Light and Electricity ‘Not Impossible’ with E-Cat X

It’s not easy getting new details about the E-Cat X from Andrea Rossi, but I have tried again to get a little more information about this new version of the E-Cat. My question was sparked by a comment Rossi made on the Journal of Nuclear Physics in response to a question about whether E-Cat technology could be used to retrofit nuclear fission power stations.

He wrote:

Andrea Rossi

Giovanniontheweb:
If the E-Cat works, it makes heat for sure, other forms of energy probably. Such production can be integrated with any other source of omologous energy. The ways to make the integrations have to be studied specifically in the due situations. Theoretically, nothing is impossible with technology: it’s just matter of costs and convenience.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
(emphasis added)

I responded by saying it I thought it was obvious that the E-Cat worked, or else he wouldn’t be still working on it after all these years, and also based on what Fulvio Fabiani had reported in his interview with Mats Lewan (my question was edited when it was posted on the JONP by AR to take out the reference to Mr. Fabiani), and I asked what other forms of energy the the E-Cat X was ‘probably’ producing, in addition to heat.

He responded:

Andrea Rossi
December 15th, 2015 at 9:20 AM
Frank Acland:
Let us complete the tests, then we’ll see. Light and electricity are not impossible, theoretically, but many more hours of tests are necessary before knowing if it works.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Maybe that gets us a tiny bit closer in understanding what is going on with the E-Cat X, but Rossi is giving very little information away these days.

On another topic. BroKeeper asked AR about the ‘modular’ concept of combining multiple ‘small’ 1 kW E-Cat X units for future development of the E-Cat.

In response to why smaller 1KW E-Cats you stated:

“It is because to control many small units orchestrated in parallel is easier than to control a big one. Besides, under the manufacturing point of view makes higher the economy scale.”

This may imply you have one-size-fits-all strategy whereby the 1KW E-Cats are not only singular modules but also modularized to concatenate one-to-another with a possible snap-together heat/electrical output ports with a ‘LEGO’-type scheme.

This could make it very cost affective and competitive in its manufacturing, assembly, installation, and maintenance for any domestic (and perhaps industrial) energy requirements. Is this possible?

Rossi simply responded, “Yes.”

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I don’t think Rossi is talking about direct heat to electricity.

    While this effect was discovered 1821 (180 years ago!), the conversation rates are rather low after SO MANY years of research – only about 8% in exotic systems.

    Here is a GREAT video of a company that sells such devices:

    http://www.genthermglobalpower.com/

    (do watch above – it will give one many ideas as to what direct heat to electric can do).

    When LENR breaks into the market, then investments will pour into thermoelectric devices. This will occur due to such a big payoff for the investments. So we likely see improvements for TEGS like we seen for solar panels over the years.

    As for light production? I do think this is much a possible use of LENR. In fact the heat produced by LENR is highly likely to be in the form of light – else such devices would always self-sustain due to the heat such devices produce (the energy is produced in the form of light and moves away from the reaction, else the reaction would always self-sustain).

    So while electricity is “possible”, that is a big word, and there nothing that suggests the ecat-x produces electricity – only that it “could”. Rossi has noted they are looking at the Carnot cycle (a heat engine – not thermo electric) for electric production. However, with higher temperatures, then as the above video shows, thermoelectric devices do have commercial uses – they are just not very efficient at this point in time – and with LENR you really don’t care about being efficient when you have so much excess energy to play with.

    edit: I cannot embed the video, but a simple scroll down from the above link will allow one to view the short video in question.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • http://www.russgeorge.net/ russ george

    Is the report of a dialog with Rossi from Peter Gluck’s blog showing Rossi predicting his long test will be judged a failure for real… December 15th, 2015 at 6:38 AM
    Mr “AR”:
    At the end of your tests it will turn out that your plants do not work and are not reliableI bet 1000 Euros to win 3000Eyros if you fail. I bet you will fail.
    …and I remain anonymous, so you can say you spammed “nobody”.
    Anonymous
    Andrea Rossi
    December 15th, 2015 at 3:18 PM

    Anonymous:
    As strange as it might seem, I think
    maybe you will win your bet.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

  • Agaricus

    Well hopefully that’s where the pilot testing is heading. But if that fades away to be replaced by talk of progress with e-cat x, I will formally join the foot stampers.

  • PD

    It is exciting that the E-Cat X is a 1 kWh module. It should be relatively easy for manufacturers to create an E-Cat X array for a variety of domestic applications. An example might be the Aga range cooker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGA_cooker). The oil burning version uses around 40 litres of kerosene per week, which equates to about 400 kW. Average heat output is around 2.38 kWh. A 3 kWh E-Cat X array would be be an ideal upgrade.

    My expectation is that many stand alone heating products will be powered by E-Cat X arrays (if in the words of Rossi the tests are positive).

    • Brokeeper

      Yes PD, with a 1KW module scheme the potential number of applications has increased exponentially at much lower cost to the consumer.

    • Agaricus

      I certainly wouldn’t miss splitting a ton of logs over winter to chuck into my wife’s beloved Rayburn (Aga lookalike) range cooker.

      • georgehants

        Peter, I am sure you can get a genuine Aga nameplate off E-bay, you cannot possibly let the nabighbours see you only have a lookalike, you will never be invited round for cocktails, ha.

        • Agaricus

          Hi George. Fortunately it’s already unrecognisable. I wanted a Victorian cast iron range, but this wasn’t permitted for some reason. The compromise was an old Rayburn that I painted black and ‘zebrited’ after stripping off the enamel, then replaced all the steel fittings with brass, so my cocktail soirees are safe (actually our only neighbour shares my taste for beer and cider, rather than anything more ‘sophisticated’).

    • US_Citizen71

      A 1 kW core would be just about ideal for a space heater as well. My belief is space heaters are low hanging fruit for consumer grade applications of the E-cat. No expensive installation, just plug in and turn it on. What better way to convince the world of the usefulness of LENR than to allow people to heat their homes with it.

  • Zephir

    Strange answer of Andrea Rossi

    Anonymous
    December 15th, 2015 at 6:38 AM
    Mr “AR”:

    At the end of your tests it will turn out that your plants do not work
    and are not reliableI bet 1000 Euros to win 3000Eyros if you fail. I bet
    you will fail.
    …and I remain anonymous, so you can say you spammed “nobody”.
    Anonymous

    Andrea Rossi
    December 15th, 2015 at 3:18 PM
    Anonymous:
    As strange as it might seem, I think
    maybe you will win your bet.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    • Stephen

      I suppose he could have very high COP even of 10’s or 100’s say for almost all the time but still not meet the requirement of the test that it is producing 1MW for a certain minimum number of days.

      So if he is getting close to the minimum number of days at 1MW maybe he is right.

      Maybe there are other pass fail criteria such as amount of maintenance hours etc so the test could work very well in terms of LENR but still fail the plants reliability test.

      It also occurred to me that he may not want to commit himself on power alone in case there are unexpected external complicating factors but wants to see the isotope analysis of the fuel and catalyst after the run too.

    • deleo77

      And Rossi followed it up by saying he meant what he said with that answer. It’s hard not to put a greater than 50/50 chance on the test being negative with that comment. Interesting. Maybe this site will change to Orbo World.

      • ecatworld

        No, I won’t do that. It’s going to be ECW, whatever happens. And I would not bet against Andrea Rossi.

        • deleo77

          I hope you are right. It just seems like Rossi’s outlook has changed a bit in the last month. He could just be frustrated and in the midst of some engineering challenges.

      • artefact

        He also said:
        “Andrea Rossi December 16th, 2015 at 10:33 AM
        Frank Acland:
        The external design will be similar to the one published in the artistic 3D embodiment published on http://www.leonardocorp1996.com
        The technological design will inherit the enormous experience we made
        during the tests and will take advice of all the shortcomings we
        experienced in this important test.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.”
        I think even if the goals with this test are not 100% met he has a plan.

    • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

      It’s hard not to feel a tremendous deflation of hope over such a statement.

  • blanco69

    More maybes, not impossibles and positives/negatives from Mr Rossi. I’ve never heard someone play down a paradigm shifting invention so much ever before. It pours so much cold water on one’s ecat dream that one could be forgiven for ditching the idea in favour of a Brillouin Boiler….or a photo voltaic cell….or a coal fired power station.

    • Brokeeper

      Being who he is, with many unproven unknowns, Rossi is simply attempting to maintain the product, IP and his own integrity intact. He is building a solid foundation for a successful launch that won’t bite him later. It is the best new business tactic. Oak trees are one of the slowest growing trees but near strongest wood.

    • psi2u2

      Anyone who has a real paradigm shift will downplay it.

  • Charles

    Temporary despair has set in and I have concluded that the E-Cat is for talking about, writing about and working on. It is not for production for public use.

    • LarryJ

      It seems that the number of doom and gloom posts is inversely proportional to the time remaining in the test. Rossi has made it very clear from the start that he will not say anything until the test is concluded. People should remember that Rossi is not the only one who will determine the success or failure of the 1 year test. Both the customer and the 3rd party referee will be throwing in their 2 cents and Rossi might look pretty foolish if he started second guessing what they might say. There are only around 10 weeks left in the test. If nothing comes out at that time then the gloom might be justified but for now it sounds like a lot of pouting and in case you forgot.

      Oh! You better watch out,

      You better not cry,

      You better not pout,

      I’m telling you why:

      Santa Claus is coming to town!

  • georgehants

    There have been many countdowns in history, mainly predictions of the end of the World etc.
    So far they have all appeared to be in error.
    Lets hope that Mr.Rossi’s big day (variable) turns out to be the one that begins a change in this World, from riches for the few, to food, clean water and basic drugs for the many.
    Lets hope it starts the good sense of millions of pointless jobs lost.
    Lets hope it is not high-jacked by the few rich while millions of children in America do not have enough food etc.
    I understand these points are not important to most in the West, but one can always have “Hope” that one day that will change.
    ——-
    Child Hunger FactsAcross the U.S. over 15 million children live in food insecure households. … are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.
    http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/child-hunger/child-hunger-fact-sheet.html

    • Ophelia Rump

      That problem is absolutely senseless in a country as wealthy as the USA.
      Only a fundamental change in the economic system and distribution of wealth will overcome that. Sadly the momentum is headed in the opposite direction.

      • Bob

        Sadly it is a human condition. Throughout history, there has been hunger. No matter what type of government. Communism was supposedly exactly what you ask for….no body owns anything and the distribution of wealth was determined by the government. Look how that turned out.. The problem is… WHO determines this “distribution of wealth”?
        .
        Whether it be the philosophical ancient Greek, the empirical Roman or tribal American Indian, there has always been disparity. It is a human condition that I do not know an answer for. Some of it is caused simply because some work hard and are dedicated to improving their life while some others are lazy and think everything should be given to them. Others are victims of circumstance beyond their control, illness, born with a disability, born in a country that has no economic structure, born in a country that has a dictatorship or born with parents that are lazy and do not instill a working ethic.
        .
        All I know is this. If one thinks that a large group of people should be controlled by a small group, I.e. someone has to decide that this distribution is “even” and “fair”, it will ALWAYS result in dictatorship. History has shown it so.
        .
        There is no economic system that is self governing. Economic systems do not have intelligence, awareness, etc. Economic systems are a result of humans conducting themselves in a certain way. Because humans as a species are greedy, envious, self seeking and somewhat violent, the systems they create will also have those traits to some extent.
        .
        I say this somewhat from my own self evaluation. I have worked hard. I had to pull myself up from having very humble beginnings. (Note humble, not bad) I grew up with several that were lazy then and are lazy now. They never have nor will work. Thus they currently have very little now. I have no inclination to give them half of what I have worked for because “wealth should be distributed”. Is this good or bad? I must say for me it is the simply the truth of how I feel if I honestly evaluate myself. To those that have tried and circumstance has frowned upon them, I do want to share my wealth. The problem is, those aforementioned lazy individuals state that it was circumstance that frowned on them as well. So someone has to decide! Who? As far as my money goes, it will be me.
        .
        The eCat will not change the human condition. Some have stated in this list that clean drinking water will be available to all when the eCat is available. It will not. Just like food is available now for many (not all) of the hungry in Africa, but they do not receive it now. Local war lords intercept it. Wars prevent distribution, etc. etc. It will be the same for the eCats as is with food. Human Condition.
        .
        Very sad. 🙁

        • psi2u2

          Disparity does not equal hunger. Nor is disparity universally equal. Saying that it is legitimate for a society to limit its extent does NOT always result in dictatorship.

    • Gerard McEk

      George, I believe your hopes become increasingly more likely every time Rossi says, ‘it can be positive or negative’, becaue as long as he says this, it’s still positive, otherwise it would be negative, wouldn’t it? Whether or not Rossi’s invention will fulfill all your hopes, is questionable, but I think it has some potential.

    • Observer

      What are the selective forces on evolution if every need of a species is provided without effort? The problem is that what is good for the species is not necessarily good for the individual and what is good for the individual is not necessarily good species.

      What tortures humanity is that we are thinking beings with a sense of apathy. The irony is that this tortured state increases the probability of our species’s survival.

      • Observer

        Make that empathy not apathy.

        Freudian Slip

      • georgehants

        Observer, probably correct but only if we succumb to the basic instincts of a wild animal
        Your comment seems to suggest that feeding the Worlds children is bad for our survival, but feeding our pet cats and dogs does not affect that survival.
        Maybe just something wrong with that academic analysis, I think.

        • Observer

          I have never seen a wild wolf with crooked teeth.

          I have seen lots of dogs with bad teeth.

          We have bad eye sight and crooked teeth because we have Optometrists and Orthodontists.

          And whether you like it or not, we are subject to selective forces.

          Feeding and nurturing children increases the pool of variation than can succeed or fail and therefore is health for the species. Not allowing people to fail based on their personal or group abilities is bad for the species.

          • georgehants

            Observer I note your edit above.
            Thank you for your reply, I can think of very little that try’s to justify the selfish, uncaring, pathetic behaviour of what most become very angry if one suggests are not intelligent beings.
            Their are no selective forces at work if production and manpower are capable of supplying all necessary needs.
            That is in basic, discredited Darwinian, survival of the Fittest terms.
            Epigenetics, the last nail in the evolutionary coffin is now amazingly being used to show that the thinking of parents can influence the offspring, hence a population of ever growing fat selfish people, etc.
            If you would be kind enough to allow me to ask a question or two I would appreciate.
            Best

            • Observer

              Being fat and happy during the good times only makes the culling during the bad times more painful.

              My fear is humanity turning itself a domesticated animal that can not survive out side its pen.

              If you wish to ask me a question, string some words together and put a question mark at the end.

              • georgehants

                Ha, I will try.
                Are you aware of Epigenetics?

                • Observer

                  Yes, the concept was a hope of mine.

                  Selectivity without learning seems the long way around.

                • georgehants

                  Time for a meal, will come back later if you are enjoying our chat.

                • georgehants

                  It clearly is double barreled, if the parents pass on good common-sense knowledge and traits then the species improves quickly, if on the other hand they pass on brain-dead destructive views and abilities then the species will deteriorate, as is clearly happening with many areas of this World.
                  Those learning to dominate the World with corrupt dealing have spread like wildfire in a society that has allowed that to happen.
                  Ergo the haves and have nots

                  I am sure you have gathered that from your study of Epigenetics.
                  We are left with the choice, not fashioned by evolution but by choice, what kind of society do we wish to inhabit.

                • Observer

                  Selective forces self perpetuates that which self perpetuates best.

                  If you want a kinder, gentler, more “fair” society, create one that self perpetuates itself better than the alternatives.

                  It is not about ends justifying the means. In the game of self perpetuation, there are no ends, just self perpetuating means.

                • georgehants

                  Thanks for round the houses chat, I enjoyed Observing your reply’s.
                  I cannot go further if you do not consider that we each have a Mind of our own and a choice, but are just following an unthinking, unalterable program, as much of science still laughingly believes.
                  Best

                • Observer

                  On the contrary, because we can choose, we can harness natural selection to our own ends. That is what we do when we breed animals for specific characteristics.

                  The question is: Will we choose wisely?

          • toast

            Survival of the fittest does not just apply to the individual. It also applies to societies. Sometimes societies develop to the point where deficiencies of the individual can be overcome.

            Optometrists and Orthodontists are societally developed to overcome human deficiencies. Some day in the not too distant future we may use geneticists to overcome these deficiencies.

            A society that develops these capabilities usually values all of its members rather than discards those seen as deficient in some way.

            • Observer

              Hence the phrase “personal or group abilities”.

              Natural selectivity is not necessarily based on who is discarded, but on who (or what) self perpetuates the best.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I thought this too, and I asked Rossi about it a while ago, but he kind of evaded the question. He answered that they plan to refill E-cat X reactors “at home”, which I think means Leonardo Corp, not customer’s home, although I could be wrong about that.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi has said & intends for the residential E-cats to be refilled or changed out cartridges at home. But he also gave the caveat that it may require a service call by a technician. The technician would also check out the entire unit.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        At home, it might go well. I’m just thinking that if one has for example 100 MW industrial unit (for example, powering a ship) comprising hundred thousand 1 kW reactors, manually refilling or even replacing all of them would be a significant amount of labour.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    Frederic Maillard December 15th, 2015 at 4:17 PM
    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    1) assuming the present one year test of your 1MW E-Cat generator is positive, will you start the massive selling phase as soon as the manufacturing lines are ready ?
    2) in such a case, if for somme reasons independent of you and IH you can not sell this E-CAT in the USA for some time, will you start selling it first in China ?
    3) is there a chance that the selling phase start in 2016 ?
    Wish you good luck and all the best
    FM

    Andrea Rossi December 15th, 2015 at 4:42 PM
    Frederic Maillard:
    1- Probably
    2- I don’t see why we could not start in the USA.
    3- For the industrial it is not impossible, but to make now a schedule is impossible.
    In any case right now I don’t even know if the results of the tests will be positive.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    • Bob

      I certainly can understand his answers 1,2 and 3. They are logical and reasonable.
      .
      His last statement is very frustrating. I know he can tell us what he wants, I simply would prefer that he not make these kind of statements at all. It really puts him in a bad light.
      .
      Let’s say I am a project engineer given a major project by the board of directors of a large company. I have 1 year in which to prove a design. I have been given resources to conduct the testing and design. I am know over 200 days into the project and the board of directors ask me “what is the projected outcome?” or “how is the project going?”.
      .
      I might answer that the project is according to plan. Or I might state that we are having difficulty in area X but have ideas to resolve it. I might answer that all indications are that the project will be successful. etc. etc.
      .
      If I would answer “I don’t now if the results of the tests will be positive”, I am sure that the board of directors would hold a meeting to decide whether to proceed or not. They probably would decide to put someone else I charge! If after the project is 2/3 the way through, if I cannot give a good indication or progress, I think the board would consider me incompetent and replace me.
      .
      I do not understand why Rossi makes these statements. Again, answers 1,2 and 3 are logical and reasonable. He would have been much better off leaving the last statement off. It makes him look bad and I do not buy for one minute all the “he has to state this for legal reasons”.
      .
      Today as normal… we wait.

  • NT

    This latest statement from Rossi’s blog. I hope I am misinterpreting Rossi’s answer to anonymous? What do you all think?

    Mr “AR”:
    At the end of your tests it will turn out that your plants do not work and are not reliableI bet 1000 Euros to win 3000Eyros if you fail. I bet you will fail.
    …and I remain anonymous, so you can say you spammed “nobody”.
    Anonymous

    Andrea Rossi

    December 15th, 2015 at 3:18 PM

    Anonymous:
    As strange as it might seem, I think
    maybe you will win your bet.
    Warm Regards
    A.R.

    • Omega Z

      Can you think of a better answer to shut down a troll.
      What could the trolls comeback possibly be that would matter?

  • Roland

    6,831 to be exact.

  • http://bobmapp.com.uk twobob

    Ten will do me fine.
    Then thirty for the car.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It took five reads for me to get it.
    Dottore Rossi is extremely subtle.
    He is saying that Anonymous will remain unknown no matter the outcome.
    He is nobody.

    • Omega Z

      Idiot says: I bet your test will be a failure!
      Rossi answers: As strange as it might seem, I think maybe you will win your bet.

      How do you come back. Rossi done shut the Idiot down cold. There is no where to go with this conversation without exposing oneself as the Idiot.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Or “‘nobody’ gets his money”. Yeah, it’s subtle.

  • Bob

    Hmm… let’s see…
    .
    What can I think of in any application where a piece of working equipment consists of 1000 identical pieces of input power? Hmmm.
    .
    Batteries? I think not. Cars.. 12v. They do not use 12 small 1 volt batteries. One battery that does have 6 cells, but the cells are all in one contained unit. I can think of no battery installation where even 100 batteries are installed in one application. If small modular, economy of scale worked in batteries, our cars would have a thousand hearing aid batteries in them.
    .
    Pistons? There are single cylinder (lawn mowers), twin cylinder (motorcycle), 4 cylinder (small cars), 8 cylinder (larger cars) and even some very odd ones up to 24. Big semi trucks use 6 cylinder engines. If small modular, economy of scale worked in piston engines, our semi trucks would have a thousand tiny little remote control airplane engines in them.
    .
    Furnaces. Of the installations that use extreme amounts of heat that I am aware of, the number of furnaces is very low. Usually one per. I do not see our factory being heated by 1,000 small space heaters. If small modular, economy of scale working in large heating applications this what we would see.
    .
    Airplanes. Large airplanes used to all have 4 engines, such as the 747. All new big airplanes have 2. Not so compelling for modular design there.
    .
    Sorry to be a bit sarcastic here, but economy of scale will not save the eCat from competition. Modular design can work very well, but only to a limit. 4 reactors can work, 1,000 simply will not. The only instance that I can think of that has even close to 1,000 “modules” of a multi-component, control required object is the large Agua Caliente Solar Projectsolar array in the western U.S. It covers over 2,000 acres and has about 5 million solar cells! It also cost 1.8 BILLION dollars! These cells require only a substrate and two wires connecting them, not control. So it is not apples to apples to the eCat.
    .
    Let’s face it, 1,000 modules is extremely unlikely. Even 15 reactors for a home unit, due to the controlling required is unlikely. And controlling the eCat seems to be the big issue among other things.
    .
    As far as the light and electricity production…. do not get ahead of ourselves. Rossi statement was “not impossible, theoretically”. He did not say that the eCat was even likely to perform this. We may want it, but Rossi did not say it. Theoretically HOT FUSION is possible, but it probably “ain’t gonna happen” either!

    • Observer

      How many light bulbs do you have in your house, and what is the wattage of each one?

      Maybe Rossi is trying to save on wire and duct work.

    • Warthog

      “Cars. They do not use 12 small 1 volt batteries

      Uh, have you ever taken a close look at your car’s battery?? They “do” use q12 individual cells connected in series.

      • Bob

        Actually they use 6 cells at 2.2 volts each. I have not only looked at my car’s battery, I have serviced many in the past when they required adding distilled water to them. I actually do know what about batteries. But they are not modular. You cannot take them apart and replace one cell at a time.(practically speaking) The definition of battery is “a single container consisting of one or more cells”.
        .

        Even then, a huge difference between electrolytic cells immersed in a single bath of acid connected by a conductor. or other dry cell batteries. Imagine 1,000 reactors, with 1,000 control leads (how many lead each? we do not know), power leads (at least two each), 1,000 input pipes and fittings, 1,000 output pipes and fittings, 1,000 heat sensors, 1,000 valves to regulate water flow, etc. etc. This is not a good design and does not fall within what is considered modular. It is a fallacy.
        .
        As Pekka stated below, the design concept seems to be a bit of a moving target for some reason. Even the original 1mw plant with “only” 100 reactors was abandoned for a more manageable 4 reactor design. This is another somewhat odd issue. One that hopefully will be chronicled in Matt Lewan;s “complete story of the eCat” when this drama is fully disclosed!.
        .
        Evening has come and we wait ………

        • Omega Z

          Of the 1000’s of individual 18650 batteries(used in Tesla battery packs) each individual cell in Tesla’s battery pack has it’s own individual charge/discharge controller.

        • Warthog

          “But they are not modular. You cannot take them apart and replace one
          cell at a time.(practically speaking) The definition of battery is “a
          single container consisting of one or more cells”.

          Sure you can….if they are designed to be, which has more to do with the tank that will hold the cells than the cells themselves. See any series/parallel battery bank for wind or solar usage. And the individual cells in each battery certainly are totally modular until they are placed into the housing that will contain them. Certainly the individual cells are COMPLETELY modular as far as the manufacturer is concerned.

    • Andrew

      Think of a plastic injection molding factory. Each machine requires heat to melt the plastic. Each machine is unique in the amount of heat it needs and not every machine needs to be run at all times. There are plenty of applications in the manufacturing industry. There are also plenty of applications for hot water on demand, hot tubs, pools, even kettles or stoves. All requiring 1, 2, 5 or however many you need for your application. By building larger more expensive units he would be limiting his own market.

    • Charlie tapp

      Then why so many logs on a fire and not just one giant one? Can you not control it better if you have a thousand smaller ones, you are the controller deciding when to put another log in to stay at certain temp. What’s wrong with that very basic actually, controlling anything now a days is child’s play even in the millions of modules with the computer capability so we have. Micro valves for water distribution for each reactor, plastic tubeing , connectors, control wiring and metering pumps along with nessesary operating voltage wiring very cheap. Not to mention pulling one out of a thousand out of service to replace without shutting down production because the yield of power interruption would be miniscule,just unplug rep lug and fire up. No down production time!

    • Omega Z

      */-They do not use 12 small 1 volt batteries.-*
      Correct, They are an assembly of six 2 volt cells.

      1000’s of cells get you the Tesla Motors-Model S battery-
      Each Cell is an individual battery & can be used as such. A 90 kWh battery dependent on the volts of each battery will be made up of 7,300 to 8,700 batteries. An individual 18650 battery(used in Tesla battery packs) can be bought at your local Walmart. Note each individual cell in Tesla’s battery pack has it’s own individual charge/discharge controller.

      Nuclear power plants us multiple bundles, made up of multiple fuel rods, made of multiple fuel pellets. They can scale them starting with pellets less then an inch in size. A single power plant may contain 10,000,000 pellets.

      Furnaces in Factories in industrial use. Unless they are small, they use many furnaces & those furnaces are made up of many individual burners so whatever you’re aware of in factories must be very limited.

      Aircraft are using larger & fewer engines due to economics. Turbines are expensive as is the additional structure for carrying those engines under the wings. However, you should ask yourself, do you want to fly in an aircraft with 4 engines or 2 engines should one engine stall out. What if 2 engines stall. In the latter you drop like a rock. But their cheaper to build.

      Big Riggs are primarily 6-8 cylinder engines. 16 smaller cylinders is more efficient & optimal. It is well known that more and smaller is better. However, your talking many more parts & machining costs. It comes down to economics.
      ————————————————————-
      Consider Rossi’s statement of synergies. A combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. The (SSM)Self Sustaining Mode is intermittent and indeterminate(Random).

      Should a 10kW reactor drop out of SSM, it requires several Kilowatts to drive it back into SSM. With 10, 1kW reactors, should 1 drop out of SSM, it only requires a few 100 watts to drive it back into SSM to recombine with the others. As it is exposed to the heat from the other reactors, It may only require EM stimulation to reactivate SSM. No additional heat required. COP=WOW.

      Current power plants are dependent on being connected to the Grid. Should they shut or break down, It requires huge amounts of electricity to bring them back online that’s only economical due to the grid.

      These small reactor assemblies would not be so dependent. They would be Ideal for a local Micro-grid. A combination of several small capacity generators. Gigawatt power plants no longer needed nor the hugely expensive turbines. The bigger the turbines, the more they cost per watt output.

      There is also the matter of harvesting heat. 10, 1kW reactors provide much more surface area & would be much more efficient in transferring that heat. Quite possibly reducing the risk of a melt down as well as fluid control could better handle it.

      • Agaricus

        There is probably also an optimal thermal mass – too small and the reaction is too easily quenched by cooling, too large and response to control inputs is sluggish, with an increased risk of runaway.

        • Omega Z

          I agree. The system needs to be matched as to surface transfer & heat output. That’s essentially what a runaway would be is the reactor heats faster then fluid is capable of absorbing the heat.

      • Stephen

        Its a good point that having a collection of small units could have great structural optimisation advantages too. In some cases it might be best to have all the units and energy transfer in as small an area as possible, but it could also be useful in some cases to have them dispersed for various structural reasons. Imagine for example technology where the a gas or fluid is heated directly by the devices the quantity of gas or liquid and flow rate may then dictate the structure. perhaps in some cases it is useful to have an object surrounded by the devices as well for example or distributed along a pipe or road for 100s km. If the device produces other radiations such as Light or TerraHerz radiation say then having small units could also free up the structure design to take optimum advantage of these. If they also have some kind of shielding effect perhaps they can also be distributed in a way to protect sensitive equipment.

        Many current machines and equipments have their designed limited around the thermal behaviour if having small distributed devices that drive heating and cooling can be developed these could possibly free up the overall design of these equipments to be optimised along other lines.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      modular system works well if they are in fault tolerant.

      A google datacenter is a very modula place, and when a device crash, which is frequent, it is not tragic.

      If failure is acceptable, modular system are best for safety.
      If failure is not acceptable, big units are safer.

    • Bob

      To the many responses below…
      I concede the point of Tesla as I did not consider that application. Tesla does use over 1,000 cells in their battery pack.
      .
      I still stand by my basic statement however….
      .
      Cells in a battery are not eCats, They only have 2 wires (positive/negative) going to them. The Tesla does not have thousands of pipes, thousands of thermocouples, thousands of controllers, thousands of valves, etc.
      .
      The eCat will certainly be far more advanced than logs on a fire! (Not too many people throw 1,000 logs on a single file at one time either!)
      .
      Nuclear power plants do not have thousands of reactors. Stating that using thousands of fuel pellets is not what we are talking about here.
      .
      I thought I was clear that the post was about 1000 unit not being a good modular design. For some reason some of the commenters did not read the post in this light. Yes, modular design can be valid and a preferred concept!. The 1 MW plant is possibly modular with 4 reactors. (We do not really know how modular the design is, but assume it is) So let me be clear, I am not stating that modular is bad, but 1,000 units of a component that has to have several working pieces in it, such as piping, sensors, controllers, etc. etc. is not a good modular design.
      .
      All of the examples provided in rebuff do not have complex imputs, controllers, etc
      If the eCat becomes public, we will eventually see what the design is. My personal belief is that we will not see a unit with 1,000 reactors. Certainly 4 or 10 or possibly 20 may be reasonable, but 1,000 I think not.
      .
      Again a new day…. we continue to wait.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Sorry Bob, you said, “Modular design can work very well, but only to a limit. 4 reactors can work, 1,000 simply will not.”

      • Brokeeper

        But remember subdivisions: buildings -> containers -> crates – > boxes -> packs -> units.

  • Brokeeper

    Like swapping propane gas tanks at your local grocery store for your gas grill.

  • GreenWin

    Gunnar, a sales order requires payment. You’re claiming to have paid Dr. Rossi for an E-Cat product? Or did you sign up on a list of potential customers who may place an order in the future?

  • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

    What can we expect to happen in 2 months and 13 days?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The sun will rise and hopefully we’ll all be there to see it!

      • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

        Bob I’m starting to think you’re not a big fan of Rossi.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Nothing could be further from the truth – I am just British and sometimes I cannot help but exercise British sarcastic humour. I do find however that it does not translate well, particularly in text, without the proper stress and intonation that the spoken word affords. It also is rarely understood / received well outside the UK and is meaningless if it needs to be explained. I nearly always get into trouble when I try to be funny in a British way on forums.

          In respect of searching for the truth, I am a great believer in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Rossi is seemingy trying to provide that proof and I commend him for doing so.

          When something is interesting – I hold in my mind key things that are said – and then I like to identify patterns or inconsistencies to help explain the unknown, everything should be consistent. As new information emerges, wherever that may come from, I often find myself thinking – oh yeh, that fits… then sometimes I think – wait… hold on a minute…

          In the past days I have pointed to things that have been written by Rossi and those close to him in the context of the Lugano report and patents and asked for clear concise and focussed questions to be raised/answered. I put forward those questions because of my curiosity and interest in the answers. In no way is this a statement about my level of admiration for Rossi.

          • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

            I guess as a person who respects people of this site’s opinions, including your own, I just wonder what will happen once the year is up. I’m hoping there will be an immense CF breakthrough and I fear there will be another long drawn out process to follow.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Such is sometimes the nature of paradigm shift new developments.

              How long was it before the internet was in everyones hands.

              Lack of tangible ownership does mean something does not exist.

              The New Fire will be an immense breakthrough when every key manufacturer can do it – like Android phones – this will require licensing. It will be massively improved by 100,000s of skilled technicians and visionaries when they all have the basics to work with.

              Now that Rossi has the patent, the main reason I can come up with that he does not want to licence it (other than the obvious) is that there are many ways it could be achieved so circumventing the protection the patent affords – and so many new patents listing other embodiments must be filed. If it is real – then he will always get the recognition for his contribution – what he will never be able to do is keep control of it forever unless he becomes immortal – so one might wonder why, after the test/analysis, licensing would not be made very widely available.

              Indeed, as I understand it, there are licensees already, some of whom, in theory, have the right to manufacture. Whilst we may be frustrated, waiting for a conclusion to this epic saga that makes Jackson’s LOR trilogy look like a gif animation – there are those that invested and planned a business on early realisation of this technology.

              • Omega Z

                “what he will never be able to do is keep control of it forever”
                Not even if he becomes immortal. Patents expire in 20 years.

                As for not providing more info, You’re right. More patents will be needed to protect the initial patent. There are also those who’ve provided funding & have ownership of Rossi’s tech who wish to earn their investments back.
                Note Industrial heat does have ownership. Merely look at the next patent in process. Industrial heat will be the recipient. Rossi is listed as 1 of the 2 inventors.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  I’d like to put one caveat on my previous statement that perhaps he could control it forever assuming 1. it is real, 2. he dies without divulging the secret ingredient

          • Omega Z

            does not translate well, particularly in text, without the proper stress and intonation that the spoken word affords.

            Very true for everyone. I also find situations where a few spoken words with proper stress and intonation could replace 10 paragraphs of text.

            As to “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”
            They only require ordinary proof. However, it is hard for Rossi to give absolute proof without giving away the farm.

            Many are impatient(As am I) and want Rossi to give information that at this time, would actually be improper. If he were to proclaim the test a complete success before the test is concluded & the data analyzed would be wrong. Regardless what Rossi may think.

            As to what happens when the test is conclude in 2 months 13 days, More waiting I would assume until the referee does his job. Weeks, months, ???
            It is their time schedule. Not ours. We are just the peanut gallery.

          • Stephen

            If LENR is a new Fusion maybe in a way it is a new Sun. But thinking about it it seems to be more likely to be a process that may occur in the mantel or cores of planets or perhaps dusty plasmas in space rather than the sun.

            • Bob Greenyer

              I agree about it occurring in the metal cored planets.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            “Extraordinary clams require extraordinary roof” http://www.zazzle.co.uk/funny_clam_christmas_greeting_card-137016625414124285

            • Stephen

              Hello Pekka

              Are you the same Pekka Janhunen who invented the Electric Solar wind Sail? Thats also an amazing concept is it planned to test it in space yet?

              As well as providing a novel and low source of thrust in the classical sense. Opening up space to technologies that allow continuous thrust opens up all kinds of possibilities including novel orbits and trajectories that have a thrust component allowing surfaces of trajectory possibilities with specific energies rather than just specific un powered trajectory paths.

              I have long been interested applications of new ideas and technologies in space. I am also fascinated by the possibilities of LENR. It has been mentioned here by some that it could be used as a replacement for the RTG used in some deal space missions where solar energy is not sufficient. I think however it is potentially much more useful than that.

              It has several other advantages that would make it useful for all missions including near earth missions where solar power is still an option.

              1. It does not contain hazardous chemicals and produces no hazardous radiation: This means it is safe to launch and for earth flybys (this was sometimes raised as a concern with RTG on previous missions).

              2. It has no moving parts: If it can be used to generate electricity this would remove the need for the solar array even in near earth missions. This could have dynamic advantages for missions such as earth observation missions where the dynamic behaviour of the solar array needs to be taken into account. For Science missions requiring very precise pointing there would also be a very big advantage in that it has no moving parts.

              3. Thermal control: Typically the thermal behaviour of a satellite is effected by external factors such as the sun and cold space and internal factors such as instrument thermal behaviour. This is typically controlled with radiators and heaters using power from the solar array. Perhaps the devices can be used directly to heat and cool locations external to the environment and free up the design optimise the satellite external surfaces for other uses.

              4. The fact it does not produce ionising radiation limits the required shielding to that required for the space environment, (perhaps very speculatively if any radiation generated in the device is somehow absorbed in its operation it even has some kind of shielding effect on external radiation).

              5. Perhaps it can also be used to generate continuous thrust by some means which would open up the advantages to continuous thrust trajectories and orbits even in earth orbit (where solar wind is not a factor and RTGs would not normally be available).

              6. Very deep space missions: This is a bit more of a SiFi dream: I wonder if in deep space missions perhaps outside the influence of the solar wind if LENR could be used to power spacecraft. Perhaps directly or if the EM energy density is strong enough and can be beamed in the direction of the space craft from remote stations. Perhaps more classical solar sails using photons (rather than the solar wind as in your Electric Solar wind Sail concept) could take ad advantage of this in deep space between the stars using LENR light houses as way points and their beamed energy to power their flights .

              All the best for the electric solar wind sail Pekka I hope to see it fly some day.

              • Pekka Janhunen

                Yes, I am the same person. Thanks for your kind words and input. In my opinion, if the E-cat works and if it can be made self-sustaining regarding electricity (with the help of a buffer battery), then it helps very much three things in space: 1) operations on lunar surface, 2) operations on Mars surface, 3) all operations beyond and including Jupiter. For 1 au distance, I am not so sure because if one makes electricity by any thermal source, waste heat rejection becomes an issue because in vacuum only thermal radiation is available to carry away heat. Solar panels avoid the thermal issue because they produce electricity directly. Solar panels also have no moving parts.

                Any kind of ion engine probably cannot compete with the E-sail in typical applications, even if the ion engine is powered by the E-cat. The E-sail is predicted to be able to produce 1 N of thrust indefinitely from a less than 200 kg package. To do that with an ion engine (for example in a 5-year mission) would require an ion engine with specific impulse of 150000 seconds and consuming 150 kW electric power, yielding specific power requirement of some 1.5 kW/kg. Even though the raw E-cat might achieve this specific power, the required electricity generator and cooling radiator would have a hard time doing so. And of course, existing thrusters (electromagnetic nozzles) achieve only some 5000 seconds Isp, at maximum.

                On the other hand, some propulsive tasks are not suited for the E-sail because the required thrust direction would be against the solar wind flow direction. One such example is making orbit capture to Pluto.

                Overall, each mission is different and consequently it is hard to make generalisations concerning applicability of propulsive technologies. Mimicking Rossi, one might say that “all propulsion methods should be integrated”, although “integration” in this case doesn’t mean that they should all be used on the same spacecraft.

                • Stephen

                  Thanks Pekka

                  It’s great that you are also here. It gives me hope about how the technology both LENR and the E-sail will develop in the future.

                  Its also great to read your reply and see your clear understanding of the constraints and possibilities in space. Especially the pros and cons of the ion drives and E-sail. Very inspiring.

                  Its a very good and important point you mentioned about the thermal issues at 1 au. Even with active thermal control the heat will just be moved somewhere and will need to radiate efficiently towards cold space (in a direction away from the sun and earth etc) eventually. Unless new materials can effectively and efficiently convert it to useful energy somehow.

                  Regarding the solar panels its true as you say for some missions they are fixed to the body such as in spin stabilised craft. I was thinking more about deployed arrays which are rotated and driven such as those in low earth orbits and maybe also have flexible modes that may need to be taken into account with with pointing accuracy.

                  Like many I hope LENR brings most benefit to ordinary people on earth, but being a Brit I yesterday watched Tim Peak flying to the space station. It was very inspiring. I could not help thinking maybe while he is up there amazing revelations about LENR maybe made here on Earth. It will be amazing if one day because of LENR and E-Sail technology he is able to safely and efficiently go to and do work on Moon or Mars maybe beyond.

                  I look forward to following your work.

                • Pekka Janhunen

                  Stephen: Thank you. Yes, you are right about geostationary satellites having moving parts in their solar panels. I forgot that.

                  Speculatively, if someone would come up with an endothermic version of LENR, that might truly revolutionise space, because then one LENR cell could produce heat while another one would consume it and there would be some electricity generating device between them, perhaps just thermoelectric device. There have been some LENR experiments (with rather low verification status, though) which may hint at endothermic non-chemical reactions. That said, I am not sure if endothermic LENR would be possible even in principle or if it would necessarily break the second law of thermodynamics.

                • Stephen

                  Wow that could be amazing if it works!

                  I’m also not sure about the possibility of endothermic LENR, but I think I heard somewhere there is a possibility LENR is more efficient with certain stable elements and isotopes in the catalyst (e.g. Nickel 62). And that the device gets more efficient as the device converts other more abundant isotopes (e.g Nickel 58) to this more stable version?

                  If so perhaps the Endothermic Device could be one that starts with a high abundance of elements or nuclei that are not the optimum isotope. eventually it would maybe convert more nuclei to the optimum stable isotope for LENR and becomes an exothermic device.

                  I understand that Ni62 is relatively rare compared to other isotopes of Nickel and is expensive so perhaps this would be a good source of Ni 62 too.

                  Could we start with an Endothermic device using natural abundances of certain elements that is slowly converted to the right elements and isotopes for an Exothermic LENR device. This would allow a useful thermal control loop that also produces the necessary catalyst for the Exothermal LENR device.

                  I wonder if the initial nucleus need to be heavier than the stable isotope nucleus for the reaction to be endothermic?

                  Could a similar process work with the fuel as well as the catalyst perhaps one making Li 7 from Li 6 or He or from heavier elements for example or would that still be exothermic.

                  I’m certainly not that knowledgeable about these matters regarding isotope changes and the energy considerations during LENR but I think some here are?

                  Out of curiosity does anyone know if Endothermic LENR is possible?

  • GreenWin

    Dottore’s statement “nothing is impossible with technology…” affirms a view of science as a relatively minor subset of Art. This may disappoint terrestrial scientists led to believe in scientism, or immutable physics. Leonardo smiles.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Some people are more practical than others.

    • kdk

      There’s definitely immutable physics, it’s just the pesky habit we have of thinking that we’ve finally got it all figured out.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I understand that manufacturing, assembly and installation of small modules can be cost effective, but I’m less sure about maintenance. I’m wondering if he has some concept in mind how to automate refilling of the reactors. I think it’s likely, but I don’t have any good guess for what kind of scheme it could be.

    Over time, Rossi’s preferred module size has gone down, up, and now down again. He started with 10 kW, then went down to 3 kW, talked about modularisation at 1 kW, then suddenly went to 250 kW, and now again 1 kW. I thought the motivation for 250 kW was to reduce cost of manual maintenance.

    If one can automate everything, then a small module is good because it reduces the size of the robots needed and therefore their capital cost. If there are manual steps, however, then roughly man-size module (perhaps 250 kW) might bring maintenance cost down most efficiently.

    • Roland

      The 250kW module consists of 16 low temperature reactors, each outputting approximately 15,625 W so the original10kW reactors were only scaled up 50%.

      We’re also informed that the power density of the E-cat X is double that of previous designs so the form factor of a 1kW reactor maybe quite small and a large array of low output devices does allow individual reactors to be shut down with less impact on system performance, thereby postponing maintenance till a significant number of reactors in the array are down.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I could be wrong, but I think that the 250kW is really a monolithic reactor and the 16 subreactor thing was a wrong rumour that originated from ecat.com where they had an old drawing of 1 MW in one phase.

        • artefact

          Yes, Rossi said so.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Maintenance is an interesting question. Is it easier to fix a number of identical small modules or one larger one? I think it is informative to look at the cloud server marketplace. Large server farms are built from packing as many small systems into a fixed volume as is possible. No maintenance is done on the server farms, but rather clever software assures that the customer’s data stays safe through redundancy. The system gracefully degrades as failures occur over time. Once enough failures have occurred to significantly affect performance, the entire system is replaced.

      On the other extreme, look at nuclear power plants. Though there have been attempts to standardize on a common design, each power company adds custom requirements to it. The design of a plant becomes a “one-off”, requiring a lot of engineering and training to operate and maintain. Plants become so complex that even trained maintenance staff have problems understanding what is right or wrong with the plant.

      If Rossi is building a plant with many small modules, the failure of a few of which can be tolerated, he may have the best approach. Run the plant with excess capacity to start and let demand increases the need for and and failures degrade the performance of power output. At some point, send the plant back to the factory for a re-build.

      • Omega Z

        Thomas, “one-off”
        Everyone can understand Plants being built years apart being different due to technology advances, But-

        Built simultaneously at a single location 2 gigawatt facility that’s made up of 4- 500 Megawatt systems & everyone may be different from the other.
        It shouldn’t be this way, but you can actually find some reasoning in how this comes about. The bidding, contracting & contractors available at any given time for different segments of the building of the facility. There is a lack of continuity.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It will take about one year to develop the production line. What better way to optimize the utility of that line than to scale the manufacturing equipment and the product to an appropriate one size fits all. If the same line can produce units for industrial scale and home scale, this is worth some effort up front.

    It is most interesting that Dottore Rossi is willing to let go of some of the assurance of the “Proof”, which introducing a new design would require. In the year building production, they can run new tests to help perfect final product.

    Est. Two months, Thirteen days left. I love the countdown!

  • Gunnar Lindberg

    Andrea has for some reason changed his mind and now constantly need to remind his readers that he has not promised that the E-Cat produce surplus energy. Rather ominous!

    • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

      If you found a gold deposit, would you jump up and down and tell everyone about it, or would you mine the spot first and get your claim certified?

      • GreenWin

        Provided no one was observing, I’d jump a bit. But then, without an observer, is the gold real?

        • Observer

          I can vouch for it.

          But then, you are excluding me from participation!

      • f sedei

        AR is a good gambler. He wants to see wise guy Anonymous lose 3000Euros. It’s called a “sucker punch”. OUCH!

      • Obvious

        Best to have your claim certified before you mine it.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Had you considered getting a bit more sunlight?
      It has many beneficial qualities, including vitamin D.

    • Tom59

      It would fit his way of progressing to dig enthusiastically into new concepts, rather then spending his energy going through the painstaking job of optimizing his current technology. I would not doubt on the principal validity of the current work – even if this is not an industrial breakthrough in terms of COP, it would be a huge success as proof of concept.

    • Roland

      It’s worth remembering that Rossi has always had the same metric for success in this venture; a viable commercial product. This is the basis for his disclaimer, not whether LENR exists but rather in what time frame can all the engineering problems be resolved.

      From the occasional updates on the subject of uptime vs. downtime so far they’re meeting the terms of their agreement with the customer; Rossi realistically acknowledges that this could still change for the worse before the contract is fulfilled.

      History adequately demonstrates that the journey from a successful lab experiment to a viable commercial product is an arduous one at best, even with well understood processes for which there is a solid theoretical foundation.

      To this day auto manufacturers recall cars by the millions and a brand new D9 CAT undergoes constant repairs for the first 3-5,000 hours of operation till everything works as advertised despite Caterpillar having been at this for over a 100 years.

      • Omega Z

        Considering we’ve had planes, helicopters & cars forever, seemingly
        Flying cars are a simple concept.
        Bring them to market- Very Hard…

    • Zephir

      I’ve permanent problem with inconspicuous glitch with official technical specification of 1 MW E-Cat power plant, which guarantees to produce the same amount of energy as its nominal electric input power, i.e. COP = 1 – not COP = 6. Just saying – maybe A. Rossi is really such an idiot, as S. Krivit occasionally paints him… I indeed hope, that he isn’t a that A. Rossi is a billionaire in disguise for eternal good of all of us – but as we all know, we are still waiting…