The Size of the First 1 kW E-Cat Product

It seems that Andrea Rossi has settled on the size of the first industrial E-Cat product.

He has stated recently on the Journal of Nuclear Physics that its power rating will be 1 kW. In response to a question by Dr. Mike, he also said that thirteen 80 W E-Cat QX reactors will be contained in what he calls a “module.”

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, in response to a question on the size of this 1 kW E-Cat QX module, Rossi replied:

Andrea Rossi
April 4, 2018 at 8:08 AM
Jacinto Elerick:
cm 25 x 25 x 18 all included.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

So it seems that in terms of creating E-Cat power plants, the plan now is that the 1 kW module will be the building blocks out of which the industrial plants are constructed.

As far as recharging the E-Cat modules, I asked Rossi this question:

Frank Acland
April 4, 2018 at 8:44 AM
Dear Andrea,

When the 1 kW E-Cat modules need recharging, will you replace the QX reactors inside the box, or will you simply replace the box?

Andrea Rossi
April 4, 2018 at 9:15 AM
Frank Acland:
We will change the box.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • GordonDocherty

    Any idea what the weight will be?

    • Omega Z

      I would expect the bulk of the weight to be the heat exchanger. This would vary according to what it’s used for.

  • theBuckWheat

    Expected hours in operation before needing change out?

    • Frank Acland

      I think he has said approx 1 year of continuous operation.

  • Gerard McEk

    That is relatively large. Just imagen a natural gas fired 20 kW domestic heater boiler. The heat exchanger has about the size of 2, maybe 3 of these units. Obviously this includes the electronics. I guess the control part is relatively large. Maybe also the radiation shielding? Remember that AR said that the hot cat of 20 kW had a size of a package of sigarettes?

    • Ophelia Rump

      I would think most of the bulk is the heat exchanger and insulation.

  • Buck

    Rossi has provided some clarification on his meaning for “module” and “reactor”:

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

    Jim Rosenburg
    April 4, 2018 at 9:19 AM

    Dr Rossi:

    there seems to be confusion over the terme reactor and reactor module. Are the 10 kW and 100 kW configurations comprised of 80 W modules?

    Thank you,

    Jimr
    ________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    April 4, 2018 at 9:27 AM

    Jim Rosenburg:

    When I write “module” means that it is a fundamental component, not made with smaller modules. A “reactor” can either be a module itself, or an assembly of modules. This for the semanthics.

    In substance, we can make a 10 or 100 or 1000 kW plant made by modules of 1 kW, or modules of 80 W, or we can try, as we are, to realize fundamental reactors – which means modules- of higher power, like 10 or 100 kW. Whereas the assembly of smaller modules option has already been achieved, this is not yet true for bigger modules.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • Rene

      I see Rossi has a new ghost writer.

  • Jimr

    I’m not certain the above is correct. I just asked him about the definition of a module. He stated a module is a single unit (ex: 80w unit) or 1,10,or 100kw unit they are working on.

    • Jimr

      I believe some of the confusion lies in that there are two 1kw configurations. One is 13 modules of 80w making up a 1kw reactor, the other is a single 1kw module making up a reactor.

  • Ophelia Rump

    99,440 watts, worth of reactors. I guess that means no reactor redundancy.

    • AdrianAshfield

      80 x 13 = 1040 W
      from layout. considerations I expected 15 QX reactors

  • causal observer

    “You say reactor, I say module,
    You say module, I say reactor,
    Reactor, module, module, reactor,
    Let’s call the whole thing hot”

    (apologies to George and Ira)

    Seems like it still fits the concept diagram below.

    Although I imagine there are different approaches to optimization, with tradeoffs of heat transfer efficiency and manufacturing complexity
    > Do working fluid channels circulate around each “module” (i.e. “QX”) or around a group of modules?
    > Does the “reactor” (assembly of multiple QX modules) include a heat absorbing “blanket” that transfers heat to the working fluid?
    > Might modules be arranged cylindrically around a central working fluid channel?
    > Might working fluid channels be run on multiple sides of a module (left-right-top-bottom, or more)?
    ….> Or coiled around a module, or group of modules?

    Off the top of my head, I’m thinking the modules (individual QX’s) are arranged flat (planar), for ease of manufacturing, with fluid channels on either side in that plane, AND the modules are embedded in a heat conducting “blanket” material that absorbs heat from ALL sides of each QX and conducts it to the fluid channels.

    Can’t really take it apart, except for forensics, to it has to be swappable.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e7a67b6c1147661c7224027057944b61f8cd001aadc367d0760a2f5620e745f8.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98c88fb331325ce6c3f24b98901aac46e27ebb3f9fb5cea1d5c279e59c8f3e71.png

  • Vinney

    With demand for energy so great, if nuclear processes can be managed ‘cleanly’, they will be used.
    The emissions, recharge and recycling of the E-cat technology make it the most ‘environmentally’ friendly energy source currently in existence.
    If we are serious about controlling global warming and CO2 emissions, and raising the living standards of billions of the disadvantaged worldwide, the E-cat is our best option.

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • causal observer

      Power density question; see ScienceFan’s post above

      • Omega Z

        I think how it’s configured will make a difference so it would be an engineering issue. Rossi has said 1MW will fit within a cubic meter.

        Note half the weight of an aircraft will consist of fuel. Additional weight is required in support structure to carry that weight and the additional size of the aircraft all for the sake of fuel holding.

        That said, I don’t think there’s any chance of a drop in replacement. Very likely aircraft will require a whole new rethink in design from scratch. I think you’re looking at a 20 year time frame. Not much different then LENR powered cars.

        • LarryJ

          Because of the exponential increase in technology the time it takes to bring any product, big or small to market also decreases exponentially. In today’s world 20 years is an immensely long period of time and very likely greatly exceeds the time it would actually take to bring a lenr based commercial aircraft to market. A quick example appears earlier in this thread where there is a short video showing the quick production of an additive produced jet rocket. Over a 20 year span the number of inconceivable shortcuts that might appear is .. well.. inconceivable.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      My repost from 4 years ago. http://e-catworld.com/2014/03/23/rossi-testing-with-industry-specializing-in-jet-engines/#comment-1347853496

      “Nitrogen dioxide is a byproduct of the burning of hydrocarbons. One of the reasons for the cancellation of Boeings SST program was the thought that it would produce too much NO2 (and water vapor from the
      exhaust) that would damage the ozone layer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

      A Hot-Cat jet engine shouldn’t have this problem (I could be wrong but I don’t think any free radicals would be created). So, maybe Boeing could resurrect its SST program.”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gJK-DB8nBw

  • Alain Samoun

    Do you have a smoke detector in your home? Most contain Americium a radioactive compound,

    • Rene

      But Am241 generates primarily alpha particles that travel all of few cm in air. The shielding is trivial. We still do not know what radiation is generated by the various purported LENR devices. So far, the claims are it ranges from low energy gammas, none to some neutrons, and none to some odd metal vaporizing EVOs.

  • LarryJ

    This is why they must first be run in an industrial setting where they will be monitored 24/7 by trained staff. Safety statistics will be collected for some period of time and once the home insurance industry is satisfied as to their safety they will certify them safe for home use. Once certified very few people will care what the operating mechanism is. All they will care is that it is safe, clean and cheap to operate.

  • georgehants

    So a reported unit with I kw output, will this unit work independently or does it need an input or any other paraphernalia, if so of what wattage?
    Could it drive a water pump lifting water from a depth of 50 ft?
    How much would a single unit cost for one years use?

    • frank

      You are not the only one who is waiting for a detailed technical data sheet, but my guess is: this is all still secret until the product is out. Maybe a problem, since no one would buy the cat in the bag…?

      • Omega Z

        Until product comes off the assembly line and they can determine the stats, anything he would provide now wouldn’t have much meaning. Stats can change from R&D verse manufactured product.

        Of course, if he were Elon Musk, this apparently wouldn’t matter.
        Musk’s Power Wall advertised 7KW capacity battery was actually 6.4KW. Charging it beyond 80% reduced the number of cycles provided in the Stats. A similar reduction occurs should you drain the battery below 10%. One would only be aware of this discrepancy if he dug into the details not readily available.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    April 4, 2018 at 9:23 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Regarding the 1 kW modules:

    1. Is the control system inside the box?
    2. Is the heat exchanger inside the box?
    3. Is the box sealed? If so, will opening it prevent it from working?
    4. When you replace the box at the end of the E-Cats’ useful life, will you recycle the old box, or dispose of it?

    Thank you and best wishes,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    April 5, 2018 at 7:31 AM
    Frank Acland:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- yes
    4- recycle
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • frank

      So the “box” is the entire device, manufactured by Rossi? It has everything except the required piping connection to the building’s heating installation and an external power cord to plug the device (I guess 100…240V?) into the power socket in the wall? So I got it completely wrong, I thought, that Rossi wanted to manufacture and deliver the core element (=his reactor) to other existing industrial heating systems only, to replace their gas or oil unit? It seems he want to compete against the big players like Buderus, Vaillant, Viessmann (at least here in Europe)? He sells a box that is powered and has a controler build in, so he must declare CE conformity of his product for the European Union and must have a UL label as well for US for his heating system. He needs to set up the full supply and logistics chain with all the necessary parts and pieces, a service, sales and installation team, repair centers etc….and he probably will need to participate in many public tenders as one of the vendors in order to have a chance sell his device, so there shoud be set of modern marketing materials and Tech specs, pricing etc…Is there anything in place yet? Did he start to hire teams? I mentioned it earlier somewhere, he needs strong partners and coaching in marketing and business administration….So far the only signs of something happening (?) are Rossis answers to questions like the above from Frank Acland.

      • Frank Acland

        On many occasions Andrea Rossi has stated that they do not have the certifications for consumer products such as UL or CE. He has said that this process could take many years to get this kind of safety certification approved, and therefore consumer products will have to come later. He has said they are going to start marketing the E-Cat only as an industrial application for uses within industrial facilities, where the certification is different.

        • Max Nozin

          So what makes him so optimistic about industrial ones? How long it takes to certify mini nuclear reactor?
          I believe eng48 posted a book on industrial valves requirements thick as a phone book.

          • Frank Acland

            He says they have already got the necessary certification to install e-cat plants in industrial settings. I don’t know anything more than that, but you could ask him for more details on the JONP:

            http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892#comments

          • Max Nozin

            We all can predict the answer it either ‘yes’ or ‘confidential’. Just an anticipation of how it will unravel keeps me warmer than 100 overdriven to 80w quarkxs

      • greggoble

        Hi Frank…

        “must have a UL label as well for US”

        Don’t get me wrong… Safety is of the utmost importance. It must be designed into the product… Do not hide negatives as if the Ford Pinto fiasco. Safety limits liability and improves ones’ chances for continued success, it is paramount.

        There is no federal or state law for UL certification for any sales in the US. Of course, for public use/sales (for the home or commercial business) such safety certification is extremely important. UL is mainly an insurance thing… hence the name, Underwriters Laboratories. If you were to be self insured for all industrial locations of an E-Cat power plant it becomes moot.

        On the other hand, for industrial use (where the e-cat power plant is located in an on-site stand alone building) little to no safety certification is needed. If the system is using water for the heat transfer (steam) pressure vessel/systems must be certified. If the system uses molten salt for heat transfer there is no pressure certification.

        In the US OSHA laws may be of concern if employees work in the E-Cat power plant building while it is in operation. If certified technicians access the building only when powered down… less OSHA concerns.

        Electrical systems must be shielded to comply with regulations preventing radio interference… no certification necessary.

    • Jimr

      We should remember Frank asked about the 1kw module, the above may not pertain to the 1kw containing 13 modules.

      • Frank Acland

        From what Rossi has said, I think think the only 1 kW module is the one with the 13 QXs inside.

        AR has said there are 2 larger single reactors under test, which are 10kW and 100 kW.

        • Jimr

          Frank refer to the entries further down ,in my reply that Buck entered. It talks about the 80w and 1kw model.

          • Frank Acland

            Hi Jim, it is not entirely clear to me. I have just posted a question on the JONP asking for a clarification.

          • Jimr

            Thanks Frank, I was going by his statment of 80w and 1kw modules
            And he stated a module to be a single unit.

          • sam

            Frank Acland
            April 5, 2018 at 12:12 PM
            Dear Andrea,

            Which is correct?

            a) You have a 1 kW module that is made up of 13 80W QX reactors
            b) You have a 1 kW module that is made up of a single E-Cat QX reactor
            c) You have both a) and b)

            Thank you very much,

            Frank Acland

            Translate
            Andrea Rossi
            April 5, 2018 at 6:40 PM
            Frank Acland:
            I have both, a) and b).
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Frank Acland

            You had it right, Jim! Rossi’s response:

            Frank Acland
            April 5, 2018 at 12:12 PM
            Dear Andrea,

            Which is correct?

            a) You have a 1 kW module that is made up of 13 80W QX reactors
            b) You have a 1 kW module that is made up of a single E-Cat QX reactor
            c) You have both a) and b)

            Andrea Rossi
            April 5, 2018 at 6:40 PM
            Frank Acland:
            I have both, a) and b).
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Jimr

            What is amasing he talks about the 10kw module and 100kw module. I believe his partner has been active in these devopments.

    • Stephen

      This design could be very good from a user point of view. If his technology improves he can update the contents to use less but more powerful modules for example or an improved controller but I suppose the external size of the box and it’s interfaces of the complete unit could remain the same.

      This could be really good for people buying the initial industrial devices who might otherwise be concerned about obsolescence when newer modules are used.

  • Frank Acland

    I don’t think this document would apply to the E-Cat. This standard UL 508, the Standard for Safety For Industrial Control Equipment, “covers industrial control and related devices rated 1500 volts or less used for starting, stopping, regulating, controlling, or protecting electric motors. “

  • ScienceFan

    Hmm… 13 * 80w = 1040 W at 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.18 = 0.01125 cubic meters of volume.
    Let’s say you have a decent 20% conversion rate for thermal to electrical production not counting direct production by the QX.

    To power the flux capacitor in my DeLoreon requires 1.21 GW of electricity which requires 5,817 of these modules,
    or 65.44 cubic meters of space in the car. (Normal cars might have ~5-10 cubic meters of volume in the whole car)

    Mr. Fusion this ain’t. 🙂

  • AdrianAshfield

    This seems a good compromise between what Rossi can mass produce quickly and the ideal solution. It is still a bit to low powered for industrial solutions, but much better than working with separate QXs.
    That is why Rossi is looking at larger capacity designs, but is doing the right thing by not delaying getting to the market.
    The 1 kW nodule can be set to UL for certification, could be the basis of a domestic heating system and would be easy for an outside institution to test and end the debate on whether LENR works.
    I still think a QX turbine would be a better industrial solution and that is still on the back burner. I wish Rossi would farm it out to a turbine manufacturer

    .

    • Omega Z

      A domestic heating system will have to wait for safety data from industrial use or 100’s of units operated in a lab setting which doesn’t really replicate real world conditions. This would be similar to gas mileage ratings based on controlled use verses real world driving except based on safety in the lab verses real world.

      As to Turbines. I have no doubt that Rossi will work with a major concern in it’s adaptation. Rossi is well aware of his lack of knowledge in this realm. But 1st, they need to work on just building heat producing products building a knowledge base to work with in the more complex uses. Currently, there is none

      • AdrianAshfield

        I am well aware of th time it takes for UL certification. What Rossi needs to do is send them production samples before they will even start.

        I think the turbine is largely separate and industrial heating experience doesn’t help much.

        • Omega Z

          The data from industrial heating products will be necessary for the safety standpoint.

  • artefact

    OT: BrLP

    Magnetohydrodynamic Electric Power Generation Demonstration
    ( I think it is not done with a running suncell )

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwk8QefsvMk

    • Max Nozin

      It is done with a pump as a caption said. Now it is interesting how he plans to use hydrino reaction to power that. Could be that resent explosions he was testing are part of the plan.

    • tlp
      • Val K

        Worth to discuss in a separate thread

        • tlp

          I agree.

  • Roger Barker

    Is this now a case of Rossi’s cats purring and Alan’s Lion’s roaring?

  • Adrian

    All it takes for the technology to take root is a country with lax laws to allow it’s population to do as they please. As long as nothing blows up in any significant way, it would take only a few years of successful energy production in the commercial or industrial sectors to make other countries take notice and decide to revisit the relevant regulations lest they become non-competitive against producers with a close to zero energy cost.

  • greggoble

    Off topic… sorry just had to share this. Amazing!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9egAVV5J_WM
    Published on Sep 11, 2017

    Over the past few months Amaero and NextAero have been working on an additive manufactured (3D printed) aerospike rocket engine.

    For more see http://www.amaero.com.au http://www.nextaero.com.au or check out some footage of the hot fire: https://youtu.be/HeezlwN5-Ss

    What is an Aerospike?

    The bell of conventional rocket engines directs the rocket exhaust in one direction. Atmospheric pressure also plays a part in directing the exhaust, so the engine only works with peak efficiency at one altitude, for example at launch. As the rocket climbs the flame spreads out, reducing thrust.

    The aerospike design works by firing the gases along a spike and using atmospheric pressure to create a virtual bell. The shape of the spike allows the engine to maintain high efficiency over a wider range of altitude/air pressure. It’s a much more complex design challenge and is difficult to build using traditional technology.

    The team have created a novel three-chamber aerospike engine, which also allows for thrust vectoring without gimbaling systems. This means that instead of tilting the engine, which is done to control a vehicle’s flight path, the engine can be firmly mounted to the chassis and instead vary the direction of the thrust via the pressure in the combustion chambers. This offers weight and cost savings, which the team hope to investigate in the future.

    The rocket engine the team have created is an initial demonstrator. It is not intended for flight, but rather to show the possibilities if traditional manufacturing constraints are removed. The opportunity for researchers working in aerodynamics and combustion to work with Amaero’s experts in 3D printing enabled some of the key problems associated with the aerospike nozzle to be solved. Once the design team were unshackled from the usual constraints of traditional manufacturing, curves and shapes ideally suited to optimising fluid flows and combustion gases could be brought to life.

    The Additive Manufactured aerospike rocket engine is the result of a collaboration between Amaero Engineering and NextAero, supported by Woodside Energy and Monash University.

  • Samec

    There is problem with upside down definitions used by dottore: He think that 13 reactors is “one reactor” and module consist of 13 reactors is by his definition “13 modules”

  • sam

    Reyes Garavelli
    April 5, 2018 at 7:44 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    1- Where can I find a list of the most important replications made by third parties on your Ecat?
    2- Will you offer also the Ecat QX to third parties to test its performance?
    3- If yes, can you anticipate the identity of such third parties?
    Godspeed,
    Reyes

    Andrea Rossi
    April 5, 2018 at 8:32 PM
    Reyes Garavelli:
    1- http://www.leonardocorporation.com
    2- yes
    3- our Customers
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Rupert
    April 5, 2018 at 7:52 PM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    The impossibility to perform reverse engineering exists also for the Ecat QX prototypes, as the ones that you already made, or it is contingent with the massive production and distribution of the Ecat QX?
    Cheers,
    Rupert

    Andrea Rossi
    April 5, 2018 at 8:29 PM
    Rupert:
    The annihilation of any possibility of reverse engineering is contingent with the industrialization and the start of the massive sales of the Ecat QX. As strange as it might seem, it will be easy to understand when we will introduce the industrialized product to the market.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Steven N. Karels
    April 6, 2018 at 4:22 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted about two different internal configurations of a 1kW output reactor: (a) one made up of 13 each 80W units and (b) one composed of a single 1kW unit.

    Do both units have the same:

    1. Maximum sustained operating temperature?
    2. The same efficiency or effective COP?
    3. The same dimensions?
    4. Are they made of the same materials?

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    April 6, 2018 at 9:16 AM
    Steven N. Karels,
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- yes
    4- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    EB
    April 6, 2018 at 5:35 AM
    Which will be the price of the Ecat X, ballpark moreless 20%?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 6, 2018 at 9:15 AM
    EB:
    We would allow a payback time shorter than 2 years.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    DT
    April 6, 2018 at 5:59 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    What do you think about the commercial and cold war on course? Do you think it will affect the diffusion of the Ecat?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 6, 2018 at 9:14 AM
    DT:
    My humble opinion is that the best way to avoid wars, of any kind, is make good business together. I hope and think that good sense will allow to find solutions to make good business together between all the nations of the world. Whatever the product.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Frank Acland
    April 6, 2018 at 6:12 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    The E-Cat Box you plan to industrialize, does it have 1 or 13 QXs inside?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    April 6, 2018 at 9:11 AM
    Frank Acland:
    One.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    Rossi has let the cat out of the bag in the following exchange with Frank . . . The Ecat QX targeted for commercial introduction will be of the 1kW singlet reactor type. Apparently, the technological evolution recently discussed is real enough to allow for a jump from 80W to 1kW rated power for a single reactor. It is no wonder that Rossi is in such a good mood.

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

    Frank Acland
    April 6, 2018 at 6:12 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    The E-Cat Box you plan to industrialize, does it have 1 or 13 QXs inside?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland
    ____________________________________________

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    April 6, 2018 at 9:11 AM

    Frank Acland:

    One.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • Gerard McEk

    It seems that The 80W unit evolved to a 1000W version with the same dimensions. See in Sam’s comment below Q&A with Andrea. This means that his 5 Sigma testing allows for it already, amazing! Maybe an a few weeks also the 10 kW and 100 kW versions become available…

  • Omega Z

    eeeww. You want to condense that vaporized sweat for drinking.

    Yes, E-cat could be used in this manner, but you will still need an external power supply. Also, this would only be of use for supplying water for consumption. It would never replace the large quantities of water for all other needs.

  • Omega Z

    My Microwave produces radiation. Anyway, Rossi’s device doesn’t produce ionizing radiation above natural background levels. They have monitored for this since very early on. It was also run through a certification process by SGS.

  • Omega Z

    ->”Who will certify this? Or has certified?”

    It was certified by SGS. The certificate was published here on ECW a number of years ago.

  • Omega Z

    Yeah, They circumnavigated the world with a solar powered plane, but you wont see Boeing or Airbus producing airliners that are solar powered. Possible and Practical are not the same thing.

    • greggoble

      You make a good point… Possible and practical are not the same thing.

      Possible and practical make a great combination.

      There is plenty of evidence supporting the thought that both Boeing and Airbus are in a race to bring LENR powered airliners to market… LENR powered space propulsion systems as well. It’s possible and practical.

      I’m not saying batteries are useless.

  • psi2u2

    Thanks for that assessment.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Hope they come soon. Don’t know how much longer we can keep this up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax7wcShvrus

  • sam

    Jim Rosenburg
    April 6, 2018 at 11:33 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    A- is the 10 kW module being rested?
    B- is the 100 kW module being rested?
    C- is your partner assisting with these modules?
    Thank you,
    Jim

    Andrea Rossi
    April 6, 2018 at 1:49 PM
    Jim Rosenburg:
    A- no
    B- no
    C- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Translate
    Chuck Davis
    April 6, 2018 at 12:54 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    during the process of refueling will the customer remain out of service, or the issue has been assessed by a redundance of modules?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 6, 2018 at 1:48 PM
    Chuck Davis:
    The issue can be resolved with a redundance of modules or with a refueling scheduling that suits the Customer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    WaltC
    April 6, 2018 at 1:33 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    You indicated that the water/fluid flow is through a pair of pipe connectors– is it your plan that these pipes handle:
    1) High Pressure Steam (greater than 75 psig)?
    2) Medium Pressure Steam (16-75 psig)?
    3) Low Pressure Steam (below 16 psig)?
    4) Hot Water?

    Also, would this design work with other fluids, such as:
    5) oil?
    6) pressurized air?

    Thanks,
    WaltC

    Andrea Rossi
    April 6, 2018 at 1:47 PM
    WaltC:
    1,2,3,4: depending on the specific situation and design, every case is possible
    5,6: yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Jimr

      I have no idea how Rossi (or his assistants) rewrites these questions. It can’t be cut and paste. How they get rested from tested. Is strange, I’ve had other entries slightly modified Oh well, as long as they are understood.

  • sam

    Martyn Aubrey
    April 7, 2018 at 7:52 AM
    Dear Dr Rossi,

    I have a few more questions about the Ecat-QX unit configuration, if you are able to answer.

    1. Can the output of one 1kW unit be connected to the input of a subsequent unit, forming a cascaded multi-stage heat amplifier?

    2. If so, is there a practical limit to the number of cascaded units?

    3. Have you tested this configuration yet?

    4. Do you think that the industrial plant will be made up of 1kW
    units connected serially and then some of these multi-unit cascades
    connected in parallel?

    Many Thanks again,

    Kind Regards,
    Martyn Aubrey

    Andrea Rossi

    April 7, 2018 at 2:47 PM

    Martyn Aubrey:
    1- yes
    2- it is an integral related to the flow
    3- no, because it is useless
    4- no, just parallels

    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Martyn

      I’m assuming that when Andrea says “3- no, because it is useless”, he means that the heat gain of the Ecat-QX module is so good that it is unnecessary to cascade the units to get any larger output.

      • Buck

        Or he is counting upon a possible substitution: the 10kW for the 1kW, or the 100kW for the 10kW.

        • Martyn

          Easily possible!

  • sam

    Dorie Carwile
    April 6, 2018 at 10:16 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Will it be possible to command the Ecat plants in remote?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 7, 2018 at 2:53 PM
    Dorie Carwile:

    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • LarryJ

    Progress is not limited by peoples inability to believe it nor is it necessarily limited by lack of theory to explain it. It is well known that people are inclined to think in a linear fashion since that is the way we evolved. If you see a tiger stalking you it will be linear thinking that saves the day. Exponential advances are very real but totally non intuitive which is why most people tend to overestimate long term tasks. Decoding the human genome was a classic example.

    Rossi’s LENR theory is a work in progress and is not yet ready for publication or peer review. It is fine to say he should finish it but some things just cannot be done to a schedule.

  • sam

    Buck
    April 7, 2018 at 6:04 PM
    Andrea,

    My apologies for not being clear about the benchmark used to determine payback period.

    Yes, purchasing/investing in an Ecat means that $$$ will be saved: the $$$ purchase of the customer’s original energy source will be avoided as the Ecat QX is now this customer’s new energy source. My question is this: what original energy source did you assume so as to determine the $$$ difference between original and Ecat energy?

    If you are unable to share because this information is too specific, then I understand and appreciate your position.

    my best regards,

    Buck

    Andrea Rossi
    April 7, 2018 at 9:51 PM
    Buck:
    Sorry for not having understood well at first attempt.
    The Ecat does not produce electric energy, it produces heat. Our Customers pay a certain bill to generate the heat they need to make whatever they produce. That is the term of comparison with the cost of our thermal energy. Example: our Customer spends 100 $ per hour to make the heat he needs. We make his heat at ,say, 10 $ per hour. This is the paradigma. What is the source from which his provider gets the energy is not our business, as well as it is not the business of our Client: our business is how much the Client pays to buy the energy from our competitor compared with how much he has to spend to use the Ecat. If his energy provider that competes against us gets his source energy from oil, wind, sun , cows and donkeys breath, you name it-you get it, this is not our business.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Steven N. Karels
    April 7, 2018 at 9:39 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted essentially the same operating characteristics between the 1kW single reactor unit and the one made up of 13 80W reactors. (A) Is there any benefit of one configuration over the other? (B) Cost? (C) Reliability? (D) Dynamic Output range? (E)If both perform identically well, would not the simpler unit be the natural choice?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 7, 2018 at 9:46 PM
    Steven N.Karels:
    The 80 W has completed the Sigma 5. The 1 kW did not yet. Therefore I am not able to answer.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Buck

    Previously, Rossi shared that the 1kW was the targeted reactor module to be incorporated into the Ecat QX to be released near year-end 2018. He however recognized the importance of the 5Sigma testing.

    In the exchange below between Rossi and Frank A., Rossi shared his expectations about completing the 5Sigma by year-end
    =============================================

    Frank Acland
    April 8, 2018 at 7:28 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    Do you expect to have Sigma 5 testing complete on the 1 kW E-Cat QX by the time you hope to go into production?

    Best regards,

    Frank Acland
    ____________________________________________

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    April 8, 2018 at 7:44 AM

    Frank Acland:

    Yes,

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • Buck

    In the following, Rossi shares his expectation that the 5Sigma testing of the 10kW and 100kW single reactor modules will be completed in 2019.

    I believe this is relevant because of his opinion expressed to Martin Aubrey (see AR’s April 7, 2018 at 2:47 PM post) that he sees the joining of the reactors in series as being useless. For me this suggests one manner of how Rossi intends to scale up the Ecat: when a customer wants a power output beyond what a 1kW can reasonably achieve, then the customer may upgrade, replacing the 1kW with a 10kW, and when needed a 10kW with a 100kW.

    This implies that the box as Rossi describes it, is being specifically designed for this sort of progression, minimizing the footprint of the total purchased Ecat reactor, and enabling a smooth progression using his already proven ability to vary the actual power output of a single reactor from sub-1kW all the way up to 100kW.

    BRILLIANT . . . A customer may choose to be an early adopter, purchase an Ecat reactor to provide say 5% of the heat for an existing operating unit, design the necessary plumbing for the given unit, test the Ecat performance for 6-12 months, and upgrade the boxes to the desired new power output level with relatively little redesign of the necessary plumbing because the footprint hasn’t materially changed.

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

    Buck
    April 8, 2018 at 10:38 AM

    Good Morning Andrea:

    You shared with Frank an expectation that the 5Sigma testing on the 1kW reactor module should be completed by year-end.

    Are you also testing the 10kW and 100kW reactor modules within the 5Sigma discipline and when do you think that testing might be completed?

    my best regards,

    Buck
    _______________________________________________

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    April 8, 2018 at 2:22 PM

    Buck:

    yes I am and I hope to be ready with them within 2019.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R

    • Buck

      An indirect confirmation of sorts to my theory above

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

      Andrea Rossi
      April 8, 2018 at 5:50 PM

      Buck:

      Thank you for your attention toward our work. All these issues are in progress.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.

      • Martyn

        Yes Buck, I think you are right. The old lower power Ecat-QX unit can be removed and a new higher power unit slotted in the rack in its place. Very neat system and easily upgraded.

        • Buck

          Martyn,
          for me this product configuration affirms that the unknown partner(s), which is strongly argued here at EcatWorld for being ABB, has provided very experienced resources that seem to artfully incorporate the various relevant skills of science, engineering, and marketing.

          While I am not an engineer, I would bet my last dollar that the heat exchange superstructure within the box has gone and is going through exacting multi-disciplinary (heat/power transfer physics, material/structural science and engineering, thermal hydro-dynamics, etc.) computer analysis and testing in preparation for eventual 3D-printing . . . all with the goal of optimizing the harvesting of 100kW of power from a reactor the size of a used-up pencil.

          And as a final guess: I wouldn’t be surprised if each control module is controlled by wireless.

          • causal observer

            Concur on staff and goal.

            They will likely attempt to keep the boundary conditions the same as long as possible: size of box, input power wiring and working fluid hookups.

            Heat dissipation may get a little tricky with the higher output modules in the same box size though. So there might be a change in interface and customer infrastructure when they get to that point.

            Since the energy delivery cost will be in large part the manufacturing cost, and the manufacturing cost will be related to the number of modules, reactors with the higher W output should be less expensive. That should incent the customers to adapt if needed.

          • Buck

            CO,
            I agree.

            I think part of the customer’s decision calculus includes an Early Adopter problem: the need to verify the economic claims of this new technology.

            Presuming a parity of COP between the Stockholm demonstration and the Ecat QX sold into this new market, then a COP=500, or even a COP=50, simply overwhelms a traditional cost-benefit analysis . . . swinging the customer, after the 6-12-18 month trial, towards a very powerful willingness to upgrade their infrastructure if they are looking to upgrade to the 100kW and switch to 100% LENR provided heat for their entire operation from say 5%.

            I believe Rossi and Partner recognize this hurdle, the Early Adopter problem, and have designed the Ecat QX and Ecat SK upgrade with this in mind.

  • Buck

    In the following exchange, Rossi sends me back to the famous line in “The Graduate” . . . . “Go into plastics, there is a future in plastics”

    This linked article is an excellent piece on how one shouldn’t discount exotic plastics as a means for heat transfer. Very interesting section on “Active Ingredients” and carbon fibers.
    Link>> https://www.ptonline.com/articles/plastics-that-conduct-heat

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

    Stephen
    April 9, 2018 at 8:20 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi.

    I understand that the heat transfer medium into and out of the Ecat Box could be a one of a number of different fluids at different pressures and starting temperature depending on the needs. I wonder if the maximum temperature at the out let is already defined?

    Is it currently limited to say high pressure steam at 100 deg C?

    Or could it be higher in the day 400 deg C

    Or perhaps at temperatures even above 1000 deg C?

    Obviously the heat capacity is probably the important factor for most uses initially but I’m curious if there is an upper limit to the temperature -as well.

    Would yo be able to give this kind information regarding the unit? Or is it something for later?

    Another curious question. You mention the over all box is plastic. But I wonder could it also be made of other materials such as metals or ceramics for uses in places where plastics might not be able to be used?

    Best Regards .

    Stephen
    _______________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    April 9, 2018 at 9:42 AM

    Stephen:

    We can go up to any T used in the existing utilization in the world.

    The box could be made by any convenient material, but plastic is the lighter and the more cheap.

    Further details are premature.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

  • Jimr

    Can anyone tell me a comparison of one Kw of heat to some device. I believe a normal 2 slice toaster puts out at least 1kw. If that is true what uses are there for a 1kw device..

  • Buck

    In the following two exchanges between Steve Karels and Andrea, more information about the size, the look, of the first aggregate 1MW reactor

    =================================================
    Steven N. Karels
    April 11, 2018 at 4:25 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted “Plus the volume to have operative room, so that you need about a 30 ft container all included with the heat exchanger.”
    Could you please provide estimates of the other two dimensions for a 1MW thermal output unit?
    ____________________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    April 11, 2018 at 9:57 AM

    Steven N. Karels:

    8′ x 8′

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Steven N. Karels
    April 11, 2018 at 4:28 PM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Based on a structure defined as 30 feet in length with 8 foot height and 8 foot width, I would assume the following:

    a. Two sides approximately 2 feet in thickness with an internal 3 – 4 foot walkway between the two sides. So there would be a total of four surfaces: Left Side, exterior, Left side, interior, Right side, interior and Right side, exterior.
    b. Each side would contain 250 eCat 1kW units. It would likely be on a grid of 10 units vertically and 25 units horizontally.

    So horizontally, each eCat 1kW unit would be centered at about 14 inches, recall they are 10 inches wide.

    Vertically, each eCat 1kW unit would be 8.5 to 9.5 inches, recall each unit is about 7.2 inches in height.

    The difference in grid spacing and unit size would be for structural support, interconnections and piping, and access.

    Thoughts?
    __________________________________________________

    Andrea Rossi
    April 11, 2018 at 4:33 PM

    Steven N. Karels:

    Yes, this is a possible configuration.

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    • frank

      Why not – back to the roots with a blue 1MW container, that is standardized and familar, and can be shipped around the world, where needed! It needs just power in from grid, power out and water in / steam out, and could also be locked and supervised so not easy to access for reverse engineering.

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