Z

          Our world works with fluctuating energy needs.

          An aircraft analogy fits this well. While taxiing on the runway you need low power. On take off you need a larger amount of thrust. Once airborne, you need to throttle back. In all 3 phases, the amount of energy needed will vary and will vary between every flight according to passenger and cargo load. There is no on or off. Note this also applies to small transportation such as cars, trucks, etc.

          If we want small localized grids verses todays centralized grid, being able to ramp power up and down would be critical. You wont have the option of just turning off a single generator for load balancing as they do on the centralized grid. This works on the centralized grid because of the 10’s of millions connected to it.

          • AdrianAshfield

            Anything over 80 W is multiples of reactors. Individual reactors could be turned off or on to suit the load.
            Beyond that, the reactor is heating a fluid, so turning one off or on in cycles is the same as adjusting the output gradually.

          • Omega Z

            Yes, that is my point. You can vary the output using small reactors in this manor. Possibly we had a misunderstanding.

    • Dr. Mike

      One might expect additional reliability issues with a higher power device, so the jump to 80W could end up being a big deal until reliability is demonstrated.

      • greggoble

        80W is not much energy,,, What problems do you forsee jumping to this?

        • Dr. Mike

          An 80W device either runs at a higher temperature or is a larger device (unless the 80W device is really 4 parallel connected 20W devices in a mini module). It doesn’t seem likely that Rossi has raised the operating temperature of the QX device. Changing the size of the reactor would change the heat flow dynamics in the reactor and could cause problems such as overheating the electrical connections.

  • Omega Z

    With the exceptions that 1 Megawatt of QX reactors will fit within 1 cubic meter times 2.5 to 3 to obtain 1 megawatt electric and operate 24/7 where as solar is good for an average 6 hours usefulness meaning you need at least 4 times as many panels with 18 hours of battery capacity to be comparable in output. How much space does 4 megawatts of solar panels take up not to mention batteries.

    Also, Electricity from E-cats will be less then 1 cent per kilowatt hour and weather is not an issue.

  • Vinney

    Name someone that has anything even remotely similar and working, Rossi is leaving other researchers at least 10 years behind.
    Other researchers using LENR capable elements have not even reached the COP of his first prototypes (that ran for days, weeks even months).

    • Mylan

      IF his E-Cat really works. Let’s see.

      • Vinney

        I believe Focardi saw a COP in excess of 200 for weeks (Radio interview whose transcript was re-circulated by Dr.Joseph Fine recently).
        I choose to believe all this is happening, otherwise all those physicists would not have been at Stockholm test.
        The weight of ‘in-direct’ evidence is getting overwhelming.
        I am betting we are going to get 1MW plants in the wild before the end of the year.
        Who needs reliability testing of plant that get refueled every 6 to 12 months and cost close to $100,000 per MW.

        • Dr. Mike

          Do you really believe that anyone will install QX devices in the systems they are going to sell without knowing what the reliability is for both the devices and modules? I’m sure there are companies that would be willing to evaluate a prototype system built entirely by Rossi, but I doubt there would be many purchasers of his systems without some guarantee of reliability (and performance, of course).

          • Omega Z

            Rossi has always said 1st adopters would place funds in escrow. No payment would be made unless the customer was satisfied and signed off on it. That’s your guarantee.

          • Dr. Mike

            This would be reasonable for customers wanting to buy a product from Rossi. What about customers that might spend millions of dollars designing Rossi’s modules into their own products? My guess is they won’t spend those design dollars until the QX modules are proven reliable to their needs.

          • Omega Z

            “IF” Rossi gets a heat product on the market by the end of this year or even early next, I don’t expect to see a lot of them produced the 1st year. There’s going to be a learning curve. There will be issues no matter how well planned out. This would be normal for any new product that previously never existed. Because of this, Initially, there will be no products for Corporations that would be interested in incorporating this technology into their products.

            Now, During this learning curve, whether that’s a year or several years, those corporations with interest will have plenty of time to consult with Leonardo and learn the particulars. If they like what they see, then they can start planning for and designing products that integrate with the E-cat devices.

            Contrary to what some think, things will not change overnight. This will be a transition and transitions are notoriously slow. They only appear to have happened fast when in the future we look back.

            My only concern is to see the 1st working product “IN” the market. Everything else will take care of itself.

          • Vinney

            I think you are getting his marketing strategy wrong.
            Why is he fully ‘robotizing’ production from day one for a supply of simply a few thousand units in the first year (by the way, the first orders will come from his competitors, then every major physics lab in the world and every major corporation in the world to analyse its potential to alter their business).
            If it works as claimed, they will see that they can make ‘huge’ amounts of money with the E-cat at current energy rates.
            Many corporations will create new businesses to take advantage of the disruptive potential of the E-cat.
            After the first single order, each major corporation will orders lots of 10’s, in the course of a year, their order will be hundreds.
            How long do you think it would take a company to assess the savings from adopting Ecat based heat, I would say iin as little as one week of operation.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi wont sell to his competitors. Only business customers.
            Rossi will not provide product to Universities and labs. He will employ his own R&D teams. Rossi is already aware of his technologies potential. NOBODY does anything in a week.

            Rossi may build a manufacturing facility with the intent to manufacture a million units a year, but early on, the numbers will be limited for many reasons. But most of all, no one wants to put large number of heat systems in the market until the learning curve is done. A large recall for product with serious problems would be the end of Rossi’s plans. There is also a lot of people who will need trained including employees of the customer. This all takes time. There is no shortcuts.

          • Vinney

            By hook or crook, his competitors have been waiting decades for this and will get their hands on first units.
            Don’t get me wrong, they know more than most (MSM take note) how big this is.
            They are going to get their hands on these units via ‘third’ parties, its just the reality.
            Omega Z look at where MSM is with this story, it’s the cold fusion advocates and researchers that still have the big break at the gates, and they sure ain’t going g to let it slip.
            Stuff Gates, Bezos, Cook and other internet pretenders like Musk, making ‘funny’ money on the internet, we are seeing some of it again with crypt I currencies. (Zuckerberg definitely included in that bunch)

          • Vinney

            If I were in the US, I would be scouring the business insolvency listings around the country for industrial laundries that are liquidating their assets, or are a ‘distressed’ sale under administration.
            It’s the easiest way to adopt a 1MW Ecat in a 24/7 operation heating water for washing linen, uniforms or towels.
            I would look for sites rhat can accommodate an engine ‘steam’ cleaning facility, where customers can bring their cars and an operator steam cleans your engine for a fixed fee.
            To avoid building water treatment facility ‘inground’, you drive up 1.5 m on a ramp so that everything (water collection and treatment) is above ground, and can easily be disassembled to re-use elsewhere. You can also have a second driveway that is customer coin operated.
            Ideally you would have three lanes, the middle lane to roll or drive completed cars off the washing platform to a parking bay.
            An unexpected advantage of this design, is you can easily accommodate gentle gradients for washing bay areas, so walkways are higher and drier.
            You can repeat this model around the country. The laundry runs a heavier duty cycle at night, thus utilizing all the additional amount of heated water available.

          • Vinney

            This is of course until the new version of the E-cat comes out, enabling generating power to sell to the grid (requiring an electrical wholesalers permit/license).

          • Omega Z

            On modern vehicles, there is little of the engine exposed as they pack so much in the engine compartment. Even the underside is mostly enclose to reduce air turbulence.

            For low grade heat, the food industry is huge in nearly every step of the process. In fact, providing for the demand for low grade heat market is a business in itself. No need to scour for customers. They will come to Rossi.

        • Mylan

          I just wonder, if it really works and many have had a high COP, why is there still no product in the market? Why did Defkalion simply disappear?

          • Omega Z

            Defkalion’s device didn’t work as claimed. Keep in mind that they thought they had all Rossi’s secrets but didn’t. Thus they had a non working process that was missing key elements.

            When realizing this, I think they were just drawing things out in hopes of extracting more info once Rossi put something in the market. They wouldn’t be 1st, but a close 2nd to market. Then let they lawsuits ensue.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Regardless of the wattage of the first commercial E-Cats to hit the market, the very fact that they work will trigger a technological tsunami that the world has never seen before.

  • Dr. Mike

    He did say modules in his 3/8/2018 reply to Steven Karels, but he did not say modules in his replies to Frank and Svein in their questions about 80W reactors. It certainly makes more sense that the 80W reactor is really a mini- module of four 20W parallel connected reactors. This needs clarified before there is further discussion about “80W reactors”.

  • greggoble

    There is no federal law requiring UL certification, for the QuarkX or any other device. With a stand alone/separate industrial power plant, such as Rossi proposes, verification/certification of safety has many routes to pursue.

    Steam pressure/boiler systems absolutely require certification, federal and state, which is different than UL certification. Heat transfer to industrial consumer using molten salts (no pressure) does not require such.

    Quote
    Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange…
    “Is UL approval required on all items sold in the USA?”
    https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/10639/is-ul-approval-required-on-all-items-sold-in-the-usa
    (This) is a question and answer site for electronics and electrical engineering professionals, students, and enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute. – end quotes

  • Buck

    Samec,
    when Rossi speaks of the 80W unit, he is strictly speaking of a singlet, a single reactor module . . . like the single module publicly displayed at the recent Stockholm presentation. Further, the module at the Stockholm presentation, is/was the QX module capable of being run at 80W even 100W, but dialed down to 20W due to Rossi’s sense of caution given the importance of the presentation.

    • Dr. Mike

      Rossi stated the demo was 3 parallel 20W reactors with an output capable of 60W, but only run at 30% power.

      • Buck

        You’re correct . . . however, that doesn’t change my point. He is rating a singlet reactor at 80W for the Ecat QX which will be the basis of the plants to be introduced to the market.

        • Dr. Mike

          I think we need a clarification from Rossi to determine what he really means.

          • Buck

            I’m comfortable without any further clarification. As well, arguably it is the focus upon the ‘old’ 40W rating in the following exchange that prompted Rossi to update one and all on JONP of the revised 80W QX power rating of a singlet reactor.

            =======================================

            Buck
            March 3, 2018 at 1:29 PM

            Good Day Andrea:

            please forgive my repeating a question already asked and answered.

            Yesterday you asserted that the new Ecat SK will be a 100kW reactor. To clarify, just as the singlet reactor within the existing Ecat Q 4kW unit is rated at 40W, are you saying that the singlet reactor within the prototype Ecat SK will be rated at 100kW and not 1000W which is already 25x the rating of the Ecat Q singlet reactor? You are testing a singlet reactor 2500x the rating of the Ecat Q 40W reactor?

            If so, I am dumbfounded by your revolution within a revolution. I can only imagine the far more stringent requirements encompassing the control module, reactor materials, reactor super-structure materials, the heat transfer fluid, and the rate of heat transfer.

            _____________________________________

            Andrea Rossi
            March 4, 2018 at 2:30 AM

            Buck:

            we are testing prototypes trying 10 kW and 100 kW of power. It is premature to say if we will succeed or not.

            Warm Regards,

            A.R.

  • greggoble

    Yes I would. As you know, UL is but one safety verification route that is available to Rossi. Rigorous in-house safety testing is acceptable, and I do mean extremely professional and rigorous.

    Keep in mind, home and light industrial/business park type zoning use presents different certification/approval parameters than a stand alone/separate industrial thermal power plant, it’s the apples and oranges thing.

  • Alain Samoun

    Assuming that the the QX works as he said, I still think that the best bet for Rossi is to develop a system to produce heat and hot water for housing equipped with solar panels,

    • LarryJ

      A large part of the world does not have a climate suitable for year round solar panels.

      • Alain Samoun

        So they even need more heat and QX…

  • Dr. Mike

    Having been responsible for purchasing many millions of dollars in semiconductor manufacturing equipment, I agree with everything you said about what was needed in specs from a manufacturer of equipment before we would consider purchasing it. One additional requirement of mine was a guaranteed uptime. I believe Rossi is several years away from being able to quote a guaranteed uptime.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi has said the details will be presented when a product is ready for sale.

      Obviously, He can’t provide specs on a product that hasn’t been built for sale. Final components wont be known until then as these may change or revisions made during the building of the product. “Having been responsible for purchasing many millions of dollars in semiconductor manufacturing equipment” You should be well aware of that.

      • Dr. Mike

        Actually the marketing departments of manufacturers of semiconductor processing equipment often provided specifications for new products long before the equipment was ready for sale. One of our engineering tasks was to assess whether the product would be available when the marketing department claimed it would be. For someone whose goal is to reach massive production, Rossi seems to be doing a very poor job of marketing his technology.

  • Vinney

    Having so many control systems is also a level of redundancy, that in the second or third year of operation, even if 10-20 controllers and QX modules malfunction you still get over 80% capacity, and are still making money till the next recharge (maintenance) cycle.
    I have no doubt a central control unit will advise which controllers are malfunctioning and need replacement.
    What must avoided at all costs are any forms of harmful radiation, hence Rossi ‘failsafe” design and regular maintenance for the first production model.
    As I said above, the second model will be simpler, more powerful and more compact.
    The main thing is to get the technology in the marketplace, we have waited long enough and deserve to be rewarded.

  • LilyLover

    Dr. Rossi wanted to run those at 20W, designed those for 100W, and is comfortable to operate at 80W. This level of flirting with factor of safety clearly indicates heightened confidence and deeper level of understanding of the involved mechanisms and thereby the control exercised. This is much cause for celebration.

    He’ll run the most cores at 20W to 40W and come replacement time, he’ll burn out the to be replaced annually at 80W and changefrom 6-month replacement to annual replacement by the end user. He might even plainly replace the entire unit but recycle the “unburnt” units and reactivate the spent ones.

    Fear not: this is not a time buying technique; it merely is a logical progression to matured confidence ant improvements to efficiency.

    You will see.

  • LarryJ

    You might have to reconsider if your competitors disagree with your evaluation, install the new reactors and start eating your lunch.

  • greggoble

    Then situate it (place it) in a manner that does not endanger your employees and business. Not in your building (not a good idea) it’s a thermal power plant not a piece of machinery. If you don’t have space or ability to do so then don’t… others do and will. I am glad we agree… it must be properly tested… professional and rigorous as stated. Are you arguing about UL or thanking me?

  • greggoble

    Not quite correct, I know it’s a bit deceiving
    Remember this classic… Fish drift in schools!

    It’s sink or swim, I’m not sure that pertains to all fish in the sea.

    A watt is a unit of power.
    A watt (W) is a joule (J) of energy used or produced per second.

    Power to the people!
    If you’re low on energy consider… the human body base metabolism is 80 watts.

    We might be considered dim in comparison… the blue whale peak metabolic output is 2.5 megawatts.

    A joule is a unit of energy.
    1 joule of energy is used in lifting a 1 kilogram brick
    (2.2 pounds) 10 centimeters (3.9 inches)

    See… http://cei.washington.edu/educationspace/energybasics4_watt.pdf

  • Frank Acland

    Frank Acland
    March 10, 2018 at 2:03 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    When you speak of the first plants being made up of “80 W Modules” is that an individual E-Cat QX of 80 W, or a combination of smaller QXs?

    Andrea Rossi
    March 11, 2018 at 4:10 AM

    Frank Acland:
    Individual 80 W modules.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Dr. Mike

      Note that Rossi still did not answer the simple question clearly that was asked by Frank. He still uses the word “individual” with the word “modules”. The answer should have either been “an individual 80W E-Cat QX reactor” or “a module of smaller QX’s”, not “individual 80W modules”.

      • Frank Acland

        Mike, I used Rossi’s own words in describing the QX. Maybe you could follow up for clarification here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892#comments

        • Dr. Mike

          The above answer to Svein seems to make it clear the size of the reactor has not changed, which means that the plasma temperature has been significantly increased (per Stefan-Boltzmann’s law).

          • Vinney

            Simply ask him what temperature they reach, because he may be using different formulae as they are now in same assembly geometry (and assembled in a material) that distributes heat rapidly. Remember these modules have ‘failsafe’ circuits that won’t let the reaction ‘runaway’ and melt the core.

          • Dr. Mike

            Rossi used the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate the theoretical power for his reactor at the Stockholm demo. Are you now saying that in increasing the power output to 80W that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is no longer valid? From where did you get information that the “modules” have failsafe circuits that prevent reaction runaway? The 3 parallel 20W reactors used in the Stockholm demo had no apparent feedback to the controller.

      • Frank Acland

        Maybe he has just given the answer:

        Andrea Rossi
        Steven N. Karels
        March 11, 2018 at 5:19 AM
        Dear Andrea Rossi,

        Compared to the 20W eCat modules, are the 80W eCat modules approximately:

        a. The same size?
        b. Doubled in linear dimension?
        c. Tripled in linear dimension?
        d. Some other multiplier (if so, can you tell us the size of the 80W module_/

        March 11, 2018 at 9:46 AM

        Steven N, Karels:
        a- yes
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        Andrea Rossi

        March 11, 2018 at 9:45 AM

        Svein Henrik:
        Yes to all.
        The dimensions of the 80 W Ecat QX are the same of the Ecat of the demo at the IVA of Stockholm.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

    • Samec

      Intentionally foggy answer. It is not “individual reactor” it is “individual modules”, so very foggy in Rossi style. I remember when Defkalin publish link to youtube song: The Great Pretender, now I am sure of this meaning. Working with dottore must be real extreme stress.

  • frank

    What about Sigma 5 for this new reactor? It took Rossi a long time to finish his 20W reactor, get certification (?) and be now ready for robotized mass production. 4x more power output requires probably more testing and slightly different design and specs – hard to believe that production will start with this 80W reactor instead of the 20W which was ready to go (or was it not?)…

    • AdrianAshfield

      As I commented earlier, Rossi said he was running the demo at 1/3 power, so 80 W is not a large increase to get from the same reactor.

      • frank

        Doesn‘t matter -it is a different reactor design! You as an engineer should understand this. He ran 3x 20W at 1/3 of the power. The new reactor has 4x more Power, and probably quite different dimensions, tech specs, input/output etc.

        • Dr. Mike

          Rossi says the reactor is the same size as those demoed in Stockholm, which means he is running the reactor at a lot higher temperature. 4x power should certainly require a lot more reliability testing.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi ran it at 1/3 of the power only for the demo. The 1 year sigma test was done ay 60 watts or above. In addition, the 1 year tast was primarily a matter of monitor them with a computer data collector allowing Rossi many hours a day to do many additional tests. Very likely many tests that would never even occur to you.

          • PhysicsForDummies

            So what you are saying is that Rossi was able to run at 60 watts for a year but after all that experience was only able to run at 20 watts for a couple of hours? All at the same time that the power supply was overheating? (Oh I forgot that Rossi fixed the power supply right after the important not a demo.)

          • LarryJ

            Rossi was very clear on that point. He cut the power back because any screwup at that demo would have had extremely serious consequences going forward. He was looking for a partner so no heroics were required, just a simple demo of adequate capabilities. 60W would have bought him no more than 20W did and 20W was that much more conservative.

          • Omega Z

            It is a smart man who does not tempt fate. A failure of the device would have dire consequences. It takes many months of planning for such a demo where people who want to attend have time to make such arrangements. Only a fool would try to do something grandiose when there is no reason for it.

  • Dr. Mike

    Also from the Rossi’s JONP blog:

    Steven N. Karels
    March 11, 2018 at 5:19 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Compared to the 20W eCat modules, are the 80W eCat modules approximately:
    a. The same size?
    b. Doubled in linear dimension?
    c. Tripled in linear dimension?
    d. Some other multiplier (if so, can you tell us the size of the 80W module_/

    Andrea Rossi
    March 11, 2018 at 9:46 AM
    Steven N, Karels:

    a- yes

    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    It now appears everyone is now using the term module and reactor interchangeably. Perhaps each QX reactor requires other components (maybe a series resistor?) in which case it would be proper English to refer to a reactor and its associated components as a module. If the QX device consists of just the reactor and its electrical connections, it is not a “module”. In either case, reactor or module, if the reactor size has not changed from the size of device used in the demonstration, it means Rossi has now increased the plasma temperature of the QX device by a factor of the 4th root of 4 (1.41) or to greater than 3600K.to achieve a power increase from 20W to 80W. The effects of this higher temperature plasma on device and system reliability will have to be examined carefully.

    • GiveADogABone

      https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/11/26/reflections-on-the-nov-24-e-cat-qx-demo-in-stockholm/
      Rossi’s claim is that the plasma inside the reactor has the form of a cylinder with the diameter 0.8 mm and the length 6 mm

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
      Stefan-Boltzmann Law
      P=e.sigma.A.(T^4-Tc^4)

      The temperature ‘T’ could remain roughly the same if ‘A’ is increased by four when ‘P’ is increased by four. For fixed plasma length, the radius of the plasma would increase by four to increase ‘A’ by four.

      • Dr. Mike

        Rossi said that the size of the reactor did not change: “The dimensions of the 80 W Ecat QX are the same of the Ecat of the demo at the IVA of Stockholm”. Therefore, from Stefan-Boltzmann’s law, the temperature of the reactor had to increase.

        • Omega Z

          There’s another possibility to consider.
          The Plasma glow peaks and declines and power is only applied about 50% of the time.. With improvements in the control of the reaction, the peak may take place faster and could be sustained longer before it fades/declines. More of a square wave rather then a Sine or triangular wave. Also, as posted before, Rossi has operated the QX at 3000 K for extended periods and much higher in stress test that lead to self destruct.

          Just speculation, but it could be a combination of longer sustained peak with some temperature rise as well.

          • Dr. Mike

            I agree. It seems likely that the higher power is achieved with a combination of a longer “ON’ cycle and a higher operating temperature. However, both of these changes could lead to reduced reliability of the QX devices. This change may also affect the reliability of the controller, but one would need to know what the change in the controller output is required in going from 20W to 80W operation.

          • Omega Z

            One other possibility. The stimulation that promotes the reaction could be intensified without changing the “on” period. So that’s now 3 possibilities.

        • GiveADogABone

          http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/e-cat-world-reports-from-sweden-on-the-e-cat-qx-demo-of-november-24/
          QX data- length 10mm-diameter 5mm- default output power 20W
          Are these internal or external dimensions?

  • LarryJ

    Very plausible. Why take foolish chances. Murphy is alive and well. The demo apparently served his purpose. He has a good partner onside. His decision was a wise one.

    • PhysicsForDummies

      Rossi does not have a good partner onside. What seems to be happening here on e-cat world a lot is that people say something with no evidence (ex. ABB is working with Rossi) and people just start repeating it as if it was fact, and embellishing with more and more speculation that also then becomes “true”.

      • LarryJ

        You state that Rossi does not have a good partner onside with such confidence that one could be forgiven for thinking that you know what you’re talking about. Nobody knows who Rossi’s partner is, so for you to categorically state that he does not have a good partner is clearly nonsense. You’re no different than the ABB crowd.

        You are correct that there is not one shred of evidence connecting Rossi with ABB other than that he is their customer. However, he has announced that he has a strong partner. I am sure there are many companies with capabilities equal to ABB who could fill the role and since taking on a partner we are seeing good progress and strong confidence from Rossi regarding his schedule of delivering a product this year.

  • Vinney

    He didn’t bring the latest configuration controller or reactor to Stockholm as he wasn’t sure what authorities (nuclear regulation body and inspectors) would do, and the ever present possibility of ‘espionage’ and theft of the appliance.
    It may also have been confiscated at the airports. You don’t want these people to obtain your latest iteration, and preferably something they would have a hard time getting to work. But of course a skilled operator can get it to work, as Rossi and his staff.

  • LCD

    In January it’s been 7 years since Rossi made that initial debut.

    Rossi it’s time to come out with something!

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    March 13, 2018 at 4:54 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    I think that Svein Henrik made an interesting suggestion regarding using a thermoelectric device to make electricity from the E-Cat’s heat in order to drive the E-Cats, thus realizing infinite COP.

    1. How feasible is this from a technological standpoint, and is it something you think you will pursue?
    2. Currently, are you able to run a QX from a battery source?

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    March 13, 2018 at 5:06 AM
    Frank Acland:
    Maybe in future, now we cannot make modifications, we have not time if we want to prioritize the presentation of the product. By the way, the gain is not relevant, due to the actual COP.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Omega Z

    ->”he needs much more a world class marketing agency to be able to sell his stuff.”

    Nonsense. He only requires a couple customers to use and verify that it does as claimed and the market will be beating down his door. The demand would outstrip his manufacturing capacity instantly and will remain as such for years to come. Within a vert short period of time, the news media the world round would be a buzz with the story. Marketing complete.

  • Omega Z

    ABB is definitely involved. The question is in what capacity.
    I would not claim they are a partner per say, and I have my doubts, but who knows.
    They could just be a business partner as vendors of components or just collaborating on component development.

  • Omega Z

    I’m only aware of 1 sale that was completed and according to a competitor)Who saw it there) that was the NRL. They don’t release this type of information.

  • LarryJ

    You cannot mass market something that nobody believes is real and which the mainstream physics community says is impossible. Rossi cannot prove it is real without endangering his IP and bringing unwanted attention to his efforts so you end up with a chicken and egg situation. Paradigm shifting devices cannot be introduced the same way that conventional technologies can. The introduction of this tech to the mainstream market will be a black swan event for most people. Even after its introduction it will require some time for people to adjust their belief systems and come to grips with it. I expect the industrialization period will allow people time to accept the idea and full belief will only come with domestic devices sometime in 2020 or later.

  • LarryJ

    I would love to see a reference on that. The only reactor Rossi is ever rumoured to have sold is his demo 1 MW reactor to the US military back in 2012 for $1 million. I can find no other reference.

    • frank

      I do only quote Rossis own words here…it’s worth to search through JONP for “1MW plants”, you will find quite some references from Andrea Rossi regarding sales numbers of his plants. In one case he claims to have 13 (!) more orders from his first US customer. In another comment he confirms the sale of 3 more units, see attached. Maybe too optimistic outlook? It’s been 7 years now…since then it seems always next year when everything will be ready to produce or to sell or to start… He is very late with his promises. He simply should deliver. Period.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6f98cf4fdded2863d3bd5f65533420704c0d071516fb3eedd55ffd673053e4e.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82089ef6bc6bb0b134d241310eccef621b06afbdfbd8523ceb8ced2eb9191006.jpg

      • LarryJ

        I stand corrected.

        The earlier sale reference is quite dated and was prior to Rossi’s takeover by Industrial Heat so it’s hard to say whatever happened to them. It appears they are part of the sale I had heard of to the US military that supposedly took place after the 2011 demo which I mentioned in my post. Here is a quote regarding that sale taking place 3 days prior to your reference.

        ====================================================
        Andrea Rossi launched the first commercial E-Cat plant, a 1 MW thermal
        power plant in Bologna, Italy on October 28th, 2011 which was tested and
        certified as being acceptable by an agent for an unknown customer.
        Rossi stated that the customer is a military entity that does not want
        to be identified.
        http://ecatworld.org/what-is-the-e-cat/
        ====================================================

        After Rossi’s takeover by IH sometime in 2012/2013 very little happened as Rossi had no control over his IP and IH had no interest in developing the tech. There were no sales. The 1 year test of the 1 MW industrial prototype reactor finally finished on Feb 17, 2016 after years of foot dragging by IH and the ensuing lawsuit and cancellation of IH’s licenses was launched the same day or very shortly thereafter and much has happened since then, As your reference points out he did sell 3 plants which would certainly have been done under NDA. I assume that with IH’s licenses cancelled he felt free to move again. I imagine the sale was made to pioneering customers, maybe even his current partner and there is no reason to suspect anything bogus about them. However, he could not expect full support from a partner until after the conclusion of his lawsuit and the retrieval of his IP which happened this past July. Now things can finally move ahead and they are moving quickly. Most of the complaints posted now are regarding unrealistic delivery times, not unfulfilled promises.

  • sam

    Prof
    March 13, 2018 at 7:48 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Where are you working in this period and where the impressive progress during the aftermath of the IVA-Stockholm event has been made?
    Godspeed,
    Prof

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    March 14, 2018 at 1:18 AM
    Prof:
    1- in the USA
    2- in the USA
    Warm Regards,

    Verity
    March 13, 2018 at 7:50 PM
    Dr Rossi,
    Which Country are mainly of your suppliers for all the components of the Ecat?

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    March 14, 2018 at 1:16 AM
    Verity:
    USA.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    March 14, 2018 at 7:20 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Can you say what part of your work is consuming most of your time and attention these days?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    March 15, 2018 at 5:16 AM
    Frank Acland:
    We have now three teams I am working with:
    1- industrialization in the USA
    2- industrialiAtion in Sweden
    3- theory elaboration
    4- Ecat SK (high power modules)
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    The following exchange affirms Rossi’s intent to enter the market with strategically competitive low prices for the Ecat QX

    ======================================

    Jacques
    March 18, 2018 at 4:03 PM

    Dr Rossi,

    You wrote you are sure that the reverse engineering on the Ecat will be impossible:
    1- does this mean you have not anymore the necessity to adopt very low prices to make the Ecat very competitive economically?
    2- can you explain how you resolved the problem of the reverse engineering?

    Thanks if you can answer,

    Jacques
    _______________________________________________

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    March 18, 2018 at 4:28 PM

    Jacques:
    1- no
    2- no

    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Gerard McEk
    March 19, 2018 at 10:08 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    1. Can you tell if you are making progress with the 10 and 100kW SK units?
    2. Have you already started the 5 Sigma tests with them?
    3. If so, do you expect that to take a similar time as for the QX units?
    Although you must be extremely busy with all these tasks like bringing the ECat QX to the market, developing the high power units and the theory of the Rossi effect, you still can find time to tell about it in a school class, WoW! I would have loved to be one of these yougsters!
    All the best and kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    March 19, 2018 at 11:50 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- no
    4- they are the future
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Peter
    March 22, 2018 at 12:35 PM
    Dr Rossi,
    Can you give an update about the development of the 10/100 kW reactors?
    Thank you if you can answer,
    Peter

    Andrea Rossi
    March 22, 2018 at 9:20 PM
    Peter:
    We are advancing with our tests and the results we got so far are encouraging.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Translate
    DT
    March 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    Do you see any competitor that can be considered a match for the Ecat so far?
    Warm Regards,
    DT

    Andrea Rossi
    March 22, 2018 at 9:19 PM
    DT:
    None that I am aware of. But I know only all that is published.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Whistle Guy
    March 22, 2018 at 9:03 PM
    How would you consider the status of the industrialization progress now that we are close to the end of the first quarter of the year?

    Andrea Rossi
    March 22, 2018 at 9:15 PM
    Whistle Guy:
    I am very satisfied. We made enormous progresses. With the help of God, we are marching on, working very hard.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Gerard McEk
    March 22, 2018 at 12:46 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    As a client and an electrical engineer I would be willing to test a 20 kW unit for heating my home and give it all the professional care it would need (after being educated by the Leonardo Corp.). I would also be willing to report to you and openly to ECW and others about its performance and host visitors once and a while. Would this be an idea?
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    March 22, 2018 at 5:34 PM
    Gerard McEk:
    When we will sell domestic Ecats it will be possible.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Frank Acland
    March 22, 2018 at 8:27 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    Do you have a client who is willing to host a public presentation of an industrial E-Cat plant?

    Kind regards,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    March 22, 2018 at 9:59 AM
    Frank Acland:
    I hope one of our Clients will accept this.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    March 23, 2018 at 7:08 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    If work on the E-Cat SK continues to go well, is it possible that you will use the E-Cat SK instead of the E-Cat QX in your first industrial plants and in the 2018 product presentation?

    Best wishes,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    March 23, 2018 at 8:02 AM
    Frank Acland:
    As I said, in Physics nothing has zero probability.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Michel
    March 23, 2018 at 7:10 AM
    Dear Dr Rossi,

    Now that reverse engineering is impossible, if a research Institut offered you to conduct an independant test, would you accept the challenge?
    If not, how do you expect to obtain full recognition of your work by the scientific community? (I must tell you that the physicists with whom I work every day have never heard of you or your work except through me.)

    Another question if i can, have you planned to conduct any long-term test (~ 1 year) on a partner’s site (as you did with the old version of the 1MW reactor)?

    Regards,

    Michel

    Andrea Rossi
    March 23, 2018 at 7:59 AM
    Michel:
    The defense from the reverse engineering is bound to the industrialization of the product.
    We now are focused on the industrialization and the introduction of our product in the market. What you are asking for is our past, not our future and we have not time for further demos.
    We have not planned any “1 year test” with any Client, also this phase belongs to our past. Obviously we will give to our Clients the due guarantee.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    TOUSSAINT François
    March 23, 2018 at 3:05 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    From the orginal 100W E-CAT QX, the power of your 10kW and 100kW prototype is a huge achievement, is it due to a technological breakthrough ?

    Warm Regards.

    Toussaint François

    WaltC
    March 22, 2018 at 10:27 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    It’s exciting to hear about all of the industrialization and Research efforts you have underway currently. That’s clearly the sign of a strong and diverse team of contributors. You and your extended team deserve to be commended.

    I’m not sure if you can speak to any of this or not, but in terms of your current plans and thinking, in the industrial product:

    1) If a reactor fails and needs to be replaced, what is the size of the “replaceable unit”?
    2) If a unit needs to be replaced, does the entire plant need to go off-line, or just a section?
    3) If it’s a section, what is the size of the section?
    4) If you can say– what is the current minimum COP that you’re offering customers? (I assume it would be a conservative lower bound.)

    Thanks,
    WaltC

    Andrea Rossi
    March 22, 2018 at 11:15 PM
    WaltC:
    Thank you for your kind attention to our work.
    Answers:
    1- it depends on the kind of the reactor.
    2- just a section
    3- depends on the kind of reactor and of the kind of the problem
    4- I prefer to delay this information to the day we will introduce the Ecat. The COP will be enough, though.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    In the following exchange, Rossi seems to say that the manufacturing specifications for the Ecat QX module are nearing finalization or final sign-off. IMHO, a very important step.

    =======================================
    Frank Acland
    March 29, 2018 at 12:43 PM

    Dear Andrea,

    I understand about not giving specific details, but can we assume you have made improvements in the E-Cat QX recently?

    Thank you very much,

    Frank Acland
    _________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    March 29, 2018 at 1:09 PM

    Frank Acland:

    Enormous. Exponential for what concerns the development of a module industrializable and the industrialization itself. Now our module is very close to be ready to be reproduced massively.

    Warm Regards

    A.R.