Rossi Comments on Safety of the E-Cat Control System

We have been told on many occasions by Andrea Rossi that the control system is a vital part of the control system, but he hasn’t said very much about it beyond that. A few comments from him recently give us a little bit more idea about its functioning, however.

Rossi explained in a recent comment that there is no longer a low-temperature or high-temperature E-Cat, as had been the case in the past. When asked by Gerard McEk whether there was still a future for a low-temperature E-Cat, he responded:

“no, because the high T makes also the low T, just increasing the fluid flow”

So the greater the fluid flow, the lower its temperature would be, since it has less time to interact with the heat source in the E-Cat.

I followed up with a question of my own:

You said that the T of the E-Cat is constant, and the T of the fluid varies according to the flow. You have said the E-Cat reaches very high temperature, so what would happen if the flow was unexpectedly interrupted? Would the E-Cat overheat?

Rossi replied:

Andrea Rossi
April 28, 2018 at 8:55 AM
Frank Acland:
The control system would shut down all if the T goes above the allowed limit.
Warm regards,
A.R.

There was another question and answer on the same subject:

A Goumy
April 28, 2018 at 9:46 AM
Dear Mr Rossi,

If the control system breaks out, or communication with ECat is lost, does the ECat stop by itself?

Andrea Rossi
April 28, 2018 at 10:27 AM
A Goumy:
Good question.
The answer is yes.
Yes.
Warm regards
A.R.

So from Rossi’s responses here, it seems that the E-Cat can start and stop at will, and any malfunction will shut down the E-Cat immediately.

  • cashmemorz

    To be sure of the self quenching or inherent off position of the E-cat, the physics in the form of what the nuclear particles are doing has to be defined in its proper concept. Theory is everything. Comparing that to fire is a cop-out. Chemical processes found in fire was a safe first kind of energy that nature gives in our low gravity environment. True fusion as found in the Sun has gravity as a major enabling component.

    The sun is still not understood how it works, well enough to transfer that process to earth bound methods. Gravity is a pulling process, not pushing as is done via magnetic confinement as is attempted in hot fusion projects. So its like trying to push the nucleons like a wet noodle to get going in a straight line to where it is being aimed. Gravity makes nucleons meet very accurately head on because they have the electrons involved as the ultimate source of gravity between the nuclear particles to attract each other. See this lecture about how gravity is understood in the Grand Unified Theory- Classical Physics , Minute 29-38:

    http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Mediasite/Play/8ef7e03e26fc458b8eb7f351738f26811d

    Magnetic confinement depends on high temperature to contribute to the apparently required high speed that is needed towards increasing the statistical probability of some nucleons meeting head on=>very low probability and then to break through the coulomb forces around the nucleus, ==>even less probability. But that is just one of several other details (magnets can’t control what the neutrons do===>even far less probability, but gravity can==> extremely high probability, even in the very low 5000degree nuclear temp, of the Sun) that have to be figured out before even attempting to plan a fusion process on earth. I knew that in 1966, when asked to work on the Canadian version of the tokamak fusion project The physicists involved in the tokamak type of fusion, won’t admit to that flaw even now, therefore the reason why their particular approach will never, ever work. Until they admit to what gravity can and does do in the mix as detailed above. Maybe they have realized this when it was announced that success of hot fusion needs a tokamak about ten times as large as the one at ITER. Do they expect gravity to start influencing the process at that scale? Good grief, makes me want to cry from frustration.

    • Omega Z

      ->”The physicists involved in the tokamak type of fusion, won’t admit to that flaw”

      If they admit this, then there would be no project, job or paycheck.

  • Gia’

    having a process intrinsically sure means that as the control fails the process will safely abort, in ecat case it sounds like the process feedback is given by the heat transport fluid temperature, meaning that if the feed bach fails high the system naturally will overcorrect low and eventually naturally shut duwn, if the control fails low the system will overdrive high leading the unit to collaps and therefore shutdown, this detail tells us that this process needs constant igniction

    • Frank Acland

      I think you are right about the E-Cat needing constant ignition of some kind. Maybe that is what the 5 Sigma testing was all about.

    • US_Citizen71

      It appears to be quit simple, the arc causes the reaction. No arc no reaction. So if the control fails nothing happens.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Boring. Rossi needs to put some real experimental evidence out in public. Come on now Dr. Rossi. You are killing us.

    • LarryJ

      The real evidence will be the industrial reactor. Not long now. Anything else at this stage would be risky at worst and distracting at best.

      • Frank Acland

        Yes I agree, I don’t think we will see anything until he decides to do the presentation of the product. He doesn’t care very much about making us feel better!

        • Gerard McEk

          Well, at least he will present a ‘box in operation’ when he has finished the Ecat QX, ready to conquer the world.

      • Anon2012_2014

        “The real evidence will be the industrial reactor. Not long now.”

        I am waiting.

        • psi2u2

          Pardon me for observing that your previous statement did not really sound like you are “waiting.” On the contrary, you stated that Dr. Rossi was “killing us” by not delivering on your timetable. Where does that “us” come from? Moreover, the first word of your post, in response to Dr. Rossi’s statement about the safety protocols of his prototypes, was, and I quote, “boring.”

          Is that really a good way to start a conversation with a man who has even the slightest possibility of turning out to be one of the most important experimental electrochemists and machine designers of your lifetime?

          You are certainly more confident than I am about who is right and wrong here. I’m *waiting* — actually waiting. There aren’t many dull days here, what with contributors like many who we have here by now.

          So, for the record, I’m *not* being killed by Dr. Rossi’s choices; all souls have difference as the book of Jeremiah says; I have another life to live, and I’m glad to be here with a front row seat; thanks Frank Acland! Go Andrea Rossi, and all the other courageous LENR researchers from the MFMP to Parmakhov and Souhas and many others we can or already have read about here. We need you all.

          • Anon2012_2014

            I’m waiting and waiting and waiting. Sure doesn’t fit my wait 6 year time table. Maybe it will fit my wait 12 year time table. Or maybe I will die first of old age. Every time I hear a random pronouncement all I think about is that the real thing — publicly reproduce-able experimental evidence is still not there six years after I discovered Dr. Rossi. I’m expressing MY frustration at following Dr. Rossi.

            P.S. Parkhamov and Suhas and MFMP and the others who are releasing whatever experimental protocols and results they get as they get them I have no problem with — they are not holding back on the results positive or negative. I thank them.

          • LarryJ

            You may be frustrated with following Rossi but no doubt Rossi was frustrated too. His unfortunate selection of Industrial Heat as a partner added several years to the saga and there was absolutely nothing he could do about it except watch it play out as he no longer owned the IP for the ecat. He finally regained it this past July in an out of court settlement with Industrial Heat.The world is full of money men who want to control it and milk it and we are very fortunate that Rossi had the wherewithal and the stamina to win it back from those who would have kept it off the market and milked it for a very long time.

    • Gerard McEk

      He did so in Stockholm. Many people were convinced that it produced excess energy, not the electricians.

  • cashmemorz

    Sense or not, it is the final effect of producing very little energy out for what is put in that is ever achieved. Tokamak type of hot fusion all have the same results to date. This is the definition of insanity,: doing the same thing for 60 years and expecting a different result. Something, anything has to be changed to improve the amount of power out. Instead the same method is kept on with adjustments here and there. Neutron absorbing materials is one of those adjustments. It is extremely difficult no matter what the adjustmets. The correct way is to find the correct theory of what is really going on and start over with a better over all approach.

    • psi2u2

      I have a feeling that a lot of scientists are starting to agree with this. I was stunned to see that the report of the Safire team was actually funded by electric universe theorists and was design in part to test that paradigm but also ended up, apparently, producing LENR. To me that’s an omen of paradigm shift.

      • cashmemorz

        Exactly. All methodsthat have any possibility of working should be tried. Then the ones with best results should be examined in more detail until they are either confirmed as viable or an even better method is found. That used to be how science was supposed to work. Not hog the whole show by one method and keep it going no matter what any other method might show, good or bad. this is one of the reasons why progress in the scientifically based disciplines has stagnated. To cover that point the excuse used is, that the further one gets into the details n about what is actually going in one discipline, the more complex it gets and therefore it gets slowed down from that angle. What that excuse doesn’t mention is why those details do not bring out more innovation. The reason those details do not produce innovation is because the details do not reflect reality, but require ever more theorizing to try and get around the wrong physics that is at base of the problem of why there is so little progress. Compare the progress in QWM where thousands are involved and the number of innovations achieved just by one small company using the Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics,namely Brilliant Light and Power. 3 fully developed items and three more in development. And each one very innovative to the point of being disruptive. The innovations using accepted physics are all weird, unweildy, require ever more fine tuning to explain what is really going on and costing thousands and even millions of times more than the ones developed by BrLP. The items made by BrLP are all simpler in concept, thousands of times smaller in oversize, far reaching in effect and the first two in full use already the third to be in market within months and the next three are moving along with only thousands to a few million dollars required for each to be developed.

  • scottlshman

    .

    Acatalepsy in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing. Acatalepsy is the incomprehensibility of all things. It is the antithesis of the Stoic doctrine of katalepsis or Apprehension. According to the Stoics, katalepsis was true perception, but to the Pyrrhonists and Academic Skeptics,all perceptions were acataleptic, i.e. bore no conformity to the objects perceived, or, if they did bear any conformity, it could never be known.

    For the Academic Skeptics acatalepsy meant that human knowledge never amounts to certainty, but only to probability. For the Pyrrhonists it meant that knowledge was limited to the appearances (phantasiai) and the pathē. The Pyrrhonists attempted to show, while Academic skeptics asserted an absolute acatalepsia; all human science or knowledge, according to them, went no further than to appearances and verisimilitude.

    .

    • psi2u2

      Wow. Nice little summary there. When you say “academic skeptics,” are you referring to the medieval academy, the modern one, or both? You use the past tense verb, which makes me think you are talking historically and not about present practices. But if so, how does this apply to the contemporary academic scene in which paradigm shifting thinking is paid lip service to as an idea, but rarely if ever practiced?

  • Axil Axil

    The QX reactor is sub-critical in that when the RF pumping is removed, the reaction dies away. This is the same method that Defkalion used to control their system. In the QX, there is a 8 second power cycle. It is imitated with the formation of a plasma by a high voltage discharge. Next, RF stimulation produces light in that plasma which pumps the LENR active agent. That agent produces power after the RF is terminated and the light pumping is terminated. Being sub-critical, the LENR reaction dies away over 4 seconds and terminates at the end of self sustain operation. The cycle begins again with another plasma forming high voltage discharge.

    The QX cannot melt down because the control systems stops light pumping at the halfway point of this power cycle. Without light pumping, the LENR reaction will terminate in a short time(4 seconds).

    We can think of the QX as operating like a laser that needs light pumping to produce power output. The QX has a 4 second self sustain period which generates energy gain(heat) after the light pumping is terminated.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      A DFT (density functional theory) paper suggests that lithium hydride, LiH may have some covalent bond character. http://disq.us/p/16gggda
      See the hydrogen chloride, H~Cl model at 8:00 minutes in the video and then think of how covalently bonded lithium hydride, Li~H might oscillate when irradiated with the right frequency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=mNaipM3WEO0

      • Axil Axil

        http://rexresearch.com/holmlid/holmlid.html

        The hydrogen transfer catalyst may further be configured to cause a transition of the hydrogen into the ultradense state if the hydrogen atoms are prevented from re-forming covalent bonds.

        The mechanisms behind the catalytic transition from the gaseous state to the ultra-dense state are quite well understood, and it has been experimentally shown that this transition can be achieved using various hydrogen transfer catalysts, including, for example, commercially available so-called styrene catalysts, as well as (purely) metallic catalysts, such as Iridium and Palladium. It should be noted that the hydrogen transfer catalyst does not necessarily have to transition the hydrogen in the gaseous state to the ultra-dense state directly upon contact with the hydrogen transfer catalyst. Instead, the hydrogen in the gaseous state may first be caused to transition to a dense state H(1), to later spontaneously transition to the ultra-dense state H(-1). Also in this latter case has the hydrogen transfer catalyst caused the hydrogen to transition from the gaseous state to the ultra-dense state.

        The creation of ultra dense lithium requires 1/4 less pressure to form and also requires the suppression of covalent bonds.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          I was just wondering if when confined in the nanocavity, LiH may have more of the covalent bond character that the paper suggests. When irradiated with the right RF, it (Li~H) could undergo stretching oscillations that might get the nuclei close enough to tunnel and fuse.
          The pair of electrons that make up the covalent bond, ~ might lower the coulomb
          barrier (as a muon would).

          • Alan DeAngelis
          • Axil Axil

            Regarding:In a metalized compound, the covalent bonds change their nature as follows:

            See that yellow colored field there, that is a charge distribution. from this summary

            physics.aps.org/articles/v9/43

            “To explain their results, the researchers conducted first-principles calculations and found that a water molecule can occupy six symmetrical orientations in a beryl channel, in agreement with the known crystal structure. A single orientation has the oxygen atom roughly in the center of the channel, with the two hydrogen pointing to the same side (like a “<” symbol) toward one of the channel’s six hexagonal faces. Other orientations point to other faces, but are separated from each other by energy barriers of around 50 meV. However, these barriers don't stop the hydrogen from tunneling among the six orientations and thereby splitting the ground-state energy into multiple levels. The energy differences among these levels were consistent with the seven peaks observed in the neutron scattering data, the researchers found."

    • causal observer

      Nicely accounts for the behavior seen at the demo, and highlights the criticality of the controller to the effect.

  • sam

    Anonymous
    April 29, 2018 at 4:43 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    I understand you have a huge radiation intensity in very small surfaces: is this a difficulty you are coping with regarding the heat exchangers for the SK??

    Andrea Rossi
    April 29, 2018 at 7:24 PM
    Anonymous:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Fausto
    April 7, 2017 at 12:42 PM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    All us of the silent majority are praying for a fast healing of you.
    We need men like you.

    Andrea Rossi
    April 29, 2018 at 7:23 PM
    Fausto:
    All the modules are assembled in frames along vertical axes ( y ) and horizontal axes ( x ). Therefore every module is characterized by its coordinates x and y.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    Warm regards

    Craig
    April 29, 2018 at 4:00 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Are you also studying the self-sustaining issue, to increase its timing?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 29, 2018 at 8:24 AM
    Craig:
    A specialist ( a pretty good one ) made it.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Steven N. Karels
    April 29, 2018 at 5:48 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    1. When a fault or issue occurs with an industrial eCat unit, how will the status and fault information be communicated to the customer?

    2. Will the customer be able to identify a specific unit which is posting a fault/status issue?

    3. Will there be a visual indication on the specific unit (e.g., flashing red LED, visual display)?

    4. Assuming an array of eCat units, how will the customer know where the units is located (e.g., paperwork configuration, Rack, Bay and location number)?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 29, 2018 at 8:23 AM
    Steven N. Karels:
    1- immediately through the control system
    2- yes
    3- possibly
    4- by means of the coordinates: x,y
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • sam

    Steven N. Karels
    April 29, 2018 at 9:27 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    1. Since, as I understand it, you now have an encapsulated 1kW thermal output module which you can connect in parallel to produce a 1 MW thermal output system. Is this correct?

    2. I also understand that each 1kW unit has its own control system. Have you been able to estimate the average effective COP of a 1kW module?

    3. I also understand that the grid pattern for a 1MW thermal output system would be four racks (or two racks with front and back insertions) with each rack containing 25 modules horizontally and 10 modules vertically (e.g. x, y). Is this correct? (Four surfaces with each surface supporting 250 modules).

    4. At full output power, what will be the environment between the racks? Specifically, will humans be able to access the modules for replacement purposes without shutting down the entire system? If so, what temperature range would such maintenance personnel experience?

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    April 29, 2018 at 10:27 PM
    Steven N.Karels:
    1- yes
    2- > 6
    3- the combinations can be modified
    4- about 30- 35 C degrees
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • psi2u2

    Well, maybe so, but my real interest was in the particular kind of academic dysfunction that results in people who should know better continuing to endorse intellectually indefensible positions long after it is obvious to a more general population of thinkers that they are wrong. The widespread belief in the impossibility of LENR is one example.

    • Omega Z

      Usually those who should know better are more about keeping their favorite topic funded. Those who don’t know better get their from those who should.(sheeple)

      I’m not defending those who should know better. This isn’t about just LENR. It’s a constant practice of science in all fields in general.

      • psi2u2

        Yes, believe me, I know full well that it is not just about LENR, nor is it even just about science. Orthodox cranks threatened to shut down my department if it it approved my dissertation in literature. Instead the chair went to the New York Times, who did a story on it that gave some cover. But I have watched since then for over 15 years how gangs of overtenured bullies prevent the emergence of new perspectives while paying lip service to ideas like “think outside the box,” which usually in practice means “but not not very far outside the box, and don’t you dare to question what the box is made of. Shut up and act like us.”

        • Omega Z

          Yes, I read about some science projects a while back, Don’t recall what the topics were, likely because of reading about the dog fight between disciplines. They were down right hostile.

  • Omega Z

    A Leading Geneticist Says Human Intelligence is Slowly Declining
    ->”I would be willing to wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions”

    I believe HE would lose that bet. The only thing the article gets right is people are getting dumber. Qualifier-dumb as to a lack of basic knowledge. This does not mean stupid and has nothing to do with IQ or intelligence. The dumbing down is just a consequence of modern society. It is easy for the average person isolated in cities to have become dependent on the few to do what used to be done by the many. They simply never learned many of the simplest concepts. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t if they had to.

    As to the video- David Wolfe on Best Drinking Water
    A perfect example of dumb. He just doesn’t know better. A good plumber could explain to him why his pipes rattled and why the build up was in his plumbing. Or that having water without minerals is not healthy in the long term. Without additional evidence, I will only say he is dumb.

  • sam

    Gloria
    April 30, 2018 at 4:21 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Is it necessary for a human enter the container of a plant while the Ecat is operating?
    Thank you,
    Gloria

    Andrea Rossi
    April 30, 2018 at 11:07 AM
    Gloria:
    No. Anything necessary while the plant is in operation can be done from outside the container of the Ecat modules.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Anonymous
    April 30, 2018 at 4:21 AM
    Is it possible to operate an Ecat plant from remote using a cloud?

    Andrea Rossi
    April 30, 2018 at 11:05 AM
    Anonymous:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Prof
    April 30, 2018 at 4:25 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Will all the control systems of each module of the Ecat QX be assembles in the same control panel of a 1 MW plant?

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    April 30, 2018 at 11:04 AM
    Prof:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Does Jay Leno know about the E-Cat? He loves steam cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACO-HXvrRz8

  • Ophelia Rump

    OOPS, Typo in the first line.

    We have been told on many occasions by Andrea Rossi that the CONTROL SYSTEM is a vital part of the CONTROL SYSTEM,

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • sam

    Some of the guestions and answers
    are interesting and deserve to be
    posted here.

    Thomas Florek
    May 1, 2018 at 1:16 PM
    Hello Andrea,

    Much is being written about power generation being vulnerable to internet-based hacking which could disrupt or destroy operations of power generators. Does the E-cat have any online based control? Has your team considered internet-based threats to the operation of the E-cat?

    Andrea Rossi
    May 1, 2018 at 1:48 PM
    Thomas Florek:
    Good question: yes, we are dealing seriously with this issue with a specialist.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Frank Acland
    April 30, 2018 at 6:52 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    Thank you for the information about the container. A few more questions:

    1) What is the purpose of the container?
    2) Is the container considered part of the industrial plant — in other words, when a customer buys a plant is the container included in the cost?
    3) Can one view the plant in operation through a window in the container?
    4) Can one view the plant in operation via a camera inside the container?
    5) Will the plant shut down automatically if the container is opened when the E-Cat is in operation?
    6) What is the minimum size of industrial plant that can be ordered?
    7) Will the size of the container depend on the power rating of the plant?

    Thank you!

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    May 1, 2018 at 9:10 AM
    Frank Acland:
    1- contain ( he,he,he)
    2- yes: it is the body of the plant
    3- yes
    4- yes
    5- no: the safety certification imposes that a module is automatically turned off if any of its parts is opened or disconnected. To enter the container is safe also when the plant is in operation
    6- to be defined
    7- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

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