Rossi Provides More Explosive E-Cat Information

Since the recent update from Andrea Rossi about E-Cat progress there’s been a flurry of discussion on the Journal of Nuclear Physics with Andrea Rossi posting at a level not seen for months. All of a sudden he has started revealing information about his ongoing work in some detail.


Much of the discussion revolves around ‘destructive’ testing in which the high temperature E-Cats (hot cats) are deliberately pushed to their physical limits. Obviously it’s important for these kinds of test to be done, in order to know what the limits to the stability of the E-Cat — it would be disastrous if unstable products were put out on the market.

Here are some of the key points that Andrea Rossi has made on the topic over the last couple of days.

1. “If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the controllability limits and the reactor explodes . . . Now we have a mouse with a COP above 1 and a Cat with a COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse excites the cat too much, the cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk to reach this level. We have seen explode hundreds of reactors now, this way.”

2. “The explosions, or destructive tests, are made in controlled modes, in proper lab, with due control of the radiations made by proper instrumentation . . . obviously, no ionizing radiations are released outside the safety box in which the reactor is destructed.”

3. “Anyway: now we will estabilish the limits of the allowable excitation with series of destructive tests, then the control engineers will design the final version of the control system for the new limits of the temperature of the high temperature E-Cats ( Hot Cats).”

4. “Presently our E-Cat is working ( also right now, while I am writing this comment) at a temp of 1,100 Celsius, very stable.”

5. “A nuclear Physicist, analysing the registration of the data, has calculated that the increase of temperature ( from 1 000 Celsius to 2,000 Celsius in about 10 seconds), considering the surface that has increased of such temperature, has implied a power of 1 MW, while the Mouse had a mean power of 1.3 kW. Look at the photo you have given the link of [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XuKgtxpqL9U/UYQSyPJP-OI/AAAAAAAAJYI/96mRUBJjs1w/s1600/hot-cat.JPG], and imagine that the cylinder was cherry red, then in 10 seconds all the cylinder became white-blue, starting from the white dot, where is placed the charge, you see in the photo ( after 1 second) becoming totally white-blue in the following 9 seconds, and then an explosion and the ceramic inside ( which is a ceramic that melts at 2,000 Celsius) turned into a red, brilliant powder made of small stones, like rubys. When we opened the reactor, part of the AISI 310 SS steel was not molten, but sublimated and recondensed in form of microscopic drops of steel.”

This last comment provides fascinating illustration of the tremendous power involved in this mysterious E-Cat reaction. To have the reactor increase in temperature 1000 C in just 10 seconds seems quite extraordinary, and obviously potentially dangerous if sufficient safety precautions are not taken.

All these revelations give tantalizing glimpses into the work going on at Rossi and Co.’s headquarters and ramps up anticipation for the publication of independent and in-house reports in the new year. Rossi said that the independent team behind the upcoming report “has been increased” from the one that authored the Levi report earlier this year. I hope that the next report will be of sufficient quality and detail that it will bring to the E-Cat the attention it deserves.

UPDATE (12/29)

Here’s another comment from Rossi in response to a question from a JONP reader for a picture of the ‘blue hot’ E-Cat in destruction mode:

“The registration of these experiments, in particular of the explosions, contains information we deem restricted, so far. I gave a description that filtered the confidential data . . . If positive, what really will matter are not the destructive tests, but the stable operation at high temperature, which allows to exchange heat with water making steam at 500-600°C, with an efficiency around 40%. The distructive tests are important to determine the safety limits of operation”


  • Fortyniner

    New laws will be enacted, but probably not for the reason you suggest. Rossi’s overloaded test reactors must weigh something in the order of a kilo or perhaps considerably more, yet the ‘explosions’ are contained within a simple test box. Imagine what a kilo of TNT would do if detonated within the same containment.

    The military potential of CF is more likely to be as a power source. Although if it is contained and directed, the overload response could probably be turned into a weapon, the ones already in existence (many of which we will not know about) are almost certainly much more devastating.

  • BroKeeper

    I agree from what Rossi said: “When we opened the reactor…” indicates a rupture verses an explosion tearing the shell apart.

    • bachcole

      Nice catch.

      • BroKeeper

        We need a Google Translator for Rossi speak. :)

        • bachcole

          Although you are probably right in the general sense, I think that in this case it is merely my not concentrating and connecting obvious data points.

  • bachcole

    Is proportion sort of like balance? If so, I am all for it. Otherwise, I don’t know what you mean.

  • Omega Z

    In answer to concerns of this being used as a weapon.

    I don’t think so. Not a weapon per se.
    It requires energy/electricity & an extended period of time to activate.
    Concern would be- More like sabotage causing fires.

    Many other resources would be much more convenient & accessible. Leaving only concerns of sabotage.

  • Chris I

    There he goes again, playing cat and mouse with us!

  • Colibric41AC

    i thought that if it became too hot the reaction decreased. so it can’t be explosiv or dangerous like nuclear plant. It’s no more like this. disappointed.

    • Fortyniner

      The danger from nuclear fission power stations is from the release of radioactive contamination, as at Fukushima. There is no such danger associated with cold fusion and in relative terms the technology remains safe.

    • Omega Z

      When the Nickle melts, 1455`C, The reaction stops.

      I have always assumed the reaction continued (momentarily/temporarily) & the temperature exceeded this 1455`C limit.
      I have to admit, I didn’t think it reached the 2000`C point. I was thinking more in the 1600′ to 1800′ range.

  • BroKeeper

    Question:
    Italo R.
    December 29th, 2013 at 6:12 PM

    Dear Mr. Rossi, if you are able to make explode hot-cats during
    hard tests with sure damages near them, there could be people doing voluntarily
    the same in the future in other places (terrorists in example). They could be
    clever and become expert enough to do this.

    I mean, these tests show clearly that the cats, in some conditions, could be
    very dangerous… Or not?

    Response:
    Andrea Rossi
    December 29th,
    2013 at 7:17 PM

    Italo R.:
    You are right, the E-Cat, if voluntarily improperly managed, mainly by expert enemies,
    can be dangerous. This is the reason why the safety certification for a
    domestic E-Cat, usable from anybody, is very difficult to obtain. This is also
    the reason why we can sell the plants only to industries that can give us all
    the guarantees of safety. Our Customers have to make our plants operated only
    by operators certified by us, after a specific education through the manuals
    and after a period of instructions whose main part is aimed to safety. Our
    Customers must have already a culture and an organization aimed to safety and
    they will be liable for the respect of all the safety instructions supplied by
    us. This is also the reason for which we sell our plants only to industries
    that have a consolidated history of energy utilization at least in the amounts
    produced by our plants, so that we deal with persons already expert of the
    field, even if not of the E-Cat. We also need Customers with a financial
    structure enough solid to guarantee us they can sustain properly all the safety
    and security issues implied and to guarantee a security able to make sure that
    the technology does not go in wrong hands.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    This answers why Rossi is not openly selling the E-Cats to anyone – “mainly by expert enemies”.
    He requires safety certification based on history of safety culture, specific operational education, safety guarantees and energy capabilities.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I still don’t see how an eCat could be a weapon of choice for terrorists compared to the weapons already at their disposal. If you want destructive power from an eCat, just hook it up to a steam boiler.

      One of the most specialized segments of the insurance industry is the insuring of steam boilers.

      “Hartford Steam Boiler employs over 1,200 engineers, inspectors and technicians,[1] approximately 50 percent of its total workforce.” – wiki

      • Buck

        +1

  • Sanjeev

    The tone of #5 above is as if Rossi himself is surprised that his Ecat can do that!
    If it can, then it looks like the partner’s team has managed to improve it considerably. The world has never seen a generator of the size of one’s arm output 1MW before.
    The melting point of Ni is about 1400C, so it seems that even melted Ni could not prevent the reaction. Either they manged to alloy it with something to raise the melting point or the previous theory that the reaction needs only solid Ni crystals to happen was wrong. Its anyway not a chain reaction (thankfully) and the destruction of the structure stops the reaction.
    May be in future, engineers will tweak it to produce a million degrees easily, making light weight spaceships and personal flying cars possible.

    • US_Citizen71

      Or at the level of reaction in this test, X-rays and/or Low Energy Gamma Rays were being generated and heated the metal outside the core.

    • bachcole

      Well, actually, there is a thigh-sized “generator” that can beat 1MW by a lightyear, but we generally don’t call it a generator. We call it a “gadget” or a “device”. (:->) And although I said that in jest, this ability to output 1MW is now more of a nuisence than it is an achievement. Perhaps later it will become an achievement. Although, it will definitely shut-up some skeptopaths.

  • bachcole

    I fear that when all of these secrets and mysteries are resolved and LENR+ is accepted as common knowledge, everyone reading this comment will either be dead or libertarians.

  • HHiram

    Just to point out the obvious: the amount of energy (10MJ in 10 seconds, i.e. 1MW of power) needed to vaporize several kilograms of nickel and steel is far more than any normal industrial wiring could provide.

    • bachcole

      Outstanding observation!

    • Omega Z

      SOOOO-
      What are you saying HHiram?
      That there is no way Rossi could (Secretly) feed enough juice thru those wires to accomplish this melt down.
      Doesn’t matter. The Skeps will just change their claim & accuse Rossi is aiming a high powered laser at the core. They got it covered.

  • Job001

    Since F&P it has been known that Engineering excellent CF or LENR control was a significant issue.

    1.Privately F&P melted through the lab work bench and concrete floor but didn’t brag on it(no reference will be provided).

    2.NASA Bushnell Feb 2013 referenced knowledge of lab explosions and melted lab windows.

    3.LENR researchers including Rossi previously noted destructive testing.

    4.Heat sources that increase with temperature go exponential and must have a cooling rate that exceeds the heat release to stay under control.

    See Arrhenius rate of reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation

    Arrhenius rate of reaction applies to chemical or nuclear processes where rate is temperature dependent. The heat release for nuclear is many times that of chemical so the equation constants will differ.

    Fortunately, once the lattice is too hot for mechanical stability, the reaction is assumed to stop, a nice fail safe limit, which must also be confirmed by destructive testing.

    The point is that Engineering must include destructive testing, development of process controls and emergency shut down controls, so these tests are required. Testing, Engineering, design, safety, and certification will take longer than most people wish, and most will seriously underestimate the effort required.

  • Asterix

    Am I the only one who finds this worrisome, if true?

    Imagine a incendiary bomb constructed from this stuff (if I recall correctly, there’s nothing unobtainium or exotic in it) and used to create mayhem. Since the device is nuclear in nature, how would your average police department deal with something like this? (That is, you clearly don’t point a fire hose at it to disable it.)

    Would the upshot be regulation of who can purchase nickel or hydrogen?

    • Quiet Wine Guy

      You have followed LENR long enough to know the LENR reaction is self-extinguishing if it goes out of control. And, you’ve been called out as a Troll in the past.

      • Asterix

        If it’s self-extinguishing, how do you explain Mr. Rossi’s detail of his test? I hardly consider what appears to be boiling off steel self-extinguishing.

        Troll or not, I believe my question to be legitimate.

        • Quiet Wine Guy

          It is not whether your question is legitimate as there are many forms of legitimacy . . . . it is whether it is rational and reasonable given the information at hand. Yours does not pass muster. And you and I disagree on this point.

          • Paul Smith

            Yes but….if mr Rossi is able to make explode hot-cats during hard tests with sure damages near them, there could be people doing the same in the future and other places (terrorists in example).
            I mean, these tests show clearly that those cats, in some conditions could be very dangerous… Or not?

            • Quiet Wine Guy

              Given the description, it appears that a gallon of gasoline used as a fire bomb has far more destructive capability than a device that self-extinguishes. And, the gasoline is readily accessible to those who would chose to do harm to others.

              • bachcole

                In 50 years the gasoline won’t be quite so accessible, and so the bad guys will either have resort to other means or else grow-up, spiritually speaking. (:->)

                • Buck

                  +1

                • Doktor Bob

                  People always find ways to hurt themselves and each other and we have developed very bad means for doing so. There are already lots of weapons one can use soo maybe we should look at the root causes for violence if we want to avoid it and all sleep better at night.

                  What is important to understand is that when we are fighting each other we are actually fighting our selves. Surely people understand that if we all could work together we would reach much longer…

                  I have a theory that increasing peoples wealth and life quality in combination with giving free access to information and education would lower peoples will to sacrifice themselves and others.

                • bachcole

                  I couldn’t agree with you more, and I try every day to agree with you more, specifically about the Oneness of all beings. Everyone is me, and so I will endeavor to treat them as I myself would wish to be treated.

                  It is amazing how resentments, regrets, anxiety, etc., etc. fall away from me when I remember that one little FACT, that that other person is me.

                • Doktor Bob

                  We both have the seeds of destructiveness and potential to do well within us, I guess it depends on what sides we are feeding and cultivating the most.

                • bachcole

                  A most excellent artistic creation that demonstrates this principle is “Breaking Bad”. It starts out light and a tad humorous and with the lead character (Walt) a likable person and the supporting character (Jesse) a total scum-bag. Walt follows the means justify the ends life strategy. Jesse follows his heart. By the 55th episode (my son and I still have one more episode), the show isn’t funny or light anymore, Walt is a monster, and Jesse is a hero.

                • Omega Z

                  I agree Bob. People hurt People. Not weapons.

                  Looking to the root cause which has much to do with mentality.

            • Omega Z

              The same possibilities exist with Gas Stoves & Furnaces for home heating.
              Only built in (Multiple) safety devices prevent this from being a daily occurrence.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Meltdown = melted metal. We’re not talking plastic or ice cream. The meltdown caused it to self-extinguish. Rossi said the meltdown was contained within the outer vessel.

          Testing is required to design a control mechanism which will prevent an expensive meltdown. The control mechanism is not for the purpose of preventing nuclear Armageddon.

        • kdk

          The initial burst through containment would render it all inert. They require a very condensed environment. There aren’t LENRs blowing us up as we walk through the air or mines. Material outward = no more material to continue the reaction. To make it any sort of remarkable, I mean beyond conventional for similar volume, you’d have to trigger many LENRs at the same time. This is single atom level precision control, getting everything to line up in different areas at exactly the right time. My guess is that there aren’t many amateurs who can pull that off. And when you can do that, you may as well make a nuke, God knows there’s probably enough material floating out there.

          I think we should take the time to hone the arguments before the questions are really public. We all know how sensationalism and proactive unthinking in the media work. Good practice.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      (That is, you clearly don’t point a fire hose at it to disable it.)

      Why not point a fire hose at it (assuming the electrical current is off)(and assuming the reactor isn’t made of magnesium)? Although I’d prefer to trust fire hoses to the fire department.

    • US_Citizen71

      A terrorist would be better off creating thermite, far more controllable, doesn’t require multiple minutes to hours to begin the reaction and reaches 2200 C when burning.

      http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Thermite

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    To my calculations you can evaporate about 13.5 kg Nickel with 10 MJ. Of course I do not know how the E-cat is constructed. This calculation only shows an order of magnitude of the weight of the core E-cat.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      From Wikipedia, nickel heat of vapourisation is 377.5 kJ/mol and nickel molar mass (standard atomic weight) is 58.693 gram/mol. From these, the heat of vapourisation per kg is 377.5/58.693e-3 = 6432 kJ/kg. Thus 10 MJ is enough to evaporate 1.55 kg of nickel, and somewhat less if also the melting heat and heat capacity are taken into account.

      • Marc Ellenbroek

        I did not just calculated the evaporation energy, but also to heat-up the mass from 1100 deg C to the evaporation point, including the melting energy.

      • Marc Ellenbroek

        You are right, Pekka, I used 100 MJ by mistake (confused by the zero’s). When I do the calc including heating up from 1100C to 3193C and melting with slightly different values compared to yours (but also taken from Wikipedia), the quantity you can evaporate is 1.35 kg.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Is it strange to anyone else that Rossi’s partner would let the Elforsk funded tests continue? There must be some agreement between Elforsk and the partner? Or, are they the same?

    • GreenWin

      Bernie, considering that the Swedes are minimally, partners-in-support of LENR and in particular the E-Cat — it seems fair and good for Elforsk/Vattenfall to continue at the leading edge. It is likely that this is the portal through which the UN/World Bank will obtain some version of the technology for distribution into emerging nations. The project underway is formidable; a geopolitical “Noah’s Ark” — it will need more than one curator.

  • Curbina

    The idea of steel being sublimated and then condensed is all what I need to hear to know that the rate at which the temperature increases is mind boggling. This is the kind of news that makes my day regarding the LENR revolution.

    • bachcole

      Such an event also increases the possibility of LENR+ being capable of being used as a weapon. I would remind the class that, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, “The line that separates good from evil passes through every man’s heart.” And our one and only real task here on this plane of existence remains spiritual growth. Only soon we will have more opportunity to focus our attention, individually, on said task if we so choose.

    • Fortyniner

      I agree that the rate of rise of output seems to be impressive – it may be some kind of full-on H-H nuclear fusion that occurs momentarily when things get too energised (contained by the magnetic field that has been reported to spontaneously arise??).

      As the steel casing is (probably) not involved in the reaction it rather looks like some kind of plasma may be rather suddenly formed in the ceramic core under overload conditions, and it is the heat from this that vapourises some of the metal and ceramic components. There have been a number of incidents that apparently confirm that this is always a possibility when messing around with CF. Possibly related is the fact that most of the various ‘wet cell’ devices depend on plasma formation in order to function.

      While this (sudden runaway) is a little scary, the intense energy is probably very localised and almost immediately destroys whatever is producing it, so automatically failing safe. As the event is fully contained it appears to be no more dangerous that a high voltage fuse blowing.

  • BroKeeper

    Maybe we are given another chance to make it right as brother bachcole (Roger) suggests below. Revitalizing the deserts green again spiking world’s food needs, clean the air of carbon shields, and poisons; producing goods and services and provide education for all to aford; provide new avenues for the less fortunate allowing cascading reiprication to everyone else. The big package left under the tree.
    Let’s think high – Living The Dream.

    • Omega Z

      I would suggest revitalizing former farming lands that have been depleted of water & leaving the deserts alone.

      In the U.S., We spent years & billion$ draining & filling in swamps only to learn they served an invaluable purpose to the ecosystem.
      Now we spend Billion$ restoring them.

      Aside from that, Even with LENR, Greening the deserts likely isn’t economically feasible.

      • BroKeeper

        Perhaps you are right despite newly discovered massive underground water reserves under the Sahara Desert. Even greening the deserts could change weather patterns causing other issues.

      • bachcole

        With unlimited almost free energy, water can be condensed right out of the air. Also, desalinization, pumping, and irrigation would be much cheaper. So, I think that greening of the deserts would be feasible, and personally I see deserts as dead zones, wasted space. I much prefer greenery. Deserts may be interesting for some, but I have no love for them.

        Furthermore, once a large desert was greened, particularly close to the coast, it would attract rainfall and thus would sustain itself with regard to water..

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    On this day, December 29, in 1959, Richard Feynman gave his famous talk at a Caltch meeting of the American Physical Society, proposing microscopic, nano-scale, machines. Feynman’s presentation launched the field of nanotechnology.

    • GreenWin

      Very good point of reference Iggy. Feynman possessed the unique ability to see technological evolution with a clear eye (a curse for some.) It is now one of the most fascinating areas of science and materials engineering. There a huge opportunities for undergrads here. For example the very accomplished Halas Research Group at Rice University has published on “Hot Electrons Do the Impossible: Plasmon-Induced Dissociation of H2 on Au.” A “real” science paper that could be included in a book of “Practical Majic.” http://halas.rice.edu/home

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    2- The E-Cats are intrinsecally safe. To bring them to destructive levels is necessary to make operations that can only be made voluntarily and by experts.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=833&cpage=4#comment-891594

    This is reassuring.

    • Marc Ellenbroek

      One can only say that something is intrinsecally safe, when the process follows the accepted theories in all aspects. Do we think Rossi and Partner have reached that point? I do not think so at all. It may follow the ‘Rossi effect theory’, but that is only known to a few, so this is not an ‘accepted theory’. They may have figured-out a maximum (Ni or catalyzer) mass and/or a ‘safe by shape’ size by numerous tests, but that dous not allow for the expression that the E-cat is ‘intrinsecally safe’. I believe Mr. Rossi knows this, so I wonder why he ventilated this.

      • GreenWin

        Marc, Rossi may be referring to the inherent limits to the materials they are using, e.g. the melting point of the Ni nano particles is 1455C. The reaction based on integrity of the particle lattice would end immediately at this temp. However commercial high temp steel is destroyed at 1220C, so a “meltdown” like the Levi-Elforsk test #1 would terminate the reaction earlier. This may be why the “hundreds of reactor” meltdowns is mentioned.

        • Marc Ellenbroek

          You could be right, I hope so. The explosion Rossi is referring to may be due to the Hydrogen under pressure leaving the reactor tube and causing a H2 O2 explosion. This is probably the reason that only small tubes with little H2 content can be used.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Probably to assuage some of the fear he provoked with all his “explosion talk”.

        By intrinsically safe, I think he means that in the event of a melt-down, the “Rossi Effect” self-extinguishes. But what Rossi “says”, has little bearing on certification.

        It sounds to me like the “hot-cat” is close to being proved safe enough for industrial use. Domestic use is another matter.

  • LENR G

    For readers who are scared by all this sciency stuff I’d like to clarify just one important point: the difference between power and energy.

    Simply stated, power is an amount of energy per unit time. Power measures the instantaneous intensity of energy.

    The metric unit for power is the watt. It’s usually shortened to W. Often you’ll see a ‘k’ or ‘M’ in front of the W, as in kW or MW. These mean kilowatt and megawatt respectively, where kilo means 1000 and mega means 1 million (1 000 000).

    The metric unit for energy is Joules, or J. A Watt (power) is defined as a Joule (energy) per second.

    So if you have a device that emits 1 MW for 10 seconds, you have produced 10 MJ of energy (ten megajoules, 1 MJ/s * 10 s).

    But if you have a 1 MW device that runs for 10 seconds it has *not* produced 10 MW of power. You can’t sum power over time like that — doesn’t make sense because it’s already a per-time quantity. It’s been running at 1 MW the whole time. It produced 10 MJ of energy over that time. Run it for 100 seconds at 1 MW and you get 100 MJ of energy out. So the cumulative energy keeps going up but the power stays the same. An analogy would be another per-time quantity you’re very familiar with: velocity (or speed), which is length per time. If you go 100 mph for an hour, you travel 100 miles. If you spend the next hour also going 100 mph, you travel 200 miles total, but your velocity is still 100 mph, not 200 mph just because you traveled for another hour.

    Just to confuse things, sometimes people write a quantity of energy using units of the form power * time. So a unit like MWh (megawatt hour) is equivalent to a power of 1 MW producing energy for 1 hour. Your electricity bills very well might be in kWh (kilowatt hours).

    In the context of Rossi’s nuggets, he’ll sometimes provide specific power levels and/or time periods. We have to be careful how we interpret these values. For example he stated 1 MW of power was attained during a recent destructive test. Was this a peak value that last only fleetingly? Was the device at 1 MW power for the duration of the 10 second meltdown? Did he really mean 1 MJ or 10 MJ? It’s nearly impossible to know really exactly what happened without the actual data. Personally I take his statement to mean that a peak power of 1 MW was reached during the meltdown and that there is no information provided on how long that peak power lasted. But it could also mean the average power during the 10 second meltdown was 1 MW. Or it could be shorthand for a quantity of energy where the ten seconds is already factored in and implied.

  • Pedro

    The link to this old picture was part of the question posed to Rossi. In his answer he referred to that picture to explain what happened in the recent test. So, old picture, old container.

  • Miles

    Wow, the run-a-way reaction from 1k to 2k in just 10s is just mind boggling. This is like ufo technology being discovered and it’s true potential. Amazing coverage!!! Thank you Frank.

    • artefact

      and thats for about 6 kg.
      Rossi said it produces 1MW during the 10 seconds. That would mean, if the reaction would be stable at that production rate it would produce 360 MW/h !!

      • artefact

        or does Rossi already mean 1MW/h?

        • Buck

          I think your 360 MW/h calculation is correct.

          Rossi’s refers to the physicist’s calculation showing that it would take 1MW to shift the temp 1000 in the 10 seconds, suggesting that 6MW are generated in 1 minute or by extension 360 MW in 60 minutes.

          The design of the vessel would have to change to include extensive head dissipation vanes and the flow of coolant across the vessel would have to increase dramatically to keep the temperature below some sort of control point. The type of coolant might need to change as well. Further, the materials used (ceramics and metals) would have to be designed to allow for such extremes in heat before melting and sublimation were to occur.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        No, MW (which Rossi sometimes writes MWh/h) is a unit of power, not energy. MWh is a unit of energy: 1 MW power lasting for 1 hour. 1 MW power for 10 seconds equals 1/360 MWh = 10 MJ of energy which is enough to evaporate 5 kg of water or 1.6 kg of steel. This amount of energy is roughly compatible with the mass of the HotCat (about 4-5 kg) and the knowledge that it was heated by about 1000 degrees and partly melted.

        • artefact

          thx

    • Buck

      UFO like technology . . . . WOW.

      If Artefact’s 360MWh calculation points in the right direction, then it would only take 1 LENR industrial device to run a 100 MW/h retrofitted power plant.

      Now, that is a paradigm shift.

      Happy New Year to us all. Thank you Pons & Fleischmann!

  • Omega Z

    2000`C
    Hmmm— NADA on the Pace Maker I guess. :)

  • Nixter

    The recent relaxation of restriction of testing results may mean that the Elforsk funded six month long tests are all but finished and March is an educated guess as to when the papers can be published. To now allow Dr. Rossi to talk about these developments might mean that the tide of recent testing, validating and development were very positive.

    The rational for keeping quiet regarding E-Cat developments over the last few months may have been to limit the damage from negative results leaking out prematurely and poisoning the R&D atmosphere. Dr. Rossi’s business partners probably felt that they were taking a gamble to associate with a “wild card” figure like Dr. Rossi, we have all heard the phrase, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is,..” one can safely assume that some variation of this thought crossed a mind or two. I expect that the wave of criticism that followed the first Elforsk sponsored report has been thoroughly and carefully considered, with protocols designed to accommodate and counter valid procedural concerns since the first report was published.

    For Dr. Rossi to mention “Exploding” E-Cats at all, seems to indicate a veritable flood of positive information is ready to ensue, and that any concerns over explosive E-Cats will be balanced and overwhelmed by positive news regarding developments related to new designs, applications and control systems. The best may be yet to come if we consider the early reports of huge 1.6 Tesla magnetic fields being generated with a meager 360 Watts of input power. When the Physics underlying the Rossi Effect are understood and the facts have been widely distributed, the various branches of Science may be able to develop technology that will make the original E-Cat seem crude by comparison.

    • Buck

      The optimistic scenario you paint is very attractive. It reflects Rossi’s apparently positive mood, if the amount of his recent blogging is a litmus test for his mood.

      I have my fingers crossed and New Year’s wishes all lined up for 2014 and LENR.

  • jousterusa

    The discussion in your last paragraph about the independent testing team encourages me to believe that the results this time, as he has said, whether AR likes them or not, are going to be genuine and verifiable, and hopefully will soon be replicated in other labs. I don’t see how it can be replicated without giving away the compositon of the “secret” catalyst, however.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    “Please say hello to my beloved New Hampshire, where my US work has been started in 1996….”

    Whadaya think? Sounds like maybe a diversionary statement. Maybe be we’re hitting too close to home.

    • BroKeeper

      I had thought it might have been diversionary, but then again maybe he is giving mercy on us fools believing it was DEKA by providing time to change our minds. (:->)

    • Omega Z

      I may be mistaken, but, Doesn’t Steven Karels hail from that Area.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    This is beginning to look like too hot a potato for Babcock & Wilcox. I’m thinking GE, UTX, or Lockheed-Martin.

    • Buck

      Iggy,

      Not wanting to sound too funny, I think LENR is too hot for any single company . . . . large, medium, or small. That said, I do hope for a robust well managed small or medium company as, IMO, they will have a stronger sense of grabbing onto the future and have fewer ties to legacy industries.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        B&W’s forté is stationary utility scale power plants. Only GE is heavily into both propulsion and electric power production. However, GE might not of had the foresight to grab this opportunity. GE would be better suited but B&W more likely.

        • Buck

          Iggy,
          I agree that between the two choices GE would be the better. I find it very easy to imagine that if/when LENR becomes a business development topic at the Board of Directors, a LENR division/company, with senior executive level of authority, will be described with direct feeds into all other divisions capable of capitalizing on the opportunity that is LENR. With GE’s size that covers just about everything, from planes, trains, ships, automobiles, utilities, and home appliances including your self-heating teapot in the kitchen.

          And, it is because of the very nature of this monolithic organization, that I prefer the small or medium companies like DEKA.

          • Omega Z

            The Bigger the Partner, The Easier it is to arrange financing.

            • Buck

              OZ,
              as we know, the cost and ease of financing is driven by many factors, with size being only one of the many.

              The size of the opportunity can easily be seen as a balancing factor.

              And, if the intimations of well managed positive R&D and industrial design testing reflect the strong management capabilities of the Partner, then that could be an additional positive element in favor.

              Further, if the leasing and retrofitting of a power plant drives strong high margin predictable cash flows as could reasonably be expected, then this acts as a point of leverage for additional financing. Especially if there is a 5 year “Industrial Testing Phase” on 100-400 retrofitted power plants. A great deal of operating cash flow history can be generated over a 5 year period which enhances the understanding of the economic opportunity.

    • BroKeeper

      Agreed, Rossi is in the big leagues now whether he is working through a broker like DEKA or not. If the big players are not informed they soon will be. This is huge. I just hope the government doesn’t step in to control it, however I do see some regulation required to limit wrong ownership and operation.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        I would be very surprised if “the government” is not totally involved.

        • Fortyniner

          If you mean the military, they certainly will be. It would be interesting to know what they are up to, but I don’t suppose we’ll find out for at least a decade.

          • Gordon Docherty

            One big weakness of tanks is their exhaust – you can wrap the engine up to minimize the heat signature, but the exhaust is something a missile can lock onto. Also, tank engines are rather noisy. So, app. no. 1 – new tank engines. Nuclear submarines and any boat for that matter is another vehicle which can benefit. Application #2: – subs/boats with distributed engines (harder to knock out). Application #3 – aircraft and drones will be able to stay much longer in the air and, ultimately, into LEO and beyond. Militarily, the e-cat is a “no-brainer” – not as an explosive, but rather as a means of moving around… On the other hand, the mission will also need to change – rather than securing scarce resources, it will be more final frontier stuff. Much better for everyone, really.

            • bachcole

              Hopefully the mission can be greatly reduced. The Chinese will realize that they don’t have to defend or acquire oil sources. Likewise with the USA. IslamoNazis will get much less funding, although it won’t change their minds any. Russian billionaires will become Russian millionaires. Everyone will chill to some extent. Desert regions such as the US Southwest, the Sahara, Australia, central Asia, and other places will become regions for expansion, as will colder regions of the world; given that population growth will level out at about 10 billion, this will greatly reduce population pressure. Anxiety levels will go down. I see a greatly decreased military future, and this is not wishful thinking.

              • Bernie Koppenhofer

                I hope you are right!

              • Iggy Dalrymple

                Roger, I bet my ashes against your bones, we’ll never hit 10 billion.

                • bachcole

                  And why do you say that?

                • Iggy Dalrymple

                  Make room! The current world population of roughly 7.2 billion will rise to 9.6 billion by 2050 and then to 10.9 billion in 2100, according to the most recent United Nations projections.

                  Wait, don’t make room. Demographer Sanjeev Sanyal of Deutsche Bank thinks the UN is way off. His calculations find the world’s overall fertility rate falling to the replacement rate in 2025, although global population will continue to expand thanks in part to rising longevity, for another few decades. Then comes the Big Shrink. Sanyal:

                  We forecast that world population will peak around 2055 at 8.7 billion and will then decline to 8.0 billion by 2100. In other words, our forecasts suggest that world population will peak at least half a century sooner than the UN expects and that by 2100, and that level will be 2.8 billion below the UN’s prediction. This is obviously a radically different view of the world. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/09/the-end-of-global-population-growth-may-be-almost-here-and-a-lot-sooner-than-the-un-thinks/

                • bachcole

                  I am not is a position to take a position regarding either population projection position. But the pattern is clear as crystal that the World’s population will be leveling off, and perhaps even going down.

                  Australia is a great showcase for the idea that most people live close to oceans and lakes and rivers. When water and travel become more available and MUCH cheaper, then living in such close proximity to water won’t be so important. 10 billion won’t seem like such a burden.

          • GreenWin

            Probably safe to assume that whatever appears in the commercial arena – IS a decade behind milapps. Gordon’s view seems on target. A decade out will not rely on thermal conversion.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      GE will have their fingers in there somewhere. Probably one the of smaller more independent GE units.

  • Buck

    Frank, thank you for a great summary.