Recharging E-Cat Plants

One of the important things to remember about E-Cat plants is that they will need to be refueled on a regular basis. For whatever reason, after operating for a period of time (Rossi has said between 6 months and a year), the fuel loses its potency an needs to be replaced.

Andrea Rossi has made some comments about this recently on the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

Andrea Rossi
February 24, 2018 at 7:28 PM
Raffaele Bongo:
We will change the Ecats, not the fuel, in the Customers’ factories. The reactors will be changed by lots, to maintain the the production. The plants will have an excess of reactors corresponding to the lots quantum. The charge will be changed in our closer point of assistance and eventually recycled.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Frank Acland
February 24, 2018 at 10:02 PM

Dear Andrea,

Regarding the recharging:

1. Will a Leonardo Corp. employee always have to change the E-Cats, or will it be possible for operators to do so (like we change our printer cartridges when they are depleted)? AR: it will be possible for operators certified by us to do so

2. How long would a complete recharge of a 1MW plant take — (minutes, hours, days)? AR: several days

3. What do you expect to be the cost to refuel a 1 MW plant? AR: low enough

Refueling is going to be a very important aspect of the commercial E-Cat operation. From what Rossi states above I there will be fresh excess reactors already installed in E-Cat plants that can be put in operation while old ones are being changed out, thus no downtime will be experienced by plant users.

For Leonardo Corporation to maintain its trade secrets it is going to want to maintain as much control as possible over its E-Cats, both new and spent reactors. From what Rossi writes here, the recharging will be done by authorized, certified technicians who will presumably be under strict contract to not let E-Cats out of their hands. However, assuming that the E-Cat is a commercial success, if millions of new and spend E-Cats are being circulated, it would be virtually impossible not to let some fall into unauthorized hands, especially given the intense interest that there is bound to be if the technology is demonstrated to work as claimed. Leonardo is surely aware of this issue and that it won’t take long for its secrets to be detected by reverse engineers. Rossi has always stated that only mass production and economy of scale can protect him from the people wanting to copy his technology.

  • sam
  • hunfgerh

    Yes of course every stove has to be recharged after a certain time. In the case of my reactor proposal https://sites.google.com/site/h2sucofu/home/high-current-density – see Appendix: Zeichnung – this is done
    by electrolysis of LiH / THF in the reactor itself. For this purpose, the reactor tube (1) is connected as the cathode and the pressure vessel (2) as the anode. After about 1/2 to 1 hour of electrolysis time, the electrolyte is
    drained through the outlet. Thereafter, the pressure vessel is filled again with hydrogen.

  • Dr. Mike

    It is good that Rossi is building enough redundancy into his 1MW design and that the system design can permit part of the system to be shut down while refueling. However, this concept may be difficult for customers that want to use Rossi’s QX devices in their own systems. In particular, it might be difficult (or expensive) to use this same concept in building a small commercial system that only delivers 10’s of KW of heat. Rossi is a long way from demonstrating that re-fueling can be done at low cost. It seems most likely that modules are going to have to be swapped out in refueling, as it would take too much labor to swap out individual QX devices. To achieve low cost Rosii has to assume that the modules can be re-used with good reliability, and that the QX devices can be easily removed from the modules and then refueled and put back into modules with good reliability. Until he can demonstrate reliability on re-worked modules, which is likely to take a year to verify after he receives a large volume of recycled modules, it should be assumed that all refueling in the first couple of years will have to be done with new modules. Surely most customers would insist refueling only be done with newly manufactured modules until there was reliability data on the re-manufactured modules.

  • AdrianAshfield

    As Frank (& Rossi) says, it will be impossible to keep the technology secret, particularly if other companies are given units to experiment with for their own purposes like make a car. So the trick will be to not only make them cheaply enough but also to build enough manufacturing capacity to meet demand.

    Rossi has said he intends to make complete small modules with automation – I hope ~10 KW. that could be bundled for high output but would also serve for home heating. I think the >MW units will be replaced by QX turbines relatively quickly, as a much better way for making electricity.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe we can learn something from this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_0z1kvM6ns

    • Vinney

      Glad to see some if the nexus between war and innovation is now being broken in all fields.
      The Ecat is going to be known as one of the greatest peacetime inventions of all time, and as far as I can foresee, it is predominantly going to promote continued and widespread peace for decades.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Rossi says it is.

  • Brokeeper

    Why several days to replace a 1MW unit? A 1GW electrical power plant having 1,000 1MW units would require a team of hundreds of operators to replace all the E-Cats within several days. There should be a quicker way to the replacement processes. If the concept of modular design is maintained, then I would think standardized quick disconnect fittings would be necessary to minimize replacement disruptions. Of course, in reality for a 1GW plant replacements will be scheduled throughout the year.

    • greggoble

      Makes sense, You mean they would be replacing a unit of, let’s say 10 or 100 reactors, at one time with a quick disconnect?

      • Brokeeper

        Well, yes but it appears the largest unit is the 4k module of 100 reactors. I thought they were replacing the 1MW modules and robotizing the placement of the individual units back at the factory. I don’t think that is the case now. May be one of the considerations Rossi is developing a larger E-Cat, to minimize the manual intensive replacements onsite.

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    February 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    Is it possible that if you get larger higher power reactors working well, that they will be standard for powering E-Cat plants (instead of using small ones like used in the Stockholm demo)?

    Kind regards,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    February 25, 2018 at 10:39 AM
    Frank Acland:
    Yes, it is where we are aiming to.
    This afternoon we are going to make a test of paramount importance in this direction. We are working very, very hard.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Dr. Mike

      A new higher power reactor would require a redesign of the module and a restart of reliability testing. It is most probable that a higher power design will have reliability issues not seen in the current design (although all reliability issues observed in the current power design would also be seen in the higher power design). If Rossi is able to successfully build a higher power QX device, it is not likely that he would market the current design. This would result in more delays in getting a product to the market.

      • Vinney

        I think Rossi is now committed to bring the current design to market at the cheapest price.
        This high power version will mean significant design changes and the use of new high temperature materials.
        Certainly of interest in small format electricity generation units or gensets and should constitute a future premium product.

        • Dr. Mike

          Rossi’s answer to Frank is that the new design would replace the current one.

          • Frank Acland

            Frank Acland
            February 26, 2018 at 7:26 AM
            Dear Andrea,

            From what you have commented regarding testing a higher power E-Cat QX, does this mean you will be abandoning the plans for the smaller reactors, thus requiring you to restart your designing of a commercial plants, and losing time?

            Best wishes,

            Andrea Rossi
            February 26, 2018 at 7:56 AM
            Frank Acland:
            No.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Dr. Mike

            If Rossi has a 100W or 200W reactor working, he will not be selling systems with 20W or 40W reactors. The lower power reactors would only be manufactured if new reliability issues were observed in the higher power reactors

          • greggoble

            What Frank posted below shows the answer as No not Yes; Rossi will not be abandoning the plans for the smaller reactors,

      • Mylan

        That’s just what I thought. Again no product this year? Ever?

      • AdrianAshfield

        The idea that the higher power QXs would be larger cones from blog comments.
        Rossi has not said this, but rather that the Stockholm test was run at 1/3 power to avoid problems.
        If Rossi keeps on altering the design there will never be a commercial product, certainly not this year. As you point out each new design requires a test period (of a year if all goes well.)

        • greggoble

          I agree. I wonder how much longer the present reactor can be or fatter. Doubling these dimensions and maximizing the power output, as you stated, would certainly affect MWh and GWh speculation without changing the reactor design much,

          • Omega Z

            This technology will negate the need for GWh scale power plants. Power plants will no longer be limited as to their location as they will not need access to rails, pipelines and water reservoirs. They can easily be located at point of use such as at city edges ect…

            Also note that many power plant facilities are mostly made up of smaller generating units of 250MW to 600MW. This allows them to scale output to demand.

          • greggoble

            I agree… good points you have brought up.

      • greggoble

        imagine the number of devices/appliances/processes which have a requirement for 10KWh, or less, of power delivered as a mix of thermal and electric energy. See the need for tinier reactors as well as larger, perhaps each will be in demand by the thousands.

    • Gerard McEk

      It is clear that the Ecat hat still enormous potentials for improvement. This is also the weakest point of the Ecat. If Andrea wants to protect it against copycats and reverse designing, than there should be no room for improvement. Also the theory does not seem established. One can only be sure that the design is the best that can be made, if its working is understood. I hope the theory is proven soon, otherwise Andrea will face fierce competition:

      Gerard McEk
      February 25, 2018 at 10:33 AM
      Dear Andrea,
      I believe it was during the Stockholm test, you said that Gullström was preparing tests to check the theory. Did those tests take place and if so, did it confirm the theory?
      Thank you for answering our questions.
      Kind regards, Gerard

      Andrea Rossi
      February 25, 2018 at 2:33 PM
      Gerard McEk:
      Gullstrom and I are still working on this issue and preparing new tests.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • LarryJ

        You are correct that the potential for improvement is enormous and I think it will remain that way for a very long time. Leonardo/Rossi will no doubt face fierce competition, however by adopting the strategy he has, he will have set the standard, the form factor if you like, and he will have the strength and market penetration to remain a serious player for the long term and most importantly, his tech will see the light of day.

  • sam

    Steven N. Karels
    February 25, 2018 at 3:20 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Your maintainability concept, as I understand it, for customers who use a large number of eCat reactors, say in excess of 10,000 20W reactors, is to have groups of them changed out for maintenance (once a year, refueling, failures, etc.).
    1. Is this substantially correct?

    Given the high operating temperature, nearby groups of eCat reactors would make maintenance activities on a nearby grouping difficult and perhaps hazardous because of heat.
    2. Does this suggest a physical separation requirement for the various grouping to allow maintenance activity?

    If this is essentially true, and for a hypothetical 1GW electrical power generation station, about 2.5GW of thermal power would need to be generated (assuming a Carnot efficiency of 40%). Allowing an additional 10% capacity to accommodate simultaneous full power output operation and maintenance activities to occur, then about 138 million eCat 20W reactors would be needed. If the eCat 20W reactors were fabricated 100 each in a service module, each service module producing 2kW of thermal power, then about 1.38 million such service modules would be needed. And if grouping of 125 such service modules were within a group container, each group container would produce about 250kW of thermal power and there would be 11,000 such groupings. Conceptually, this would occupy a 2 dimensional matrix almost 110 x 100 of such groupings.
    3. Undoubtedly way too many assumptions but is the concept essentially correct?

    With 11,000 (or some similar number) of groupings, and with an annual maintenance call to each grouping unit, a typical day would see replacement of about 30 groupings or less than 1% of the total capacity down for scheduled maintenance at any one time. This level of scheduled maintenance suggests the 10% excess capacity to accommodate other maintenance activities is about correct.
    4. Is this consistent with your planned scheduled maintenance philosophy?

    Assuming the 110 x 100 matrix configuration, and assuming 1 cubic meter per grouping, assuming a 1 meter cube and with allowing 2 meters for service access between groupings suggests the entire 110 x 100 matrix would take up about 330m x 300m of land space or about 0.1 square kilometers of land or about 0.04 square miles or about 20 acres.

    Solar Cell Power for Driving the eCats: The eCat reactors are producing 2.5GW times 24 hours per day or 60GWhr per day of thermal energy. Assuming an effective COP of 100 means the average input power to run the plant will be on the order of 25MW. A 1MW solar farm requires about 4 acres of land so a 100 MW solar farm (assume the 100MW solar farm only operates about 1/4 of the time due to battery efficiencies, daylight and weather effects) would need about 400 acres. Assuming suitable battery capacity to store during darkness (night and storms) could be accommodated, you could have a 1GW electrical generation plant with zero average energy consumption (and a ton of assumptions on my part).

    Since you are feeding electrical power to a national grid, you could easily draw the control power from the same grid. This could be done all the time or you could draw power and store the power in local batteries to take advantage of lower electricity cost during non-peak hours. But it may make more economic and environmental sense to generate the control power from a different technology (gas, coal, wind or solar) as it makes little sense to divert your produced electricity or to buy someone else’s electricity to control the eCats.
    Your thoughts?

    Andrea Rossi
    February 25, 2018 at 7:38 PM
    Steve N.Karels:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- yes
    4- yes
    I am not designing plants with 2.5 GW of power, therefore I am not able to detail dimensional issues for such concerns; I am sure that for that order of magnitude it is not just a summatory we have to deal with.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Omega Z

      Criteria for building curent power plants.
      Capable of using coal or N-gas dependent on trending cost..
      Large enough to be at least 30% efficient.
      A fuel crossroads. 2 different Rails for coal should there be a disruption in 1 and 2 different pipelines for N-gas for the same reason. This all leads to very large plants that require a major water source and a highly centralized power grid.

      With technology currently under development, LENR does not have to be nearly as large as current power plants. Doesn’t need access to multiple fuel access and will be small enough that chill towers are economical for use and will allow a highly decentralized grid.

      It’s possible these systems could be built on an assembly line and delivered by flatbed truck. Just plug and play.

  • roseland67

    f sedai

    You are correct, if it works as stated,
    Energy Out > Energy In,
    it will not be kept secret.

    • LarryJ

      It is my understanding that his patented fluid heater has a cop >1 <2

  • Omega Z

    An industrial product does not require UL certification. An industrial certification can be accomplished in a few days to a week as they will have a skilled technician on hand when ever in operation.

    R&D forever. Exactly as stated by Rossi. This is also a standard business operation. The 2019 model cars will be available in about 5 months. Big Auto is well into designing the 2020 models and exploratory design of the models to come several years after that.

    Rossi has stated this will not stop the industrialization of the current QX. Much of the industrialization process for him is very likely a hurry up and wait on others to do their tasks. That he is continuing to look at advancing the R&D isn’t an issue. This may even be at the behest of his partner.

    • frank

      So let’s hope that his partner and investor (?) is patient enough to wait for the return of investment….otherwise this is simply burning good money. We all know that Rossi is no business man, otherwise we would have seen him earning billions if all is true what he claims since many years…

      • LarryJ

        Rossi was owned by IH ever since 2012. His hands were tied and he had very little say in the commercialization of his tech. It took him 3 years to finally drag IH kicking and screaming into the 1 year demo which eventually gave him the grounds to get them off his back. He would have brought it market earlier had he picked a better partner. It looks like he learned a lesson from that episode.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi has build many businesses and sold them to finance his work.

  • Frank Acland

    Rossi will probably never stop doing R&D.

    Frank Acland
    February 26, 2018 at 11:25 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    So is the larger E-Cat QX prototype you are testing:

    1) Part of ongoing R&D?
    2) A possible next-generation industrial product?
    3) A possible next-generation domestic product?
    4) Will its testing be long-term, as with the Sigma 5 testing you did last year?

    Thank you if you are able to answer,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    February 26, 2018 at 12:03 PM
    Frank Acland:
    1- yes
    2- yes
    3- yes
    4- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Vikram
    February 26, 2018 at 3:07 PM
    Dr Rossi,
    Will the new high power single reactor demand at least one year of tests to reach Sigma 5 as it happened with the QX? By the way, does it have already a name?
    Godspeed,
    Vikram

    Andrea Rossi
    February 27, 2018 at 5:41 PM
    Vikram:
    Yes.
    Name: suggestions?
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    Greg Vogtman
    February 27, 2018 at 2:21 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Do you think it will possible to see in operation the big single reactor within this year?
    Besides: did you already find a name?

    Andrea Rossi
    February 27, 2018 at 5:37 PM
    Greg Vogtman:
    Hard to know.
    This morning we had important results, but we are very green.
    About the name, it will be Ecat followed by a suffix: suggestions?
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • sam

    Frederic Maillard
    February 28, 2018 at 5:57 PM
    Dear Dr Rossi,

    Could you tell us the weight of Nickel needed in each individual Ecat-QX ?
    Thanks if you can answer,

    FM

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    March 1, 2018 at 1:50 AM
    Frederic Maillard:
    The characteristics available will be put in the data sheet of the product.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.