Remote Area / Disaster Relief AC/DC power, Heated air, Warm Water and Clean Water E-Cat QuarkX System Concept (Engineer48)

Yesterday on this site Engineer48 posted a schematic for a concept of what he calls a “Remote Area / Disaster Relief AC/DC power, heated air, warm water and clean water system” to be powered by E-Cat QuarkX reactors. Engineer48 states that he has been in contact with Andrea Rossi about the idea, and Rossi has responded favorably to it.

Of course it is early days, and we can’t know how easy this will be to pull off, but I find the concept intriguing, especially since the system is designed to be able to be powered by electricity output from the QuarkX reactor itself via a current rectifier/battery setup. In essence this would make it a self-looped setup. The image below shows the proposed system.

QuarkXRemoteAreaandEmergencyPowerSystem23June2016a

If it works, one can see how valuable it would be in a remote area or emergency, where no mains electricity is available. It would have the ability to produce heated air and/or water, clean water via a distillation process, and also some AC and DC output (since the QuarkX apparently produces electricity directly).

Rossi has expressed to Engineer48 his willingness to cooperate when he is ready; at this point we can’t really know when that will be, but I would like to see a prototype of this system up and running.

  • Engineer48

    Hi EEStor,

    Reactor design has started.

    I believe Rossi has given away more than enough bread crumbs to replicate the BlackCat, especially with the patent disclosures and all the various test reports.

    What really amazes me is no one has tried to replicate the fairly simple to make BlackCat, basing the fuel mix on that from the patent and the control system as attached.

    I mean it is all there but for some reason everyone else wished to “reinvent the wheel”. Hey that is OK ONCE you have replicated and achieved the measured COP = 11 but that is not, IMHO, the way to start.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Where is this diagram from? It is pretty simple in concept:

      1). Fluid pump feeding water.
      2). FC1 flow sensor
      3). TC1 — thermocouple temperature sensor
      4). PC1 — pressure?? controller
      5). CS1 — heating current switch
      6). SV1, SV2 — safety valves for overpressure 1.5, 1.8 bar.
      7). TSC1 — Thermocouple for steam temparature.
      8). CCSU — some sort of micro-controller programmed with the actual control algorithm.

      This is a basic diagram from the controller and E-cat. Big missing piece: The controller software algorithm.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Thomas,

        It is from the 2012 Black HotCat presentation in Italy.

        PC1 is a pressure sensor.

        4 inputs:

        FC1: Input flow
        TC1: reactor internal temperature
        PC1: reactor internal pressure
        TSC1: output steam temperature

        Only control output control seems to be the duty cycle of the power applied to the reactor heaters via a relay.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          The diagram shows a relay for the CS1 switch, but is might be a solid state relay. If so, it could be driven at a higher frequency to provide a pulse-width modulated signal with sharp risetimes/falltimes. That might induce high frequency AC content suggested in some implementations. A relay could not operate fast enough to produce much high frequency electromagnetic signals.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Thomas,

            Yes I understand that but with the high thermal mass of the reactor, just maybe all that is needed is a solid state relay and not a triac.

            Remember this design had only 1 output, Heated fluid, either liquid or steam.

  • Engineer48

    As it will be some time until delivery of the QuarkX reactors needed to build the 1st prototype plant, I have set out to investigate the possibility to 1st replicate the Black HotCat and then to alter the layering scheme to match the patent and see what effect that generates.

    I do note the Black HotCat had an open central tube, which implies to me a fuel tube was slid inside the central tube, which should make for easy fuel replacement.

    Yes I know some may see this a nuts as no one has done a “BlackCat” replication but the way I think, this configuration is the way to do it to get thermal foldback and higher COP than just radiating the thermal heat into space as in the more normal Dog Bone style HotCat reactor as attached.

    Will provide updates as I work this project.

    • Engineer48

      Here is my take on how the QuarkX reactor is constructed, based on Andrea’s patent as he has said it is.

      What amazes me is as far as I know, no replicator has tried to duplicate this sandwich which has metal on all sides of the fuel and the supplied heat applied at the central point in the stack with heat radiating outward into the fuel versus the Dog Bone method with the resistive heat outside the fuel and radiating inward to the fuel.

    • Alan Smith

      Hi Engineer. Just a reminder that http://www.lookingforheat.com we probably have almost everything you need in the way of ceramics, Kanthal and chemicals, but wether you end up a customer or not, we can offer advice if you just want to bounce an idea off our skulls. Best of luck with your build!

      • Engineer48

        Hi Alan,

        I’m already looking to see it I can design in what you guys can supply.

        I’m an old KISS engineer, that doesn’t like to reinvent the wheel, unless there is no other way forward.

        • Alan Smith

          Me too. The less bits there are, the less there is to go wrong.

      • Ged

        Thank you again for your incredible materials resource.

  • Warthog

    The technology of low-temperature is well developed and commercially available. That is why I suggested looking at OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) for examples of working fluids. Geothermal power also provides examples. Generically, anything that has been used as a refrigerant is a candidate. Ammonia, isobutane, and pentafluororpropane are some I found quickly. With basically unlimited energy, thermal efficiency is much less of a factor, as DrD points out above.

  • Engineer48

    Here is my take on how the QuarkX reactor is constructed, based on Andrea’s patent as he has said it is.

    In this drawing from the patent please note:

    50: outer high temperature metal tube
    54: fuel
    52: inner high temperature metal tube
    46: electrical insulation
    40: heater

    What amazes me is as far as I know, no replicator has tried to duplicate this sandwich which has metal on all sides of the fuel.

    • Engineer48

      QuarkX is all about layer stacking

      HotCat layers, as attached:

      Outer metral tube
      Insulator
      Heating resistors
      Insulator
      Inner metal tube
      Fuel
      Inner metal tube
      Insulator
      Heating resistors
      Insulator
      Outer metal sheet

      Patent layers, as atrached

      Outer metal sheet 1mm
      Fuel
      Inner metal sheet 1mm
      Insulator
      Heating resistors
      Insulator
      Inner metal sheet 1mm
      Fuel
      Outer metal sheet 1m

      Total thickness 8mm.

      QuarkX layers, my guess

      Outer metal tube
      Fuel
      Inner metal tube
      Insulator
      Heating resistors
      Insulator
      Inner metal tube
      Fuel
      Outer metal tube

      See the evolution?

      Important to note that in all versions there is metal on all sides of the fuel.

      In the patent & the guessed QuarkX design, the heat from the resistors is at the centre of the reactor.

      Any EM fields generated by the fuel will induce heating eddy currents into the inner and outer metal surfaces, furthering fuel heating & providing more reactor energy fold back to add to the heating from the resistors and boost reactor COP by reducing need for heating from the resistors abd thus lower input current.

      Additionally as the surface area of the inner and outer tubes in the HotCat & QuarkX reactors are different, there may be differential electric potential generated and thus offer the ability to generate an external current flow between the coaxial tubes.

      What I see in the detailed construction images of the HotCat and the patent plus Andrea’s explanations of the QuarkX reactor presents a clear evolutionary development pathway that stacks up as against HotCat claims, patent claims & QuarkX claims.

      Congratulations Andrea, clever boy. Well done.

      I say again, why has No One tried to duplicate this layer stack before?

      Here are all the details of the HotCat construction:
      http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf

      For me, it is now very clear how the QuarkX reactor is constructed, why the COP is so high & how it generates electricity.

      I also now appreciate why every HotCat replication I know of has found it very difficult to get a good COP, which is all in the layers and how they are stacked.

      • Engineer48

        Following on from the above post, here is how I believe the QuarkX reactor is constructed.

        Apologises for the low quality graphics as I’m away from my pc & only have a simple drawing app on my Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet.

        I’m sure you will get the idea, which matches the patent and what Andrea is saying.

        What I see is a very large fuel volume and a much smaller heater volume, which is the originat HotCat with those elements swapped to match the patent layering.

        Also shown is how the direct electrical connections to the layers may be done. Andrea has said the electricity is from the layers in the patent.

    • Rene

      (I brought this over from another thread, where people were trying to understand the difference between the quark and previous designs. Axil was pointing out the mouse has a low COP)
      * * * He had different versions of the mouse COP ranging from 1.05 to 1.2ish. Have you noticed not much mention is made of the cat & mouse design?
      I think the quark is fundamentally different than the previous designs (except perhaps the hot cat). Previous, high COP was achieved by driving the reaction into a long SSM and then an arduous feedback loop to keep it linear which proved difficult because of lag caused by the thermal mass. The mouse was used to drive the e-cat, and here we’ve never been certain if the drive was heat or something more exotic. In any case, that approach has been a control challenge.
      The quark is not running SSM (says Rossi) yet achieves high COP. How? Maybe that teensy thermal mass assists, a millisecond heat spike that propagates quickly outward causing a brief self-quenched super critical reaction. Do that 50/60 times a second and you have controllable LENR device. He’s moved on to materials engineering to tune the reaction.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Rene,

        I believe the QuarkX is the Rossi Black HotCat but with the layer scheme of the patented wafer.

        Here the trigger heat is central to the core and none is wasted as all the resistive heat transfers into the fuel. The outer metal layer then converts all the EM and particle energy that hits it into long wave IR and radiates some outward and some is folded back and radiated back into the fuel. This QuarkX design is very thermally efficient. Heaps more that the IH Dog Bone or any of the attempted replications.

        The IH DogBone reactor is very wasteful of the resistive generated heat, with only a small fraction going inward and most being wasted & radiated outward. There is no thermal fold back in the Dog Bone reactor to use reaction generated heat to reduce the need for resistive heat / electrical power.

        The original Black HotCat got it right to use dual coaxial tubes to contain the heat and the later QuarkX reactor went the next step forward & swapped the heater from outer to inner and the fuel from inner to outer

        This massively increased the fuel volume compared to the heater volume. Ie look at the picture of the end of the Black HotCat & imagine the brownish resistor array was inside the central fuel tube & the fuel occupied the volume where the resistors were. That would create a layering schene as in the patent & increase thermal efficiency.

        • Rene

          E48 wrote “…There is no thermal fold back in the Dog Bone reactor to use reaction …”

          @bobgreenyer talks about terrawave (IR) foldback as a possible method to excite the reaction. And yes, the MFMP setups seem highly dissipative, although I’d like to see Bob’s comments about that.

          With the older larger mass e-cats reaction quench had to be done with external power. The other intriguing part of foldback is that it could also play part in self-quenching the reaction. Maybe the much smaller mass and specific structure permits the conditions to let the reaction build quickly then get quench intrinsically, something like:

          1. Excitation thermal pulse (temp spike travels outward)
          2. LENR -> IR to UV + β
          3. IR out, some IR reflected inward
          4. IR self excitation reaction increases, more β
          4. Reflected IR increases to quench point, reaction ends.
          5. Electrical DC Gaussian waveform.
          I tend to believe a DC bias will exist because the insulator (plus lower temp outside) creates an IR asymmetry.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Rene,

            AC riding on DC at 50% of AC peak to peak volts seems to make sense.

            As for thermal fold back, EVERY Rossi internal water heating reactor has massive insulation. Never did he run a non heavily insulated reactor that heated water internally. So thermal fold back has been there from day one. Yet no replicator noticed? Weird.

            When I look at the layered Black HotCat and the layered patent wafer reactor as against the IH Dog Bone reactor, I ask myself WTF went wrong? It looks a bit like the Black HotCat with the outer steel tubing layer missing, so there is no outer layer thermal foldback. Very strange WTF stuff.

        • Fedir Mykhaylov

          It seems to be true. Only offer to remove the inner metal tube. Heating element – tungsten plus thorium oxide.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Look at the picture you posted earlier and see where the wires come out. I think the heaters are between the two cylinders.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Thomas,

            Yes in the Black HotCat the resistive heaters are between the outer and inner cylinders, with the fuel inside the inner cylinder.

            In the patent that is reversed with the heater inside the inner cylinder and the fuel between the outer and inner cylinders. Much more fuel volume that way.

            • Thomas Kaminski

              Ooops — I should have read your description more carefully. It is discussed there.

  • http://www.chatwing.com/eestorchat EEStorFanFibb

    This whole project sounds great to me E48. I wish you all the luck in the world. Perhaps as things develop I and others here will find a way to assist you in this endeavour.

    • Engineer48

      Hi EEStor,

      Thanks.

      The office door is always open for a chat:
      engineer48 dot 99 at gmail dot com

  • Observer

    Lets Review:

    December 26, 2015 at 11:25 AM
    Q: Could you perhaps tell us whether the E-Cat X is producing AC or DC?
    December 26, 2015 at 3:14 PM
    A: DC, that obviously can be inverted into AC with the inverters.
    December 27, 2015 at 2:08 AM
    Q: Can the power of the E-Cat X be throttled up and down? If so, what kind of delayed response does it have?
    December 27, 2015 at 7:54 AM
    A: Yes, it cam be throttled up and down and the response is fast.
    December 30, 2015 at 11:58 AM
    Q: Can you repeatedly turn the E-Cat X off and on fast enough to produce an AC voltage without a power inverter?
    December 30, 2015 at 1:43 PM
    A: Interesting suggestion.

    From Engineer48:
    Andrea’s replies to me make it very clear the QuarkX reactor’s primary electrical output is AC at either 50Hz or 60Hz and it is stable.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Observer,

      My statement is correct and is from Andrea, from his blog, after the QuarkX results reveal and verified by direct email to him.

      I sent Andrea my plant schematic and asked him if it was correct. He replied “Very Good”.

      • Observer

        I do not doubt your statement. The E-Cat X evolved.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Observer,

          Here is the iink:
          http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=132#comment-1201269

          And screenshot.

          There is way too much misinformation in circulation. I actively try to do what ever I can to reduce the noise level and boost the signal level.

          • Observer

            Read carefully the time line in my post and it will answer the question Rossi did not.

            • Engineer48

              Hi Observer, who wrote:
              “Q: Can you repeatedly turn the E-Cat X off and on fast enough to produce an AC voltage without a power inverter?
              December 30, 2015 at 1:43 PM
              A: Interesting suggestion.”

              Yes, indeed a very interesting observation.;)

              Thamks for pointing that out. Will bring it up in my next email to Andrea!
              .

              • DrD

                Hi Eng, Observer,
                Yes!!
                Congratulations Observer, that could indeed explain a lot!
                I’ve been uneasy about the apparent contradictions. He said many times “it’s DC” until recently when it started becoming “AC or DC” and then AC to Eng.Well observed!
                Edit: I can appreciate his reluctance to make public too much detail.

        • Engineer48

          Deleted. Wrong spot

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Asking if your schematic is “cool” or basically correct does not mean Rossi verified the
        output as AC. In fact Rossi above states:

        Are you saying Rossi directly stated output is AC? That’s not what I read so far.

        A: DC, that obviously can be inverted into AC with the inverters.

        So in above Rossi FLAT OUT STATES you are most free to invert output to AC. However, above Rossi CLEARLY states the output is DC.

        The result of the above?

        You are most free to draw “AC” on your diagram. And above Rossi says you are MOST free to have AC, but YOU WILL HAVE TO USE an inverter. So according to Rossi in several places and even in above he CLEARY FLAT OUT states the output is DC.

        Rossi also recent stated that the heat energy is converted to electric by conventional means. And all conventional means I am aware of for non-moving systems produce DC.

        So you have to re-quote where Rossi stated the output is AC. In above Rossi CLEARLY states you are most free to invert the output to AC, but that in ZERO ways and in ZERO context suggests IN ANY CONTEXT that the output is DC.

        With the given info Rossi clearly confirms output is DC, but you want to draw AC on some diagram, then fine because you be using an inverter to convert the stated DC output to AC. And Rossi stated one is most free to convert output to AC.

        I most happy to be corrected on the above DC issue. Rossi been quite consistent in his contexts. No context hints, implies that output is AC, and this is EVEN in contexts of omission by Rossi where he is not clear. Rossi only stated if you need AC, then fine and no problem – you can have it.

        If your position is based on a direct statement by Rossi that output is AC, then I 100% graciously stand corrected. However if you are “assuming” because Rossi says your diagram is great, then that’s not verification of AC output. If you have direct statements that output is AC, then why is Rossi stating DC output, and you have to use a inverter to get AC then?
        As noted, this issue changes little in your diagram since in above Rossi flat out states if you need AC output, then just use an inverter.

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Engineer48

          Hi Albert,

          Your data is old.

          I verified the attached, with Andrea via private email.

          My schematic is correct.
          .

          • Albert D. Kallal

            The discussion on that blog is not clear on this issue.

            The question of “Direct AC output” was NOT in the context that Rossi stated output is AC. It more looks like Rossi “assumed” in this case since output is DC, then the question was about the inverted output – it could not be any other way if DC was the output.

            If Rossi stated output is AC before inverters, then I am MOST happy to accept that. And if Rossi flat out stated to you that output is AC, then that is really interesting news – this is thus strange!
            However, Rossi still stated the output conversion rate is only 10%.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

            • Engineer48

              Hi Albert,

              That is why I confirmed everything with Andrea via email.

              He has publicly stated 20% is the production goal.

              • Albert D. Kallal

                Thank you. My sorry for “pressing” on this issue. It not some “worry” about me vs you being right or wrong. I had read + assumed DC, and I am MOST happy to be corrected on this issue.
                My apologies for taking your time on this, and I most graciously appreciate you taking time to correct me on this issue.
                Again, thanks for sharing your ideas and thoughts here – I think you should plan to build those remote power units. A great business opportunity!

                Regards,
                Albert D. Kallal
                Edmonton, Alberta Canada