Certifiers Won’t Allow E-Cats to Run on E-Cat Power

An interesting comment from Andrea Rossi yesterday reveals something of the role that those involved in certifying the E-Cat products are having on the design and development of E-Cat units. To be commercially viable, Leonardo Corp. needs to get its products into the marketplace, and in order to do so must gain safety approval from bodies that certify products for safety. So far, according to Rossi, only the low temperature industrial plants have received certification — work on approving the high temperature plants is in process.

Now to the point of this post. The key characteristic of E-Cat technology is that it produces heat — apparently lots of it. Another characteristic is that in order to run in a stable manner, heat needs to be applied to the E-Cat reactor. Rossi sometimes refers to this heat application as the ‘drive’. We have heard that so far the drive can be in the form of an electrical resistor, or natural gas. As we know, both electricity and gas can be quite expensive, and even though the E-Cat is able to produce more power than is fed into it, it still consumes a lot of conventional power.

One fairly obvious solution to this problem might be this: if the E-Cat produces lots of heat, why not just use some of the E-Cat’s own heat to drive itself — or, use one E-Cat to drive another E-Cat? Here are two exchanges on the subject on the Journal of Nuclear physics.

Q: Dear Mr. Rossi, Recently you stated that new versions of E-cat can work with gas heating. My question is: Would it be possible to use the heat produced by one E-cat to activate a second E-cat?

A: No.

Q: We know from your postings that you have achieved 1250C output temperatures for Hot eCats. We also know this is with 200C of the melting point of nickel. And you have previously stated that natural gas could be used to ignite the eCat reaction. So why would not the thermal output from one Hot eCat be capable of igniting the reaction of another eCat? Please clarify as you can without revealing any secrets.

A: Regarding the Hot cat in symbiosis: is not possible because the drive is a safety system and a safety system cannot depend from the Ecat itself. This is an issue emerged during the safety certification process.

I followed up with a question emailed to Andrea Rossi about whether electricity produced from an E-Cat could be used to power itself, or another E-Cat — even if the electricity was stored in a battery, and his response was, “No, they want the drive completely independent.”

So theoretically it seems that there are ways to close-loop the E-Cats and have them running in what would be an almost infinite COP off their own power — but from the point of view of safety certifiers, this is not approved. The logic must be that in order to prevent a malfunction, the input power to the E-Cat must come from a reliable and approved power source, such as the electrical grid or gas mains.

To get into the marketplace, Leonardo has no choice but to go along with what the certifiers say — even if they put limits on this technology. Many people have expressed surprise that Andrea Rossi says so often that the E-Cat will be integrated with other energy sources for a long time. Perhaps his position is based on his understanding of what will be demanded by those who certify his products for safety.

  • ChrisT

    Rossi is going to keep screwing around with these endless delays and all this certification nonsense until he looses control of this tech completely. Someone will crack this process and start distributing clone products (or parts) from China, India or other sources.

    I know if I had access to the formula — I’d build my own right now.

  • Stefan Flueler, Zurich

    Rossi: “(Running e-Cat self-powered) is not possible because the drive is a safety system and a safety system cannot depend from the Ecat itself. This is an issue emerged during the safety certification process.”

    That Rossi statement is very nebulous. A properly designed system would have a mechanism to switch from external power to self-powered as soon as possible, and back to external power, if for some reason reactor output would fall below the minimum required input to sustain the reaction. And a thermostat would continuously monitor the reactor temperature and switch off external power as well as self-powering in case of overheating of the reactor, until it has cooled down to a temperature inside design limits.

    • Chris

      Much as I agree the requirements are all too stringent, and likely for political reasons, I think you are not getting the safety issue straight.

      The risk, as already said here, is in a simple closed loop which could become runaway. The safety requirement seems to be in reliably removing the input heat and a backup soource sure doesn’t solve this. What needs to be reliable is the cutoff or limitation. I can’t say for sure without knowing Rossi’s details which are confidential.

      • jonnykzj

        Hi Chris,

        Stefan mentioned just what i stated earlier. You say that the closed loop can become a runaway. I understand by this you mean that in case there’s a problem with the electronic controller it could allow more electric power as input which in turn would increase reaction which would then further increase output electric power etc, etc. YET there is a very simple solution for this too, A FUSE. You can have a physical fuse that would break should the electric power be above the maximum allowed for input. ALSO you can have two electronic controllers for further safety. No need for constant external power input.

        • Chris

          Um no it seems to be much more subtle than protection against short circuit.

          What I glean from all the chatter, along with my own reasoning, is that it appears to be a positive feedback issue. You would want the output to reliably block the input as soon as runaway occurs. That is not like a final resort for the input cutting itself off (it would require an extremely tight margin, to be of any use).

    • Mark

      I think that this is a temporary situation, due to the novelty
      of this technology. But I would definitely do what they say,
      as the trade off seems reasonable. After all we let Internal
      Combustion Engines supply their own control power. On the other
      hand, I think in the long term that while HC hydrocarbon fuel
      is fairly reliable, it is not necessarily safe at the point
      of use. There are gas regulators that can fail and let high
      pressure fuel gas into standard pressure appliances, so HC gas can
      definitely fail into the “high”-”on” position or more. While this
      sometimes happens with electrical power as well, device electronics
      generally do not survive to keep the device running. Many gas appliances
      that have automatic sequences use “Millivolt” electrical thermocouple
      derived controls because of the reliability of electronics and
      the need for standard thermostat switches and UV flame sensors.
      Gas appliances must shut off the main input if the main burner
      does not light for whatever reason, after a certain allowance of
      delay time.

      :S:MarkSCoffman

  • Kryptomaniac

    In the US consumer arena, this would be no big deal as you could just hookup the e-cat to the grid and use net metering, add elec back to the grid and take it off to power the ecat. If you put back as much or more than you take, you have no cost or actual income.

    I’d expect the commercial realm has some form of net metering too.

    • Levi Strauss

      For the edification of the uninitiated, this is more of a political then a safety issue. All the co-generation plants are required to buy power to run their hotel loads (motors, fans etc) from the power companies that they sell their power to. This cost of that power is always much higher then the remigrations received. Only the power companies are allowed to provide their own operating power. There is little “safety” involved as far as runaway operation. There are relays set to trip the generating facilities off if power is lost on the “line”. Small generating facilities are never allowed to operate in the “island” mode due to safety issues, but that really isn’t a problem if safeguards are in place to trip the unit off line if there is a general blackout in the area.

  • David Smith

    Here is what doesn’t make sense. If this is a requirement for safety shut down, what happens when the power grid goes down and the back up goes down? Seems to me that there are still a few politicians that haven’t gotten their check yet.

    • Chris

      Another one of those who prolly got it backwards. The risk to guard against is too much input heat.

  • Geode

    Sadly, I suspect the “rectifiers” requesting for the Ecat to feed from other energy sources has little if not nothing to do with safety and everything to do with not wanting the Ecat plainly substituting other energy sources/markets like a bulldozer . Hope I’m wrong.. Or maybe not.. Hope I’m not wrong .. That would mean that after transition time and geopolitical readjustments, the technical opportunity for totally clean abbondance would be there.

    • David Smith

      IMHO You are right. And if Aspirin wasn’t already OTC we would never get it through FDA either.

  • jacob

    LENR should be brought to market with restrictions ,if need be,and will be accepted by the masses as a very efficient heater,just like the UV heaters that put out 2.5 times the heat in the form of radiant heat,few have even noticed ,that UV heater are the most cost efficient heaters on the market today, every fridge or heatpump is overunity and most people know it.

    UV heat heats my house with oil as backup.

    UV heaters are rated to heat 2.5 times the square footage,and if a water heater was based on absorbing the UV rays in a lead shield surrounding the watertank,my guess would be a water heater with a COP of 2.5 in a do it yourself project is possible.
    The overunity is created with a reflector like aluminum or copper.
    remove the reflector and you get no overunity.

    • Chris

      I don’t get what you say about UV heaters. How are they overunity? Could you give a link to better details?

      I suspect it isn’t a relevant topic and I’m sure heat pumps aren’t either.

      • jacob

        chris the new moderator? infrared heaters have radiations which are turned into heat,E-cats have gamma radiations turned into heat,reflectors multiply the intensity and cause overunity,remember this chris ,and one day you will see the light.

  • Gordon Docherty

    If they want their man with the red flag in front of the automobile…
    Also, the e-cat requres pressure, so why not just have an electric and manual pressure release valve – a significant pressure drop would slow (even kill) the reaction for sure, and could also trip over electric feed from internal (or off) to external – there could even be a retract mechanism on the cartridge. As to a chain reaction, well, has anyone ever even suggested using iron and / or nickel as a “fissile material”? So, then, it is the risk of explosion. So, why use gas? Now, if ever there was an unsafe fuel when things go wrong…

  • http://www.zazzle.com/energyrevolution Tony McDougall

    How is the E-Cat going to know what the source of the electrical power is?

    Only a snake that bites it’s own tail can tell that it belongs to him.

  • Anonymole

    I thought that not only was their a “drive” energy input but there was also the control electronics that provided the pulsed excitation circuit that actually drove the reaction. And that powering both this control circuit and the heating element would be a self feeding loop that would be a liability.

    But there would be nothing wrong with having a LENR reactor power a generator that charged a set of batteries. Those batteries would then be hooked up to power the control circuit. If that continuous loop, with batteries in the middle and may be some circuit firewall in between is still uncertifiable – then I’d say that was an implementation detail that any LENR manufacturer should have no control over. And if that’s a blocking detail then it’s just more fuel for the Rossi Says engine.

  • Al D

    I think that the certifiers are just being very cautious. Bear in mind that there is as yet no scientific consensus concerning just how, why, or if this thing works at all. I have seen everything from fusion to previously unascertained chemical reactions to quantum singularities (micro black holes). I think there are at this time well founded reasons to not want whatever the reaction is to get out of hand.

  • jonnykzj

    I believe there’s a very simple solution to this problem. Have the ecat connected to the grid AND ALSO let it use it’s own produced electricity to control the reaction. To achieve this there simply needs to be an integrated voltage and ammeter added in the electronic controller. Under normal conditions the ecat would be using its own electricity for stabilization. IN CASE the amount of electricity produced drops below the required amount, the controller would then automatically switch to draw the required amount from the grid. ALSO the amount required for the electronic controller itself, which is at best like 10 watts, should ofcourse be exclusively drawn from the external grid. That way there’d be no need to have those 100s of Watts of electric power for the reaction drawn from the grid UNLESS needed.

    • Andre Blum

      it is my feeling that underpowering is not the problem the certifier wants to fix.

      The certifier wants to minimize the chance of a runaway reactor. Rossi needs to make plausible that he can stop the device at any time by cutting off the driving power. If the driving power is coming from the e-Cat itself, then there may be an idea that an unstable reaction may reenforce itself and run away.

      • http://www.thinktankreport.com Phillip

        Well said. The certifier is wisely insisting on having a completely reliable and independent means for controlling and shutting down the eCats (and Brillouin Boilers for that matter). He doesn’t want to risk any kind of Chernobyl-like situation where the power needed to shut it down was too closely coupled to the reactor itself.

        In the future, after tens of thousands of hours of LENR devices operating in the “real world”, that strict requirement may be quietly relaxed, for some models at least. Those could include the small, portable ones which could power recreational vehicles and, even then, there would likely be batteries capable of supplying emergency shut-down power.

        But hey, if this is the only issue the authorities have any kind of problem with, it must mean they actually do think that LENR is real and practical. That has to mean that the eCat is officially “out of the bag” and the mainstream media finally have “permission” to openly report on it – courageous people that they are (not)!

        • captain

          Rossi has declared that his E-Cats are intrinsically safe, and that in the worst case the nickel inside them would melt down, thus stopping immediately the system.

          Certifiers IMO are first to check if that is true, beside the fact of ascertaining that absolutely no dangerous radiations are allowed outside the system.

          The third fact considers the way to shut down the system, more or less quickly.

          The electric drive system can be solved in many ways, also by using a smaller Rossi’s plant which can supply electric energy to a separate grid system.

          Every issue can be solved if there’s a real will to endeavor on both sides.

          The certifiers, however, IMO, THEY have to practically demonstrate not what could happen but really happens in real emergencies with such an 1MW industrial thermal/electric generating plant.

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

          I would have though that any device that required external power to avoid a runaway would be inherently uncertifiable for safety purposes. Even batteries are frowned on in this context (controlled shutdown) and mechanical failsafes are normally a requirement.

          Where battery powered mechanisms are needed, as is the case with many nuclear systems, there must always be ‘multiple redundancy’, meaning a number of parallel systems, any one of which can automatically shut down a process or move valves or interconnectors/isolators to ‘safe’ positions.

          Actually insisting on mains powered shutdown (as opposed to using an integral battery set as the primary system) would seem to me to be slightly unusual, unless there is an emergency ‘kill’ mechanism such as a mechanical depressuriser or automatic gas flush.

          • Steveta_uk

            Think you’ve got that upside down.

            The external power is required to keep it going, not to shut it down. Remove that external power, and the device stops.

            At least that’s the requirement.

      • jonnykzj

        Hi andre,

        But that was exactly my point. The reactor can be stopped ANY TIME FROM TEH EXTERNAL power IF NECESSARY. Plz read my comment again. Should the electronic controller detect any error in the ecats electric production, it wld immediately switch to external power which wld then be used to control the unit. ALSO the electronic controller is ALWAYS conn to external power.

  • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

    I take the views that there is no technical reasons why the e cat couldn’t run from its own power. Power is power.

    The real issue is political. The elites run the power companies. This technologically unjustified restriction protects that investment. I fully expect that if the ecats are ever used in conventional power plants an exemption would be granted. There is one law for the people and another law for the elite. Just because the technology exists to free us, does not mean we will be allowed to go free.

    • Filip47

      All humans are equal but some are more equal than others.
      A cliché, but a damn good one.

      • David Smith

        As I had posted before, If the Governmental power doesn’t want this to happen, it won’t and there’s not much any of us can do about it except vote them out.

    • mcloki

      I read it as a redundancy feature. I think they are worried that having the e-cat self power could lead to a runaway situation. Like putting the safety features on a separate circuit.

      • Marc Stone

        This is not that bad. Lets say you had a city with 50 coal burning plants. You then switch out 49 coal burning plants with low heat e-cats and use 1 coal burning plant to act as the “drive” for the other 49. If this happens, and e-cats do turn into the massive revolution we think it is, it will only be a matter of time before a closed-loop system is certified. Maybe 5-10 years later. Then you can switch off that 1 coal burning plant. Not a big deal if you take the long view. Better to comply with conservative regulators. Additionally, If we went closed loop now…and there was a runaway reaction…that might set back LENR more than these safety regulations will. Dont be hasty.

        • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

          So who controls everything? The owner of the coal plant. And that’s my point.

          • Tony76

            Linda “Forbidden – Users from your country are not permitted to browse this site.”
            What’s the deal on the Linda link “http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com/” ?

            • http://aotearoaisnotforsale.com Linda

              Tony, you are probably proxying through a server in a country we normally don’t accept traffic from. To view the site, change your proxy settings or get a fresh route from Tor.

          • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

            I can access Linda’s link with no problems (from UK).

    • Tony76

      Yes agreed – political control reasons are the heart of it, including ability to meter and tax the hell out of it. No one allowed to go off-grid and rid themselves of nanny state.

      • http://www.warpfusion.com Conrad

        Case samples would be phone, internet and text charge.

        These things are actually next to free when connections are in place. Over the years competitive forces drop the price down.

        If some one has exclusive E-cat rites for a country – they will be charging heaps for the power it produces any way. ha

        It will take years for prices to drop.

  • Omega Z

    If you have a Nuclear Power plant, It can’t provide power to itself. It draws power from the Grid connected to other power plants. It’s a safety issue. Requires redundancy. This actually applies to all power plants to some degree.

    This will be the case for at least 2 decades. This also means the consumer wont get all the cost savings for sometime. Someone has to pay to dismantle the old Grid system. That Be YOU!. That was always the case. Either the present Power producers keep a portion of that savings to pay for it OR Higher taxes to pay for it.

    Rossi has been implying this for quite awhile. Since shortly after the October Demo more or less. In multiple posts he has said that the New would be integrated with the Old for a long time.

    • http://www.buildecat.com LCD

      I said it once I’ll say it again. At no other time in history have you had something do small producing do much energy. The moment the first ecat plant comes out publicly my self and others have the knowledge and expertise to build our own and ot won’t be more than a year before do it yourself kits will be able to retrofit these home eat kits to self sustain.
      Regulate that!
      Power to the people baby!
      Assuming they are safe of course.

    • Filip47

      Let’s not forget, the Ecat is clean, maybe the most important, so even if the costs are equal, it still is a good deal.

    • mcloki

      The Grid won’t be dismantled for a long time. If ever. Most people would continue on getting power from the electric utility. They would just demand cheaper rates. The bigger issue is dismantling nuclear power plants.

  • http://www.american-reporter.com Joe Shea

    One important thing may be missing from this discussion. I have at least read that a military application would be to provide power in remote areas of the world, like the mountains of Afghanistan. I suspect the military would be the first to demand a self-sustaining system, since a use like that might not be able to avail itself of an independent power supply. This would also be true of desert areas where desalinization is the contemplated use.

    • Omega Z

      For Military & special circumstances you could have 2 or 3 independent systems along with a backup Genset for redundancy & excess capacity should 1 go down. It’s not that it can’t be done. It’s just a safety factor until there’s a track record. It’s a new technology & to many unknowns at this time.

      One of Cures posts stated that when the Nickel melts it stops immediately. A Question was posed by ?? what if some unknown took place faster then the instant shut down. As a proven theory will be sometime coming, the question couldn’t be answered. That’s the Dilemma.

  • duecat

    Perhaps the certification officials just don’t want the criticism from approving a “perpetual motion” machine. At least until there is generally accepted theory to substantiate LENR?

    • GreenWin

      Maybe the community should stand down on the “perpetual motion” rhetoric, since they can visit Celani or Mills for working examples of apparent over-unity.

      • Ged

        That and it uses up fuel: hydrogen. It’s no more perpetual motion than burning a barrel of gasoline.

  • Petrol

    Why is this “unsafe”? Why would any regulator care? Rossi has stated before worst possible case scenario is nickle powder melting into a glob causing all reactions to stop.

    Safety engineering is all about ensuring acceptable failure modes. If the reactor destroys itself this is an acceptable failure mode as long as it does not take anything else with it in the process. All you need are margins in system design to ensure the outside environment is not adversly effected by the worst case.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

      Rossi would need to be able to show that no sudden energy releases or radiation would be possible under any circumstances. Francesco CH says that the hot cat design was based on predictions from theory, and if this is the case., and the theory is supported by observation and maths, this would be an enormous step forward.

      However unless the theory can prove an entirely new branch of physics that explains the power output in completely new ways (‘zero point’ or new hydrogen states), the scale of the power developed will inevitably be considered to be nuclear, which would move certification to an entirely different level.

      • GreenWin

        I wonder Peter. A new nuclear reaction sans dangerous radiation or fissionable waste – should command a unique set of certification. Since there is absolutely no evidence of fission at weapons capable level or of radiation – industry followed by home use seems reasonable.

        I doubt any theory will be accepted by mainstream for a LONG while considering the angst excess heat has created.

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

          GW, that’s my concern. There seems to be a ‘catch 22′ trap waiting for Rossi: its nuclear and therefore must meet nuclear standards of regulation that no industrial plant outside the nuclear fission industry could meet – or – its an unknown process with unknown dangers and so is not certifiable anyway.

      • Petrol

        I don’t think it is necessary to understand anything about the characteristics of the device for my point to be made.

        What happens when mains power fails, a breaker trips, a heating element or thermocouple fails or a control circuit latches? Is my e-cat any less safe under this condition? Do I have reason to panic and run for the radiation shelter in the dark of night next time there is a power outage?

        Since nobody knows what if anything is really going on testing to understand likely worst possible case seems to be a much more productive activity than guessing (Including unreviewed pet theories) or arbitrary constraints on things which have a good chance of failing at some point (like mains power) anyway.

        • Ged

          For the old (the home e-cats being certified), losing main power means the e-cat slowly cools down until it shuts off. That’s what Rossi has previously said at least. The hot cats may be a different beast.

          All these questions you pose are important, and it’s the job of the certifier to go through each and every one of them and make sure it’s safe (and many more questions we haven’t thought of, such as what happens if the e-cat gets submerged in a flood, subject to explosion, shot with a gun, bludgeoned with an ax, hit by an earthquake, flung about in a tornado, stuck in a fire; and then what happens in all these situations if it’s been incorrectly set up, tampered with, or degraded from ages of use?). Hence why proper certification is so important, and we should not touch this with a ten foot pole without such!

  • alexvs

    Awaiting moderation since 4:58 pm.

  • s

    Anyone have a comment on U of Bologna’s recent statement about the ecat? It wasn’t a claim by Rossi, so it might be made into an article here.

    • Ged

      I thought it was basically the exact same statement as from February. Nothing news worthy there.

    • Renzo

      see the discussions in the previous post

  • georgehants

    Joseph Fine
    August 28th, 2012 at 9:14 AM
    Andrea Rossi,
    The output power of a Hot-Cat module depends on geometrical considerations (cylinder length, inner and outer diameters), the temperature difference (delta T) and the thermal conductivity of the wall material.
    1) For a fixed geometry and given material, when changing output power levels, do you control inner and outer temperatures independently, or are they controlled together because they are interdependent?
    2) Can the outer wall temperature be maintained nearly constant? That is, increasing the reaction rate raises the internal temperature, but the outer wall temperature also may be controlled (to some amount) by changing fluid flow rate at the outer wall (steam, molten salt, S-CO2, liquid metal etc). (S-CO2 is Supercritical CO2.)
    3) Copper has a high thermal conductivity (k = 400) or about twenty times that of steel. With such high thermal conductivity, the temperature difference between the inner and outer walls could be reduced by the same factor. For a nominal delta T of 300 degrees C (with steel), the temperature difference may be only 15-20 degrees C (with Copper). Why not use copper instead of steel (strength, cost etc)? Then you don’t have to worry about it melting? (Or not until the temp. gets to 1000 degrees C.)
    4) Forget about copper. If you use metal ceramics (e.g. the so-called Max Phase materials) such as Ti3SiC2 with a thermal conductivity of about 40 vs 20 for steel, can you get twice as much power from a module of the same size compared to using steel? It is also called Maxthal (TM).
    —–
    Andrea Rossi
    August 28th, 2012 at 11:16 AM
    Dear Joseph Fine:
    1- indipendently
    2- yes
    3- 4: we go 24/7, so the thermal conductivity does not matter, after some time the system is in equilibrium indipendently from the thermal conductivity: e.g., if you put a glass bottle of water and a plastic bottle of water in a frigid, after few minutes you will have water colder in the glass bottle respect the plastic bottle, because the thermal conductivity of glass is higher than of plastic; but after 3 hours the temperature will be the same, because an equilibrium is anyway reached after due time. Therefore in our case thermal conductivity is not an issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

      1 and 2 are very difficult to reconcile with anything we think we know. Rossi’s answer implies two separate ‘systems’, one surrounding the core, and one under the outer skin. This is consistent with the apparently large difference in inner and outer temperatures in the Cures photo.

      The only rationale that occurs to me is that the outer (cooler) part is used to generate enough heat to kick start the inner part, which is the actual ‘hot cat’ part. Once the inner part is going, it may then be possible to turn down the outer part to produce more or less independent functioning as AR suggests. The outer, cooler layer may conceivably be a modification of the ‘fat cat’ system.

      As far as 3/4 are concerned, the questioner is obviously trying to suggest ways to get more power out of a module, but Rossi ignores that and insists on talking about ‘equilibium’, which (taking his example into account) would only apply to a non-power-producing test unit like the prototype in the photo.

      The fact that Rossi does not pick up on the intent of the question, and even states that conductivity is not an issue, suggests to me that no attempt has yet been made to extract power (work) from the hot cat design. This in turn confirms that any talk about certification of this system is nonsense, as it is apparently still in a very early stage of development.

      • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

        Yea the 3/4 part is nonsense. Regarding temperature, I remember him being stuck at 200 C for months, then solved some problem and T started to increase: 400, 600, 700, whatever, 1000, 1050, 1200. Perhaps a “HotCat” being certified refers to one of those intermediate models rather than the latest lab prototype.

        • Francesco CH

          The Hot-Cat stems from a development concerning the theory about the reactions happening inside the E-Cat.

          In other words, the theory about how the E-Cat works has substantially changed since the beginning, and when Rossi achieved this goal he was able to try new versions of the E-Cat capable of higher temperatures.

          Ergo, the Hot-Cat is the first real result of implementing this new theory in practice. Basically it is a well-prepared, well-done practical exercise of physics.

          • LCD

            Thats pure speculation. Could be trial and error, gut lucky, who knows. If there is a theory it probably comes from Levi and Focardi. Not him. Have you heard him on interviews?

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

          Pekka, yes I suppose that’s possible, but only if Rossi took the time to develop some kind of saleable product from one of his intermediate versions, and then submitted it to a certification process. This seems unlikely to me, in view of the diversion of resources that would have been necessary, and the time needed for both product design and development and a certification process.

          • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

            His use of the word certification in this context might also refer to third-party testing or validation of a prototype.

            • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

              mmm – you may be right. But if Rossi is using the word to mean anything other than 3rd party documented safety tests of products, then much of what he has said recently would be fairly meaningless in the context of the claims about sales. If there is no safety certification, there can be no buyers, other than military organisations.

            • Ged

              That’s how I interpret “certification” for the hot cat. I don’t think this is product certification in any way, unlike the 1 MW plant which is a fully functioning product, since we’ve only seen a naked reactor and it’s been under heavy development.

            • LCD

              If he got anything certified at any temp he can certify higher temp versions much easier so long as the temp difference is not extreme. Problem is he went to higher powers so fast the temp went to another level of certification.

      • Ged

        I think it just means that the temperature of the output flow of your liquid and the temperature of your reactor core itself can be independently controlled, which it can now. Instead of the E-cat depending on liquid as with the older versions. Just change flowrate to change temperature of the outflow liquid, and change drive to change temperature of the reactor.

        Also, conductivity is important during initial states, this is very true. But you do hit equilibrium, even if using Styrofoam. Conductivity won’t change ultimately how much work you get out of the system, but it will change ultimately how fast the system responds to changes. Lower conductivity means it’ll have more “thermal inertia” so to speak, from my understanding (which could be wrong), as it’ll take longer for changes to propagate. So if the reactor’s output was lowered, that lowering won’t be felt for longer with a lower conductive material than a higher.

        I don’t see trouble with the statements, but maybe I am missing something.

        • tappanjack

          +1

          I too do not understand how increased conductivity could increase power out,other than an incremental increase in avg. power out for a specified run time. What are we missing??

          • Ol’ Bab

            IF operating at the max safe/design temperature, and this is in the core, where the energy is being released from matter,

            And IF the “drive” is not a constraint,

            THEN the power available will be limited only by the conductivity of the path from core to working fluid.

            Of course the drive-and-core as a unit do have a constraint, a second upper limit: the amount of power that they can wring out, at that temperature. Limited by active area perhaps, or max pulses RF.

            Put another way, the power can be cranked higher if the heat conduction is good, before the max temperature is reached.

            Ol’ Bab, who was an engineer.

            • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

              Exactly. So if Rossi says that conductivity is unimportant (per his ‘bottles’ example) he can only be talking about static equilibrium (no active coolant, so no power output other than convection/radiation). Such a system could not be ‘certified’ in any way, only monitired and recorded.

            • Ged

              That makes a lot of sense. Thanks guys!

    • discovery_fan

      Does this mean that the fluid arround the e-cat core is in a thermal equilibrium?
      That means that the e-cat can not heat anything, but just maintain a static temperature?
      I thought that the idea was that the ecat works like a heater / boiler in a central heating system.
      That means on one side 50 degree water goes in, is heated up to 60 degrees and goes out.
      But with the ecat that is not possible, when its in thermal equilibrium.
      That means the ecat is not able to heat anything, therfore the thermal conductivity is not important. Very dissapointing. I thought the current e-cat is able to heat some medium up, with a power compareable to a 1kw electric heater. But that seems not the case from the statement above. The statesment by Dr. Rossis says, that the ecat has no power output, and is in a thermal equilibrium with its surrounding fluid. So no heat production. If there is no heat production, and the thermal conductivity is not important, how does it produce “excess heat”? It seems to me it does not produce any heat, from the statement above. I’m very sad. I so hoped that this would be some breakthrough for LENR.

  • Francesco CH

    At worst, there will be a very simple system to dogde the problem: after an E-Cat able to produce electricity will be put on the market, you will be able to buy TWO of them and let the electricity – produced by one of the two – drive the other one.

    • Ged

      That probably won’t be allowed for liability reasons. Yes, it may make engineering sense, but it violates principles of safety until such time as we are sure we can control the output fluctuations of one E-cat to another in a safe, controlled, and independent manner.

      This is a good thing that the certifiers have said this, and exactly what they should be saying. No self dependencies of the same system(s) to itself.

    • http://www.lenrforum.eu/ Alain

      no need to feed one with another.

      the first solution is to have battery to shutdown the reactor, and second just add a turbine+alternator to recharge the battery.
      to boot your system, just add a diesel…
      but e-cat today is heat only, so no-way.

      cross piloting the e-cat is not needed, nor possible .
      in fact if you could control one with another, you can control one with itself.
      if instead of cross control you want hierarchical control, you can do that probably by carefully designing the chamber… maybe simply insulating the chamber so the COP increase.

      what Hyperion seems to have is backup battery, but their shutdown time is much shorter, and it seems they only need to run the cooling pump.

      I imagine that it is the same for e-cat. because the grid is not reliable enough for a safety mechanism.

      note that if the pump stop, even if the heating stop too, the reactor will stay hot, thus produce heat, but since it is not cooled it will warm quickly, the reaction will increase, and then it will melt-down… not practical.

      • Fibber McGourlick

        In the long run, it doesn’t matter. Feed a little energy in, get a lot of clean cheap energy out. That’s all that matters. That’s transformational. Good-bye war, hello Eden. I hope…

        • GreenWin

          Fib… an impressive vision. I share it.

  • edog

    Hey Guys.

    What utter nonsense, lies and treachery.

    Something doesnt smell good.

    So.. according to the Australian ecat website.. you can run your ecat from the solar panels on the roof of your house??? Ok? Sounds fair?

    Most of the time you use the panels to charge your battery bank.. which in turn would power your ecat? No?

    So, if I buy a second ecat and rig it to generate power to charge my batteries…It is unsafe according to Rossi and the watchdogs??oops i mean the safety certifiers WTF? Its not possible?? It cant happen?

    Am I on drugs or is it everyone else??
    Tell me where I am wrong someone?

    • Ged

      No no, it makes complete sense. This is not only reasonable, it would be unreasonable if the certifiers didn’t want this.

      This is about having the E-cat be controlled by an independent system. It’s a matter of principle. You don’t want the E-cat controlling itself as then it isn’t independent, and a failure of the cat cannot be controlled for by an outside source — too much could go wrong. This is like why the battery and spark plugs of your car control the combustion in the engine, and the combustion does not control itself. Failure of the independent system simply stops the reaction of the dependent system — but if both were one, how would it stop?

      This is a very basic precaution, it’s completely normal and rational. In time it may well be lifted, but for right now I wouldn’t do it any other way.

      • LCD

        Feedback control?

      • Steveta_uk

        This only makes sense for below unity devices.

        For a COP of 6, when the entire output of the device is in the form of heat, how can you control it by reducing an external energy source?

        Some time ago there was talk of a high-frequency circuit – if some form of high-frequency agitation of the fuel was required, then turning of the drive to that circuit as a control made some sense.

        But with a gas powered ECAT? Something smells very wrong about all of this to me.

        Or is the gas purely a pre-heater to fire the beasty up?

        • Ged

          I think gas is the pre-heating to start it. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

    • Robert Mockan

      Go with your instincts, edog. Perceiving utter nonsense, lies, and treachery, is a good start. Every successful LENR experiment for the past 20 years revealed positive feedback using external power, that increases LENR output. But now the LENR product E-Cat must have external power for a negative feedback loop to control it? And it just happens to be at COP=6, the breakeven point beyond which it becomes seriously disruptive of the pricing structure of the fossil fuel energy business?
      Uh huh. Rossi needs to blow this dam up, and make available precise instructions how to make his LENR catalyst. Otherwise your grand children may still be waiting for the miracle.

      • Ged

        Could be at such high temperatures you hit a tipping point where it will want to melt. Still, hard to understand why a drive would keep that from happening, unless it was electrical and used to keep the lattice rigid and prevent it from turning too loose and too reactive (prior to melting). Squaring that hypothesis with the ability to use natural gas is a lot harder. Unless this has something to do with the flow of heat, starting a reaction with nat gas seems plausible, but not controlling it. So, hard to say if what we’re being told about that is accurate.

        That’s the best I can figure it. For, as you say, all we’ve seen both from Rossi and all other sources like Celani, is that electrical input greatly increases the reaction by upwards of two times.

        • Mike

          If the drive was a simple heater could it be that varying it’s external heat applied to the core is a means of increasing or decreasing (by thermal expansion or contraction of the core material) the volumes of the cracks or cavities where the lenr occurs ?
          So maybe the lenr heat output can be controlled if it is dependent on the cavities’ volume. But the external heat source would not be necessary to prevent a runaway condition as the lenr dies when the nickel melts?

          • Ged

            The problem is heat is heat, the internal heat generation would do it too, if that was the case. And maybe it is the case, and maybe the internal heat actually does exactly that too, to an extent, and is how the reaction gets that high in the first place (and also why self sustaining is possible).

            I think maybe there are two different issues under discussion that we’ve gotten crossed. It could be there is an initial heating state to activate the reaction and get it to its stable point; and then a continuous control stage, which is able to modulate the output of the reaction and shut it off at will.

            The initiation stage would just be heating, be it through resistive electrical heating or direct natural gas heating. While the control state would be an ongoing electrical system.

            I think it’s the control stage that seems to be what the certifiers are saying must be independent from the E-cat’s output (the E-cat must not power its own control). That not only is wise, but exactly as it should be done in these early stages.

            That’s how I’m understanding it all at the moment.

            • Mike

              Im guessing the control mechanism might be altering the size of the lenr cavities by raising or lowering the core temperature with the externally powered heater {and so contracting or expanding the core material and its cavities).The heater would have to operate continuously and be controlled by feedback

              But there would be other ways of varying the core’s temperature: an obvious one is by varying the coolants flow rate

              So agree would be preferable this heater is independently powered . But is the heater really necessary at all?

            • GreenWin

              This is a seemingly simple engineering problem. Install a mercury battery pack, solenoid op CO2 cartridge,and thermostat. When temp rises above T+X (X=safety margin) trigger the sol,quench the reaction. Call repair.

              I am presuming the introduction of CO2 into the active sites will have a dampening effect.

      • Ged

        I guess it’s also important to remember that Rossi says he can use the “drive” to tune the E-cat: increasing or decreasing the reaction at will, and turn it off at will.

        How exactly that is working… well, that’s beyond me. Hm… I wonder if that is all indeed electrical, and it’s just the initiation of the reaction (like a pilot light igniting a stove) is simply thermal, and can be either electrical or natural gas. In that instance, continued input is not necessary; but continued electrical control is.

        That actually makes more sense to me. Just gotta square away the ability to dynamically control the reaction.

        • Omega Z

          Ged & all.

          Nuclear Power plants have a separate power source. They could feed themselves but if it should stop producing power, you also lose power to the controls.

          It’s just a matter of safety.

          I recall that SRI had a prototype blow up. Described similar to a hand grenade going off. Several people injured.

          Rossi has repeatedly stated that it can be dangerous. We all have a tendency Not to hear this. Details would be nice but, could cause undue concerns at this point & time.

          I agree with Stringbustr post below. Get it to market however possible. Work on these other problems latter. Ver. 2 or 3.

  • Stringbustr

    Look, what ever it takes to get it to market, then we can make changes.
    that’s what we need now. JUST GET IT TO MARKET!!

    • SteveS

      Right – we do not care if it self-sustains, right now we need to see the product and that is what Rossi is going to show on Sept 10th, self sustaining eCats will come latter, that is not a concern now.

      • Ged

        Exactly, and the safety certifiers are saying no to self sustaining E-cats for now. As they should! This is exactly the sort of news we should be hearing if the whole certification process Rossi has said he’s on is real; which it seems it is.

  • Jeff Clark

    Seems to me that when the electric companies start making electricity from E-Cat our bill will go down anyway and maybe the need to have one in the home will not be so important.

    • GreenWin

      Maybe Jeff. But here is a strong argument otherwise: centralized power systems are highly exposed to two major dangers – state or terrorist attack, and extreme weather. The national security issue alone argues well to distribute energy sources – greatly limiting the damage potential from aggression.

      North America alone hosts 600,000 miles of high voltage transmission cable, poles, transformers, switches, breakers, fuses, substations, etc. All are vulnerable to extremes of heat, cold, wind, rain etc. Central power for light to heavy industry e.g. >50MW makes sense at this time. Smaller demand can be profitably serviced by district and distributed energy.

      • LCD

        Let me just repeat this here. Once the first ecat is made public regardless of temp, type what’
        Ever, me and several others will have doit yourself kits withina year. That’s a fact.

        So will the chinese by the way.

        as long as reliabity is not an issue Good luck with selling centralized anything.

    • Earl

      One of the MOST important things for the future is to have heating and power generation in the home. Centralized power generation turns half the global power into heat by sending the power along transmission lines. This outdated and dangerous planetary toaster must be shut down as quickly as possible and put into a museum.

      The first and most urgent step is to eliminate centralized power generation. The second step is to eliminate all Carnot cycle based heating and power generation. An American patent examiner has said there are some 6000 patents for energy generation that would put the Carnot cycle in a museum, but these have had gag orders put on them.

  • Robert Mockan

    Bull. When every person can make catalyst, regulatory control of the technology will fail. Besides, if one has an E-Cat generating excess electric power, and that power is sold back to the grid, what then? Will the entire national grid be turned off because some of the electricity in it came from an E-Cat, and that electricity might be used to control another E-Cat somewhere, sometime? What organization is certifying the product? I bet bottom dollar they do not have international authority, and probably are being directed by corporate, or government, interests. Clearly there needs to be simple but complete directions about how to make catalyst, and also made available in finished form to the market for any person to purchase if they want to buy it. Everything else is just engineering design, and plans can be produced for any application, once people have the catalyst.

    • morse

      Robert,
      once you have a working e-cat the catalyst will become openly available by people re-engineering, re-inventing, ‘dissecting’ the e-cat?

      • Robert Mockan

        That is what I think would happen. Also why I think Rossi may still be stopped from marketing E-Cats.

        Give people fish and they can eat it. But give them fishing poles so they can catch their own fish, and a fishing industry can begin that supports whole communities, ends hunger, provides jobs, and so on.

        Rossi is just holding a fish out. What people need is the catalyst.

        • http://lenrplans.wordpress.com/ Owen

          Robert,

          I agree. Please see my new blog for building CF reactors.
          http://lenrplans.wordpress.com/

          I’m counting on people like yourself to send suggestions.

        • GreenWin

          Well, I rather think that Rossi’s formula will out pretty quickly and with or without it – an industry IS being born! There are 23 years of research to explore and a LOT more on the way.

          How long was it before Edison’s carbon filament was outdone by Weston’s Tamidine filiments?? Two years (1880.) And in 1906 General Electric started manufacturing tungsten filament bulbs. Lesson? There is plenty for everyone.

  • Filip47

    It doesn’t make sence, a car is also a closed loop, exept it’s using more.

    • Steveta_uk

      A car is not closed loop – turn off the fuel supply and the engine stops.

      An e-cat is closed in the sense that it apparently only requires heat to make it run – but we are supposed to believe that it has to be electrical heat or gas heat, and that it’s own heat (which is 6 times more abundant) doesn’t make it run.

      Not sure how it knows what kind of heat is making it hot, tho.

      • Filip47

        A hybrid car that runs on electricity, makes it while running… to use it.

        • http://Q Kalidor

          Yes….but not to 100% efficiency. If the petrol engine element runs out of fuel, the electric system will also fail, it’s simply a matter of time. This is the same principle.
          For me, I think I would simply get my hands on a 3kw Solar PV system to provide input, that way I have independent power input but I’m still “off the grid” as it were.
          Over the last 30 years I have paid more than enough to energy companies thank you very much!!

    • Ged

      It does make sense, it’s simply a safety guarantee. If the E-cat uses power from itself, how do you contain it safely, or shut it down? From a safety perspective, self sustaining is bad.

      A car is not a closed loop, it depends on fuel and a powered pump to pump that fuel. Turn off the pumps/spark plugs and it all stops. Those are outside sources (the battery and electrical system are independent of the combustion engine) that control the combustion reaction — the combustion reaction does not control itself. If the independents fail, the combustion stops, and so you don’t get a self sustained run away.

      A hybrid car simply uses the mechanical energy from the combustion to help recharge the independent electrical system. But the electrical system is still what controls the combustion, the combustion does not control itself nor does it control the electrical system. They are still two independent paths.

      An E-cat powering itself or being powered by another E-cat is not an independent path; the certifiers simply want a completely independent system not part of the E-cat technology to be controlling it. Completely normal practice: it would only be strange if they weren’t asking for this.

      In the future, this may change, but certainly not at the onset.

      • Filip47

        Fair and probably true.
        Wouldn’t it be great to see an Ecat running in self-sustaining mode?
        That would be a demo!
        That would even convince Krivit :)
        Where the hell is he?

        • Ged

          I would love it.

          The lower temp ones seem capable of self sustaining. I think this is a matter of principle and not an engineering issue. Gotta play by the rules, at least at first.

          • GreenWin

            Ged, you are sharp enough to know in this particular game – there are no rules. At least not now. And THAT makes it a lot more fun.

  • Rob

    I guess what Rossi is indicating is that the installation of low temp e-cats must be done by certified installers (bound condition to get certification).
    Since the re-fueling also requires certified installers, fidling around with e-cats is not feasible for the normal private home owner.

    But Rossi can’t prevent somebody to construct a selfsustainable e-cat system out of 2 e-cats that have been previously installed by certified installers.
    The only problem such person needs to resolve is how to re-fuel his selfsustaining system since certified installers will refuse this.
    It’s just a matter of time when the mechanism and materials of e-cat fueling is reversed engineered.

    But additional legislation will prohibit end consumers to have such system running in their private homes.
    If somebody still does this and an accident happens, he’s not covered by insurance.

    There’s a whole bunch of new legislation that will be created once the e-cat is out.

    Apart from all this there is also the issue of warranty, if somebody tries to compose a selfsustaining e-cat system.

    • GreenWin

      Speaking for Americans – how about if a whole bunch of new legislation is NOT created? – outside obvious safety regs applicable to any appliance. This device is little more than a refrigerator technically (new physics aside.) The Founders might actually smile again.

    • Jim Johnson

      That’s a good insight. There are many ways to inhibit behavior, and denying insurance coverage and claims is one of them. It could take several generations of engineering design until the “LENR battery” becomes real.

      • GreenWin

        Jim, there are more than 1 billion Android phones in use. About 10% are “rooted” to non-standard OS to enhance operation. That’s 100 million hacks. This is an indicator of human innovation. Likewise, in free markets, insurers (e.g. Lloyds) will insure nearly anything. Third party add-ons, aftermarket upgrades with their own standards will be readily insurable. As you say, there are many ways to alter behavior.

      • Omega Z

        Jim

        New Regs aren’t even required.

        Without UL certification, Insurance is null & void.

        • Earl

          Without people’s consent prohibition does not work. People walking with red flags in front of horseless carriages and axe-toting Federales smashing distilleries does not work. We know it, it has been proven.

  • Supervisor

    This is 227th disinfo from Mr. Rossi.

    Real reason will whatever different. For example: for sttarting there is need extreme high temperature above 1500-1600°C, so one E-Cat is insufficient for starting the second e-cat. Or. Mr. Rossi need this extreme temperature for purpose to destroy e-cats, in case when strange person breaking in container, etc.

    • Ged

      Wait… what? 1500-1600 C doesn’t start the E-cat, that melts nickel; it would kill an E-cat completely.

      • http://Q Kalidor

        Is it possible he meant F? He’s been working in America you know!!

  • Steveta_uk

    I don’t understand how this control is supposed to work. The ECAT is generating up to 6 times more heat energy than the resistor (or gas burner) that is driving it, so how does turning off the supply turn off the ECAT?

    • admin

      The problem is that turning off the heat supply doesn’t turn off the E-Cat, it apparently makes the reaction stronger, causing it to possibly run out of control. The drive tames the cat! Rossi says the end result of an uncontrollable reaction is that eventually the nickel powder will melt at its melting point and the reactor will shut down — but perhaps there are other consequences that the certifiers are concerned about.

      • GreenWin

        Frank, I would call the Ni melt danger “The Mojave Syndrome.” A runaway cat gets hot as the Mojave – but goes no further.

        • Ged

          At 1500-1600 C, enough to melt the nickel, the E-cat will also be hot enough to melt a lot of other things, like copper and even steel (which ranges from 1300-1600 C for a melting point depending on the type of steel). It’d basically make a big metal slag mess of whatever location the E-cat is at. That is a serious fire and safety hazard!

          Sure, that kills the reaction, but that’s a lot of collateral damage, and that’s what they are guarding against. 1200 C is the upper limit for material safety, basically, not just for the nickel core.

          • GreenWin

            An engineering problem. Add an upper bound melt agent – a substance that melts even before nickel. It destroys the NA sites and quenches the reaction. Simply replace the cartridge (reaction chamber.)

            • LCD

              Eject the core baby.

          • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

            Good solution. Combine that with a ‘fusible plug’ (steam boiler technology) that melts at the upper limit temp and vents the hydrogen and/or allows CO2 to enter the cartridge (as you suggested in another post). You would then have three (4 if venting/quenching separated) passive fail-safes – metal quench, venting/gas quenching, nickel melt – surely that would be enough to satisfy the most ardent safety certificator – and no external power supplies needed at all.

            • http://www.lenrforum.eu/ Alain

              It remind me old discussion with Defkalion.
              It seems that in case of emergency they vent.
              They also “self-destruct”, but it seems not only to protect IP, but mainly for safety.

              Discussing with Defkalion it was clear that they have worked on the safety for certification, since the beginning.

              finally it is probable that the two products will have similar safety principles, despite great differences in design.

          • Earl

            Do you really think that a couple grams of melted nickel will be able to penetrate lead shielding and a steel outer case of the heater? It would not even melt through the steel container tube of the reactor.

            Not only does damaged nickel nano powder stop the reaction immediately, the temperature of any melted nickel would drop like a rock as soon as it touches any other metal. 5 grams is not 5 tonnes.

  • Filip47

    He can threaten to certify it in Iran or North Korea. Maybe they get more willing.

  • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

    Regarding AR’s answer to Admin’s email, I would guess that a battery back is at least as reliable as the mains. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere, perhaps between Rossi and the certifiers. Hard to tell without knowing the full story because of the secrecy, but that’s the intuitive impression I get.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

      Actually the whole thing seems a bit strange. Mains or battery power is usually fine for alarms in industrial and military generators, but passive failsafe and manual kill mechanisms not needing a power supply are normally required as the primary safety system.

      The nuclear industry is rapidly moving in the same direction, i.e., main shutdown mechanisms are increasingly required to fail safe in the absence of power supplies, or at the very least to operate to ‘safe’ on stored energy such as batteries or compressed air.

      Reliance on external mains supplies is generally not considered good practice in the context of power generation, so it seems rather odd for any certification body to insist on it.

      • captain

        There are many solutions possible, it depends from certificators’ will.

        Two different grids within the same area.

        A group of industrial E-Cat plants could supply electricity to a grid. (Supplier A)
        Another group of industrial E-Cat plants could supply electricity to another grid, within the same area. (Supplier B)

        So, A could supply drive electricity to B… and vice versa: and both electric plants could have an emergency autonomous drive as backup.

        This is just one option.

    • Ged

      I think the battery pack is talking about using power from the E-cat to power itself, even if through an intermediate like a battery, just isn’t good enough for safety. Which is true. A battery would not be independent in that situation, unlike the mains, and I think they are making sure the E-cat is controlled by an independent means.

      You could still use a battery between the mains and the E-cat, just not the E-cat and itself or another E-cat. Makes complete sense from a safety view point; and one day will likely change if the technology works out.

  • Lu

    Well this all begs the question, what will happen if the drive fails? Rossi has stated that if the reaction runs away then the NI melts and there is no more reaction. Someone else somewhere stated that the time for this melting to happen may not be fast enough which again raises the question of what would happen in this case. Maybe nothing–just the destruction of the E-Cat–which I wouldn’t necessarily consider a safety issue. There’s a lot we don’t know about the E-Cat…

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      I would think it a pretty safe bet that there is no minimum time for melting, that is, a substance melts as soon as the phase change energy has been supplied to it, if it happens in a microsecond then it will melt in microsecond. I agree with you though that there is a lot we don’t know (about the E-cat, and about other things).

      • LCD

        Yeah how does it not deform at say 900 C. Its pbvipusly not just Ni.

        I cant type on this dam. Thi.g

    • Ged

      We’re talking about a gram of nickel in a paste; it’ll melt basically instantly. Don’t listen to FUD.

      Never the less, the point at which it melts at is also the point at which steel and copper and many other common house hold metals will be melting. That’s the issue. So, by the time the E-cat core is melting and the reaction is stopping, the entire E-cat housing is probably turning to slag, along with nearby copper pipes, wires, or any other metals close enough to get hit with the full heat of the thing (remember the inverse square law, keeping the E-cat far enough away from susceptible metals will protect those metals as the heat will radiate and be diminished before it reaches them and the reaction stops).

      That’s highly hazardous for a home operation, or even industrial. You don’t want the entire device melting into a puddle of goo; which is likely what would happen if the core got up to its temps to melt. Risk of fire would be high in that situation; let alone one heck of a nasty cleanup to perform.

      So, gotta have satisfactory precautions against that. Even if it happened, it wouldn’t be the end of the world, but boy would it be a mess.

      • http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 ChemE

        It will be very hard for anyone to create a reliable piece of equipment that will take this level of punishment. This thing is collapsing matter in those voids and creating small “Bosanovas” which are then triggering secondary fission and fusion events from the inside—>out.

        ChemE
        http://wp.me/p26aeb-4

      • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

        Machined tungsten casing? It would rocket the cartridge cost but as this part would be recycled it shouldn’t make much difference long term.

      • Earl

        Ged,

        as soon as 1 gram of molten nickel hits 10 grams or 100 grams of steel container of the reactor, its temperature will drop like a rock. There will be no molten slag, no puddle of goo; in fact the heater will show no external sign of over-heating.

        This is all very simple engineering to prevent damage from only a gram of melted nickel.

        Have you ever shaken 1 gram of molten solder from a soldering iron onto a piece of metal?

    • Lu

      OK, found source of reaction time: Cures on Cobraf [Google translation]

      http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.cobraf.com/forum/topic.php%3Ftopic_id%3D5747%26reply_id%3D123481535&usg=ALkJrhhKPPgcpFcKg2L9KylUOToGvXGp7A

      “The reaction stops automatically when the nickel melts and this is a guarantee of safety very consistent. But nature phenomena so fast you do not give time to the material to melt. These phenomena, never occurred during the tests, can not be excluded from the theoretical point of view because there is no accepted theory and proven that exactly describes what happens in the crystal lattice ”

      “The ultrafast phenomena that may cause problems are only a hypothesis that arises from the fact that there is a theory. The practice says that there have never been, but as long as the theory does not confirm the hypothesis will always be there around the corner. Certain phenomena with the speed of the electronic control is not enough. ”

      Basically because they is no accepted theory they cannot rule it out. Probably after many hours of operation they can rely on empirical results.

      • Ged

        I can agree with that point. But I do not know what phenomenon that could be, so it seems like a “boogyman”.

        • Omega Z

          Ged

          That’s the dilemma. It’s new. Nobody knows. Only real time use & possibly a confirmed theory in time. Eventually it will work out.

  • Greg Leonard

    The control system will be designed to ‘fail safe’ if the input power source fails.
    If the output power destined for the grid is used as the input power to the control system, then nothing has changed – it is just as safe.
    The problems might occur if the high temperature inside the e-cat were to be used to drive itself – there would be no control loop, so it might be uncontrollable.

    • Ged

      Safety is about independent paths and redundancy. One day, if the E-cat works and is real, and if it proves itself over time, we’ll likely drop this need for an independent electrical system for safety control — but for right now, it’s exactly what I would demand as a safety certifier.

  • Chris

    Is he talking about an international authority?

    I hope it isn’t the same for all countries. If it is so only in some, that’s worse for them. The UK red flag laws for automobile vehicles lasted for quite some time and left the Brit car industry lagging behind those abroad.

    I can understand it for a direct application though. It ought to be sufficient for the intermediate system to be reliable, even just as far as cutting it off goes.

  • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

    Closed looping has been a ‘no-no’ in the new energy scene for decades. Try it, and misfortune follows swiftly.

    Rossi just needs to get something out into the open market. If that means stupid restrictions, then so be it. Once any functioning system is available, the restrictions will fall away quickly, just as the man with a red flag did.

    • RichyRoo

      Yep, totally agree.

      • Andre Blum

        me too.

        • Barry

          Same

    • captain

      I agree.

      As soon as the industrial 1MW plant, thermal and electric, will be available for the open market, restrictions will fall away quickly.

      So, just waiting that Siemens and Rossi, together, make available it.

      It doesn’t matter the degree of perfection, of completeness, such a plant will have: a continuous evolution, improvement will be made around it, this must be clear.

      Universities or non universities, 3rd party certificators more or less qualified, skeptics, snakes, a.s.o., what will count will be the customers that will buy those plants for different purpo$e$, but mainly to make profit thru them.

      And customers will know well how to make the best use of them, how to have them soon profitable in various places around the world.

      Blogs, chatters, comments, blah blah blah… Rossi plants, mainly electric, will surely be profitable all around the world and NOBODY will stop them. Or better, should the industrial plants meet difficulties in a particular country, the ‘container’ will be diverted to other nations.

      And a very important factor will be the cost, but that will not be surely a major problem for Rossi (Leonardo Corp).

      Think for a moment of China, India and Russia! Any doubt?

      • Pachu

        Any doubt?

        Yes, i thougth the 1 MW plants where already available, since like a year or so …

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

          The story seems pretty confused. A basic unit like the one demonstrated last October was supposedly available from that point on, but obviously it could not have come with any certification, meaning only military purchasers.

          Rossi now claims that this ‘old’ design has now been ‘certified’ for industrial use, which would have to mean that a 3rd party tester such as TUV would have applied test protocols covering pressure containment, pipework design and integrity, thermal insulation, electrical insulation, electrical power supplies, fuses and isolators, control systems and emissions (including radiological) to the appropriate and very rigorous EU or US standards.

          Leonardo corp. would also had to have demonstrated compliance with all applicable EU directives (if the units are made in the EU) and provided CE documentation, and everything would have to comply with ‘health and safety’ legislation for the appropriate destination country(ies). In addition to such block certification, each machine produced would have to have its own documentation confirming pressure testing, thermal and electrical insulation testing, correct operation of controls and failsafes etc, and service test results for a significant duration, and during overloads.

          If the device is to avoid the incredibly tight standards applied to nuclear devices, Leonardo would also have to prove in many ways (including a viable theory of operation) that their CF heaters are totally safe under any conceivable conditions, including massive failure.

          Bearing in mind that the design only seems to have been finalised in November last year, all this appears to be quite a tall order. The idea that the later ‘hot cat’ design (supposedly now a few months old) is also now completing ‘certification’ as claimed, I find completely inconceivable.

          • Earl

            The manufacturer or European importer can self-certify that device xyz meets all appropriate CE directives. Usually found on the final page of a handbook is a signed declaration the device xyz meets CE directives A, B, and C.

            Should authorities think that the declaration is fraudulent, they can ask to see the documentation that proves the device is compliant to all appropriate Euro directives. Documentation does not have to be supplied in advance, only if the authorities knock on your door.

            Whether one does testing in-house or via external testers does not matter. If you do not have quality documentation, the manufacturer and especially the importer may have minor or major problems.

            If Leonardo Corp were to separate any power supply from the heater itself, for example, by using an external AC power adapter with a voltage less than 48V, then there are a lot less requirements.

    • tappanjack

      PR: A possible analogy could be with the intro of programmable controllers years ago, any E-stop button could not be activated through the software of the PC, it had to be hard wired and initiated outside of the software. This requirement was a NEMA, UL, and CSA standard att. I would bet it is still enforced today.

      • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

        Yep. Any device like a boiler (essentially what the e-cat is at the moment) must have both local and remote ‘kill’ and power isolation systems, the local gear to be manually operated, or power-assisted to the ‘safe’ position from integral stored power if this is not feasible (e.g., HV circuit breakers operated to ‘open’ by compressed air or springs). Multiple redundancy is normally stipulated for safety-critical functions.

        • Earl

          European electric boilers in France are quite simple.
          There is an user-adjustable thermostat and a safety kill thermostat. A ground wire. That is all. I have never seen any pressure release valve, although I never specifically looked for one. The external piping must have excess water and pressure release valve. These are standardized and all look very similar. They are connected right at the boiler. They have to be replaced once in a while because the water has chalk and they get clogged up or start leaking.

          I have never seen any local or remote kill switch on a domestic electric water boiler in Europe.

          You have fuses or circuit breakers on all distribution branches, including the domestic heaters. Many times, the circuit breaker for the electric boiler is complicated since it may be remotely controlled via HF tones by the power company. We have a 3-position circuit breaker for OFF/ON/Remote Control.

          From my point of view, satisfying the European directives will not be difficult for Leanardo or an importer. IMO, people are vastly exaggerating the difficulties of European certification.

          If there is no measurable radiation generated, nor any radioactive products generated, then there are no European nuclear regulations to comply with. Theory is clear and undisputed: nuclear fusion is impossible at E-CAT temperatures and so is generation of ionizing radiation at such low voltages. End of first chapter. If it works, start selling.