Rossi: Improving E-Cat Power Density ‘Extremely Alluring Issue’

I may be reading too much into things here, but I get a feeling that Andrea Rossi is hinting at improvements in power density in the hot cat.

Steven Karels recently asked on the Journal of Nuclear physics, “A year or so ago, you were suggesting a 1MW eCat unit in a container with a volume of 1 cubic meter. Any updates on projected volume for a hypothetical 1MW eCat?” To which Rossi responded:

“We are working also to increase the power density.”

I followed up with a question about whether they had seen any improvements in power density, and Rossi responded:

“As you know, it is premature any anticipation. I can say we are working with strong efforts on this issue, but, still, the results could be positive or negative. The energy density is an extremely alluring issue.”

To me it seems that Rossi may be signalling here that we could be seeing improvements in the power density over the previous report when the reports come out. Rossi has said that they are working with a ‘cat’ (main reactor), and ‘mouse’ (activator) setup in this test, which is different from the single-unit hot cat that was tested by Levi et al. last year. This must be an improved system, or they wouldn’t be using it — and maybe improved power density is one of its advantages. The fact that Rossi describes energy density as an ‘extremely alluring issue’ says to me that it’s something they have been working on in a significant way.

  • Omega Z

    “We are working also to increase the power density.”

    Has everyone forgotten about Rossi mentioning a 100Kw Core.
    Could Rossi be alluding to the 100Kw Core or maybe some Larger Kilowatt output core.

    The 100Kw core is larger then that of the !0Kw cat, but displaces much less space then 10-10Kw cats. This could be interpreted as power density per size of the core.

    As Noted in Pekka’s post below about the Ragone plot(Energy density) in the Levi/Elforsk tests,was based on the limited run-time of about 100 hours. This would change just by increasing the Run Time.

    So, Question is did Rossi mean to say “Power Density” or “Energy Density”.
    Energy Density would likely only come into play if they are working on the period of time between Fuel Recharge which could also be adjusted by the size of the charge/catalyst….

  • US_Citizen71

    Oxygen supposedly kills the reaction. I don’t think it is water.

  • US_Citizen71

    I finally read the blog entries over at rossilivecat I think Rossi was referring to multiple MW in a cubic meter. I’m sure there is some type of Moore’s law that applies to energy research. Maybe he is up to 5MW per cubic meter now.

    • Ophelia Rump

      MW per area are a simple matter of heat transfer possible at max temperature below melting point.
      A simple engineering problem.

      To be anything but this, would require the reaction to sustain in the liquid core of a melted nickle reaction.

      • US_Citizen71

        Density refers to volume not area, I think Rossi has figured a means to make the ECats smaller with the same or greater output similar to the shrinking of electronic circuits. So where he was getting 20 10kW ECats maybe he is now getting 50 15kW Ecats, which would increase the power density of a setup. Hence my reference to Moore’s law.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    So Rossi works on making his reactors more powerful?

    Interesting how that came to light after BLP’s announcements…

  • Oceans2014

    This would be a natural progression to increase the power density, no surprise here.

    • Fortyniner

      If Rossi is working towards a drop-in ‘retro-fit’ boiler (a goal that might be ‘extremely alluring’) he needs to achieve roughly the same power density as a gas boiler of similar output, and within similar dimensions, i.e., the units must be of approximately the same size or smaller, power for power, or there will be problems fitting them into available spaces.

      1MW per m3 is too low, although it would obviously be adequate for a demo purpose-built genset. He probably needs to get this up to about 2.5-3 MW/m3 for use in small units (i.e., a pilot conversion of a typical 3-5MW commercial gas unit). For full scale use in existing power stations he would probably want about 6-8MW/m3 to replace a powder spray or fluidised bed coal furnace.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    It might also mean (if Rossi meant what he wrote: energy density) that they have made a Ragone plot based on a long validation run. The Ragone plot looked “nice” already in the Levi et al. report where they ran it for 5 days.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I also think that Rossi meant “energy density”. A high energy density is not automatically an advantage. The higher the density, the more dangerous the device. One could remind the numerous accidents with Li-ion batteries in aircrafts or cars. Engineers would usually design a device in a way that its energy density is just as high as necessary. However, in some cases high densities may be required. This would make it more difficult to obtain safety certification, on the other hand.

  • Gerard McEk

    Frank, I am not sure what you are thinking. Do you mean that the cat&mouse setup is a kind of series connection of multiple Ecats?
    Because Ecat is heat controlled, that kind of set-up seems not viable to me, unless Rossi found another way to conrol Ecat.

    • ecatworld

      According to Rossi, the mouse — the activator — is a small unit which itself has a COP >1. We haven’t yet seen any data from the cat and mouse configuration, so it’s quite hard to understand how it all works.

      Regarding the E-Cat control, here’s another interesting Q & A:

      Steven N. Karels

      January 18th, 2014 at 11:58 AM

      Dear Andrea Rossi,

      1. For the 1MW eCat unit, can we correctly assume that the eCat module(s) are in one physical unit and the electronics are located in a separate unit in a more temperature controlled environment? A: Yes.

      2. This still leaves some form of control within the high temperature eCat module which is apparently more than a resistance heater plus temperature sensors. Is this essentially correct? A: Yes.

      • Fortyniner

        Moved – wrong place.

    • artefact