1 MW E-Cat Plant Testing Setup (Repost)

I was going through some old material on E-Cat World yesterday and came across a comment by Andrea Rossi that he made during the year-long 1MW E-Cat plant test in which he described the measurement system that was in place for the test. There’s been quite a bit of discussion about how measurements were taken on the E-Cat plant during the test, and since we haven’t seen the ERV report there’s quite a bit of speculation on the topic.

The following post by Rossi was made on April 3, 2015 — about 2 1/2 months into the test.

Andrea Rossi
April 3rd, 2015 at 7:44 PM
Desmondet:
The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus

the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider

56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.
Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

The 1 year test officially started around February 19, 2015, and according to all we have learned, and photos we have seen the plant consisted of four 250 kW reactors. With that in mind, it’s interesting that Rossi mentions 56 thermocouples for water temperature measurement, 56 thermocouples for steam, and 56 steam pressure gauges, which seems a lot. We should remember that the plant as originally designed had many more reactors, but for some reason those reactors were replaced by the four new ones. Maybe those gauges were in place with the original setup, and were retained. I’m not sure.

It’s interesting that Rossi mentions here that the customer was able to check the amount and pressure of the steam. This would not be part of the ERV report, since the ERV did not apparently measure anything inside the customer’s facility — but that data would be very interesting to see, and perhaps it may come out in the court case (if the case goes to trial).

  • GiveADogABone

    E-cat system stability when attached to an evaporator:

    A first estimate of the heat transfer between two fluids across a barrier is that the heat transfer is proportional to the temperature difference. I am a little surprised that nobody challenged the idea that steam condensing at 100C was able to boil byproduct liquor that was also at 100C; there is no temperature difference to drive the heat transfer.

    The stated design conditions of the E-cat output steam are 1.2bar abs. The first lift safety valve is set at 1.5bar abs. Corresponding to these three pressures are three saturation temperatures – 100C, 105C and 110C.

    If no heat is transferred at 1.0bar abs(dT=0C) and 1MW is transferred at 1.2bar abs(dT=5C), then 2MW is transferred at 1.4bar abs(dT=10C). The effect of this on the E-cat control system is important. The whole system is not controlled by the evaporator demand but by the E-cat heat output. The evaporator can swallow a wide range of heat output over a range of E-cat outlet steam pressure from 1.0bar abs to 1.5bar abs. The evaporator just takes what the E-cat gives and stabilises the system.

    The E-cat has a power control system that measures the outlet steam pressure and targets the design pressure where the E-cat heat output is 1MW. The E-cat superheat margin is controlled by the water level. The more of the fins that are exposed the higher the superheat. The control range clearly has its limits. More engineering to like from Rossi.

    • Engineer48

      Hi GiveADogABone,

      Yup.

      Like this. You can see the sight gauge that shows the water level and amount of exposed fins for superheat.

      The other shot is deep inside the 1st squarish ECat reactor showing there is only a small gap between the reactor and the side walls for the wet steam from below the reactor to exit upward and be turned superheated.
      .

  • Warthog

    “I’m not sure what this means. You think he isn’t who he says he is?

    Not at all. I am saying that some of the ideas/thoughts (memes) that are being attributed as originated with him in fact did not, but were actually originated by others and are being treated by the vendors of FUD as if they did come originally from him.

    Given the mass confusion of multiple sites with multiple threads, and thousands of people posting, such a tactic is very feasible, as “first attribution” is almost impossible to verify..

  • Warthog

    I have great admiration for Jed. He has probably done more than any other individual to foster an honest case for LENR (especially with the LENR-CANR.org bibliography). A number of his (supposed) comments of late just “don’t jibe” with my observations over many years of his commentaries in many fora. I suspect the truth is that memes from other parties are being falsely attributed to him.

    Re: testimony. I saw it here at E-cat World as a comment in-thread. Mats Lewan is associated with it in my (aging) memory banks, but I don’t think he was the direct witness…was quoting someone else.

  • Warthog

    There is eyewitness testimony from visitors to the location that there both was a customer and that activity was “happening” at the customers site. I’ve followed LENR since P&F, and always found Jed to be one of the most impartial observers on the scene (given his strong belief that LENR is a real phenomenon). He has always “followed the data” as best I have been able to tell.

    If he has actually made such a statement, then I think he has lost his marbles.

  • Warthog

    It doesn’t matter what the products are…..there are only two choices. 1)No energy is incorporated into the product permanently, or 2) “some” energy is incorporated into the product permanently. If “1”, then all energy from the e-cat shows up as waste heat vented (i.e. if it is only used for evaporation of solvent, for example). If “2”, then the E-cat energy is a ratio of “goes into product” and “waste heat” .

    In either case, the combined total energy WILL BE the sum of the electrical mains input to the customer site and the electrical mains input to the Rossi site plus any energy that is output from the e-cat.

    All evidence thus far shows that the customer process is continuous. Continuous processes are run to be at a constant set of conditions and maintained there.

    “IF” the ecat puts out energy AT ALL, this will show up in the difference between the two sites and will be recorded by the electrical companies meters to the site. If, for some reason (changing out reactors, for instance) the E-cat output varies, the amount of electricity drawn from the mains of the customer site will increase by the drop in E-cat output.

    And will be measured and recorded by a set of meters totally independent of anyone except the electricity provider.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    The use of steam at atmospheric pressure provides a mixed assessment – dryness flow measurement accuracy. The use of water under pressure gives accurate measurements without any tweaks

    • Engineer48

      Hi Fedir,

      Pressure is not an issue. Just need the steam temperature to be at or above min superheat temperature for the measured pressure.

      This min superheat temperature versus pressure calculator works well:
      http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/superheated-steam-table.html

    • GiveADogABone

      If I understand correctly, your concern is not with the practicalities or economics but with the accuracy of the test procedure. I would suggest that a superheat margin in the output steam guarantees that the steam is dry. The superheat margin is demonstrated by comparing the measured outlet steam pressure and temperature. The pressure gives the saturation temperature.

      If the steam is dry and at 0bar gauge, then the latent heat of evaporation is 2265kJ/kg. Extra heat is needed to provide the superheat margin and the increase in inlet water temperature up to the boiling point but this extra heat is not claimed by Rossi when calculating the CoP.

      The calculation of the CoP is then :-
      CoP = 2265 * m /Ein
      Ignoring the issue of the accuracy of the electrical power (Ein), the only remaining issue is the accuracy of the water mass flow rate (m). This can, and I believe is, measured on the water side. You can cross-check the feed water flow rate by collecting the condensed steam in a tank and checking its weight or volume.

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        I would like to ask – you often see industrial steam district heating at atmospheric pressure? This is a surprising number of level measurement glasses? Rossi with phonendoscope controlling boiling in sections. And Imagine the same unit with water under pressure and rendered the heat exchanger of the consumer.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Fedir,

          Rossi has never stated the reactor outlet pressure nor temperature. Only Weaver & Jed made those claims.

          He did say to me to design for superheated 105C steam at max 1.2 bar abs.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Hi engineer48. I just do not understand why use slightly superheated steam at a very slight overpressure for industrial heat supply. Disadvantages – the increase in diameter of pipes, the possibility of water hammer in long communications, the need for continuous monitoring of the level of each boiler section.

        • GiveADogABone

          1: you often see industrial steam district heating at atmospheric pressure?
          Have you ever watched movies shot in New York in winter? Steam vapour rises from the pavements.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_steam_system

          2: This is a surprising number of level measurement glasses?
          If each E-cat has a separate water level control system and its own gauge glass …

          3: Rossi with phonendoscope controlling boiling in sections.
          Rossi has referred to the sound that the E-cat makes when it is running. I guess most watchkeeping engineers get to know the normal and abnormal sounds that their plant makes. Not used for control as far as I know.

          4: And Imagine the same unit with water under pressure and rendered the heat exchanger of the consumer.
          I am not sure what the question is.

          5: I just do not understand why use slightly superheated steam at a very slight overpressure for industrial heat supply. Disadvantages – the increase in diameter of pipes, the possibility of water hammer in long communications, the need for continuous monitoring of the level of each boiler section.
          Did my answer further up this thread not help?
          Try http://www.tlv.com/global/UK/steam-theory/heating-with-steam.html
          and http://www.tlv.com/global/UK/steam-theory/steam-heating-mechanism.html

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            Mr. GiveDogABone. I understand that Mr. Rossi is not an engineer heating engineer. To do this, there are a Engineer48

  • Engineer48

    Interesting info on JM’s production of metal catalytic sponges

    http://www.jmprotech.com/images-uploaded/files/72052%20Sponge%20Metal%20brochure.pdf

    Images for the production process and 2 very heavily insulated reaction chambers, which seem to be maybe easily movable, especially if all that was done at the IH Customer’s site was the production of the 1st step raw material.

    Good article:
    http://www.matthey.com/sustainability/in-action/archive/2012_13_case_studies/reducing_the_use_of_critical_raw_materials

    Yes I know Rossi has denied the IH heat Customer was Johnson Matthey but just maybe he was required to deny their involvement as part of their agreement.

    What I see is a nicely designed 1st stage reaction chamber, that is very heavily thermally insulated and may be easily moved and a process flow that would just the 1st stage to be conducted in the Doral plant site and the reaction product taken to another site for further processing. So easy and quick move in and out as the IH Customer had to plan for their plant to be moved at the end of the 1 year test.
    .

    • GiveADogABone

      ‘Steam from the boiler is used to concentrate the byproduct liquors’

      That where the heat goes?
      Heat it up and keep it bubbling.
      Discharge the water vapour to atmosphere and let it condense outside.

      • Bruce__H

        ‘Steam from the boiler is used to concentrate the byproduct liquors’

        I don’t understand why you think this is important factor for understanding where the heat from the ECAT reactor goes. From the standpoint of the customer’s facility heat is coming into the room from next door. At some point it has to leave the facility. What does it matter if some of the heat is used to boil up something in the meantime? I don’t get it.

        • Warthog

          Because that is where (and how) the OUTPUT of the E-cat is used in the customer’s process and reveals the ultimate fate of that energy input. That is the crux of this whole hoopla.

          There are three (and only three) sources of energy in this “system”…. 1) electricity “in” to the Rossi site, which is used primarily to power the E-cat (with some very small fraction used to run the lights, AC/room heat, and control instrumentation, 2) electricity “in” to the customer site used to run lights, AC/room heat, control instrumentation for the customer’s process, and BACKUP HEAT when the E-cat is down for whatever reason, and 3) heat cross-transferred from the E-cat into the customer’s process.

  • Warthog

    Easily derived from the wattmeter data.

  • GiveADogABone

    An authorative statement of the daily condensate production and maximum electrical supply capacity would limit the minimum possible CoP. Tentative numbers suggest the minimum possible CoP is at about the CoP=3 level.

    Authorative numbers should disprove a claim of no anomalous heat.

    The daily condensate production and maximum electrical supply capacity limits can be supplied from outside the ERV report.

    With such a simple proof from outside the ERV report that the minimum CoP is about three, any attempt by IH to claim it is one in the ERV looks weak.

    With any electrical supply number below about 140kW, the CoP is well above 6.

    =============================

    36m^3? per day has to be supplied by evaporation and condensation.
    Transfer of water is dismissed.

    Latent heat of evaporation 2256kJ/kg
    Power required = 36000/(60^2*24) * 2256 = 940kW

    At CoP=1 electrical power required 940kW
    At CoP=50 electrical power required 940/50 = 18.8kW

    Max capacity of electrical supply 300kW?

    Heat Out 940kW
    Elec kW CoP
    300 3.13
    260 3.62
    220 4.27
    180 5.22
    140 6.71
    100 9.40
    60 15.67
    20 47.00
    18.8 50.00

    Conclusions:
    1: 36m^3? per day condensate flow is approximately correct for 1MW of heat supplied by evaporation at 0bar gauge. The real enthalpy transfer is higher due to also heating both water and steam.

    2: With the electrical supply operating at a maximum capacity of 300kW?, the CoP must be at about 3.1?. A CoP of one is not possible.

    3: A condensate flow of 36m^3? per day and a electrical power supply maximum capacity of 300kW? disproves a claim of CoP=1. This disproves a claim of no anomalous heat.

    4: An electrical power supply of 140kW provides a CoP 0f 6.7 which is over the standard for full payment under the licence agreement.

    • Engineer48

      Hi GiveADogABone,

      Yup isn’t science great, allowing a mathematical model of the reactor to be created and then used to yet various claims.

      Which I also did and this old engineer’s gut says, yes it is a real device and works as claims.

      Should add investigating all the photos of the central island 4 slab reactor also helps to make the gut feel good and looking at those photos, shown nothing unexpected and everything expected, is a good exercise.

      Small things like the 24 input pumps having a degass output and headers to take away the degassed fluid back to the condenser. That is not something you would do if this was a fraud but very much an engineering detail that would be built in for a real working reactor to deal with real world fluid that needs to be degassed before being pumped into the reactors.

      This is a real working reactor. Designed and constructed with purpose and intent. So says my engineer’s gut.

      Yellow = Condensate input to pump,
      Orange = Degassed output from pump,
      Red = Gauge Glasses.

      • GiveADogABone

        Working this close to 0bar gauge I did wonder about incondensible gases and air entrainment. Is there a secret little vaccuum pump on the top of the heat exchanger to remove them? When you shut down is there a vacuum breaker somewhere? You would not want the E-cat to crumple inwards as it went cold.

        Equally, scale build up in the fins could be an issue if you want a year’s run and you are not using demin water.

        • Engineer48

          Hi GiveADogABone,

          When I talked to Rossi about my potential clients 10 x 1MWt reactor test system, he advised to design for 105C superheated steam at 1.2 bar abs.

          I’m not a thermal power plant steam engineer but I did work with 2 guys that are and eat steam engineering for breakfast. Of course they wanted more superheat margin and more pressure but hey you get what you get and then design for it.

          Rossi did tell me the heat exchange design used was complex.

          From what Weaver shared and this I maybe do believe as Rossi said they had a few steam leak issues with the reactors early on, that the current casing design for the 6m long slab reactors may have casing stress issues with pressure above 1.2 bar abs and that is why, being conservative as I have learned Rossi is, he advised me to advise the potential client’s engineers to design for 1.2 bar abs and 105C superheated steam.

          I do expect the next generation of the low temperature reactors will have much improved casing strength and may go well above 1.2 bar abs as recommended 24/7 operations, you can sleep at night, design rating.

          Sleeping is good.

          • GiveADogABone

            What about designing for 0bar abs?
            Five times as stressy as 1.2bar abs.
            No vaccuum breaker -> crumpled boiler

            • Engineer48

              Hi GiveADogABone,

              The only pressure value we have is from Weaver and then Jed, both reporting 0.0 bar but without any reference (g or abs), which to me suggests they have no idea of what they talk.

              The only number I have from Rossi is what he suggested me to pass on to my steam engineers of 1.2 bar abs and 105C superheated steam.

              • GiveADogABone

                Gone a bit rusty on my Boiler Code but I thought that the design pressure had to equal the pressure setting of the highest set relief valve at full lift OR FULL VACCUUM, whichever is the most stressy. One of those Italian control schematics had two relief valves shown on then. Settings were 1.5 and 1.8bar which I think was absolute.

                First impressions are that 1.2bar abs is therefore a design code breach on two counts. The correct design pressure would be 0.0bar abs – perfect vaccuum. That is the most stressy load case. Perhaps that explains the steam leak problems?

              • GiveADogABone

                You wrote :-

                ‘he advised me to advise the potential client’s engineers to design for 1.2 bar abs and 105C superheated steam.’

                I read that as the design pressure was 1.2bar abs. If the interpretation of your words was that the client should design for a WORKING pressure of 1.2bar abs, then that would be OK. That leaves open what the actual DESIGN pressure is or should be. If the DESIGN pressure is full vacuum, then that is unlikely to be the working pressure for a boiler 🙂

  • GiveADogABone

    From the header article quoting Rossi :-
    ‘The [customer measures] with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam’.
    This will give the mass flow rate of condensate from and enthalpy delivered to the production plant. The ERV’s flowmeters will be cross-checked by this measurement. This could well be the source of the 36m^3 per day condensate flow number that has come up in posts.

    ‘the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider’
    This Wattmeter will cross-check the power consumption recorded on the power cable to the 1MW plant container.

    ==============================================

    If the m/Ein ratio for these external instruments, m/Ein ratio for the ERV’s instruments and the m/Ein ratio for IH’s challenge give wildly different values, then something is wrong.

    If CoP=50 is claimed for the ERV’s instruments and CoP=1 claimed for IH’s challenge which, if either, corresponds to the external instruments?

    Thanks to LENRG and Lufong for, in effect, pointing this out.

  • LuFong

    These are good numbers but remember all IH has to show sufficient error or fraudulent activity in the measurements to invalidate the conclusions of the report. I mean at some point, garbage in garbage out.

    • GiveADogABone

      ‘… IH has to show sufficient error or fraudulent activity in the measurements to invalidate the conclusions of the report.’

      How would IH do that if errors are minor, no fraud has occurred AND also produce a complete alternative dataset that does not contravene reality? Just asserting the instruments are off and the real CoP=1 is not going to work.

  • Engineer48

    Hi GiveADogABone,

    Isn’t science wonderful?

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    Excellent analysis.

    I wonder how much traction they can gain on the electrical input side though as there is the ground truth of the electric bill to reconcile and we got a glimpse of one and it seems to support the ERV.

    • GiveADogABone

      One of the useful things about these logic models is that you can vary one thing and see how it propagates.

      Reducing the factor on the electricity supply increases the factor on the mass flow reduction. In addition, it also drops the heat transferred. If you drop the factor on electricity to one, then only 20kW, less system losses, reaches the production plant.

      Then the production plant operating records start to have an interest if the plant is demanding 1MW of heat. The production plant operator will stop paying because they are not receiving the contracted steam supply, so you could ask what those payments look like as well.

      If you have dropped the mass flow by a factor of fifty, what happens in the E-cat when the production plant is demanding 1MW? The steam pressure drops. The E-cat is also starved of water for supplying 1MW, so the water level drops as well. That means the water level control system must have been disabled.

      I have not fully considered the list but I think that you will get the general idea. Faking the data and getting it completely consistent with reality is fiendishly difficult, if not impossible.

      As a further ‘what if’, what if the condensate production was being measured on the other side of the wall? Dead simple to do.

  • Warthog

    Which information can be derived from looking at the differences in power flow between the two input electrical meters…..these are the ONLY sources of input, other than any energy delivered by the Ecat reaction. This is NOT a case where an auxiliary genset was installed temporarily, as in an earlier test. Absolute “production” is irrelevant.

    No chemical plant is going to “swing” their production capacity to suit the Ecats postulated output…they will run their process at a constant level and swing the amount of electricity they draw from their plants electrical mains.

    • wpj

      AR stated that the temperature of the return water varied according to the production and how much heat was being drawn. This is why they chose to ignore the heat input to take it back up to 100C.

      • Warthog

        Again, IT DOESN’T MATTER. The information from the two (or three) utility wattmeters bypasses ALL of this hoopla. Boiling water, pressurized water, wet steam, dry steam, flowmeters.,water recycle temperature…..NONE of those things matter.

        This is a very simple energy balance problem.

        Energy…all electricity…flows into two “boxes” with a common wall. Some flows as heat between the two boxes across that wall.

        But ultimately, what exits the two “boxes” is waste heat from both “boxes” minus some fraction “embedded” in the product for sale. The customer already knows what this number is.

        The difference between the electrical inputs to the “Ecat box” and the “customer process box” has to be due to excess heat provided by the Ecat reaction, if any.

        • Pweet

          You are assuming there was a customer who actually used the energy for something. What happened to them after the test? Did they just pack up their production facility and go home? That doesn’t sound very likely. So is it still there? I haven’t heard of any reports of it, or even was. It must have been a very small and transportable operation. I would be much more convinced if there were reports of some production facility still there pumping out paint or widgets or something. But no evidence of anything is just one more disturbing inconsistency between reports and reality.
          Doesn’t anyone else find this a bit strange?

          • Warthog

            The court system will certainly reveal the answer to those questions before or during trial. I can wait.

          • Warthog

            That there was a customer and “things were done” was confirmed by testimony from physical visitors to the plant site. I think Mats Lewan was one source.

    • roseland67

      All that shows is that the Ecat ran and supposedly used less energy and power, but less than what?

      Again,
      How many parts were made with Ecat and how many without Ecat?
      While running, the Ecat made 10 parts and used 100 kWh, requiring 10kwh/part.

      Regular production used 1000 kWh but made 1000000 part, requiring 1/1000kwh/part.

      As I explained to GED previously, there is simply not enough information available to make an informed intelligent decision, which is a hallmark of most data coming out of the Rossi camp.

      • Warthog

        “….less than what”. DOESN’T MATTER. None of the things you enumerate matter to the measurements made by the wattmeters.

        Look, I’m a chemist. I spent 40 years designing instrumentation to make measurements in chemical processes.

        Right at this moment, we don’t have sufficient information from the wattmeters….true. But that information is stored and can be made available, by subpoena from the electrical utility serving the site if necessary.

        AT MINIMUM this gives twelve data points (monthly bills) that are totally independent of anything except the question “did the Ecat produce excess heat”. THE ONLY INPUTS are electrical energy in and postulated heat from the E-cat. The difference between the electrical inputs to the two “boxes” gives a “yes/no” answer to the above question.

        Is it a quantitative answer?….no. But what matters more is that the answer is totally independent off all other parties and equipment.

        • roseland67

          I’m also an engineer, 35 years, was on the specification steering committee for the Energy Policy Act 2005 and have spent the last 15 doing Nothing but energy audits for government labs, army, navy, Air Force, gSa, VA, DOE, DOD etc.
          Without the data I suggest you can make absolutely Zero conclusions on whether or not the Ecat even worked, let alone how well. And I suspect that is why it is not available.

          • Warthog

            “Without the data I suggest you can make absolutely Zero conclusions on
            whether or not the Ecat even worked, ”

            The differences between the wattmeters provide sufficient data to answer that question. It won’t answer any questions about the process, but it WILL answer that one.

    • roseland67

      What if the Ecat did not make any parts at all and just idled?
      You don’t know?
      What was the energy used per part with and without the Ecat?
      No manufacturer on the planet would buy an Ecat based on what you suggest as proof? Would you ?

  • Omega Z

    “56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam”
    “56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water”
    “56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam”

    These numbers were originally hard to reconcile because we were of the view that the 1MW plant was built with smaller E-cat reactors. Recall that the Bologna, Italy 1 MW had 106-10KW E-cat modules. You need to be a little creative to work 56 into that.

    Then we learned that this 1MW pilot plant had 52- 20KW reactors. (1MW + 2- 20KW backup modules. This entire setup became the backup system to the 4- 250KW reactors. I could be wrong, but it would appear obvious. 52- 20KW reactors and 4- 250KW reactors totals (56 reactors). Each with its own pressure gauge, input and ouput thermocouple for a total of-

    56 pressure gauges
    56 input reading thermocouples
    56 output reading thermocouples

    • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

      Yes, I think this is dead on. This was my conclusion as well.

      It would mean though that only 8 of the thermocouples and 4 of the pressure gauges were in main use and that there wasn’t much redundancy in the measurements, unfortunately.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Qmega Z,

      There appears to be 14 wiring inlets down the length of each of the 250kWt reactor slabs.

      14 X 4 slabs = 56 reactors in total?

      I also note each slab has 6 water pumps, which may tie into the “6 cylinder” design?

      • Pweet

        An yet Mr Rossi said that the four reactors in operation left the original 52 reactors as backup reactors in case there was a problem with any of the four big reactors. This point was verified at least once when he reported one reactor was out of action, and someone (Frank A. I think) asked if he was going to use the backup reactors. Rossi said he preferred to keep them in standby. I think he was also asked if they were kept in ‘standby’ in a powered up state ready to be used. He said no, just ready to be powered up if needed. All this indicates that he claimed there were the original 50 rectors plus the new four large reactors. I found this a bit had to believe at the time though, because there was not a word of it mentioned prior to it being dropped as a casual comment long after the event, so you may well be correct. As others have said, he is not obliged to tell us anything, but it would be nice if when he did, it was a little bit accurate.

      • Omega Z

        Yes, You could be right.
        I posted that I could be wrong.
        Both possibilities total 56.

    • Pweet

      I agree entirely.
      I would also add, without knowing exactly where the thermocouples and temperature transducers are, the sheer number of them means nothing. Having lots of them is no guarantee of their effectiveness, particualarly if most of them are not being used.
      If it turns out that the 56 sets of thermocouples etc are simply one set per reactor, and I’m pretty sure they will be, then it is just worthless hype. We were told that although the plant was initially built with more than 50 reactors, only four of the heaters were operating during the test. That would mean the remaining sets of 52 of everything are just sitting there doing nothing, in which case, it would make no difference if there were 152 sets of thermocouples.
      I always thought it was a ridiculous path to take in the development program to try and prove the lenr concept by building a 1MW plant with 50 reactors running in such a large and elaborate system, and I said so. My view was argued against at the time, saying the single reactors had already been proven and so proving a multiple reactor power plant was the next logical step to establish reliability of a large number of reactors working together. However, here we are after the end of the test and we find firstly, the 50 reactors were not even used. The design was allegedly scrapped on the first day of operation and replaced with a design of just four reactors.
      Secondly, the fact of whether even one of the reactors actually worked or not is still in hot dispute. IH say the results were rigged and therefore in error. Another person who says he has seen how the test was run and seen some of the results, agrees. At the very least, that shows the viability is in dispute. Yes, I know, there are all sorts of reasons why this might be the case but the fact remains, the results are in dispute. A COP of 1 or a COP of 50?
      This point should have been sorted out with just one reactor, not a conglomeration of 56 reactors. That is just plain silly, and It always was.
      The correct and logical procedure should have been, prove beyond doubt that a single reactor works, help IH build a working reactor and let them prove it works to their own satisfaction, and then go on to design whatever they want on the basis of that known and proven reactor.
      .
      But what’s the plan now? Well, it seems that in spite of Mr Rossi proving (to himself) that the 1MW plant is an outstanding success, the plan for immediate massive production seems to be drifting off into the sunset to be replaced by plants incorporating the all new QuackEcat X, after some more R & D of course, and after it is all proven, (f9). In other words, after yet another indeterminate delay.

      It will be interesting to see if the three more plants sold (Mr Rossi says) to the same customer of the previous 1MW test will manufactured using the existing and proven (?) technology and delivered in the next few months as per earlier announcements, or if delivery will be held off, waiting for the new technology to be finalized, and then tested, and then etc. My belief is, nothing will be delivered, and delivery will be held off for the reason given above.
      Delivery was said to be three to six months from time of order. Three months of that are already gone.

      • Omega Z

        The 250KW reactors was a new creation with little history. Having the smaller 52- 20KW reactors for back up is perfectly logical considering.

        Small reactor tests have been done repeatedly. A larger setup is necessary for a multitude of reasons. A 1MW was also what “Tom Darden” agreed to in the contract.

        As to the Quarks. They are a necessary progression.
        The Low temp e-cats(10KW reactor) requires at best, 1 hour to come to operating temperature. The High temp Hot-cats,(3.5KW reactor) requires at best 4+ hours to come to operating temperature. There economic benefit outside 24/7 industrial use is a very limiting factor.

        Quarks will take mere minutes and possibly instant on/off eventually making them very flexible. Power use can be scaled from 100 watts to the overall size of the device when needed. Not full power 24/7 regardless of need.

        A 20/30KW system made up of 100 watt Quarks, each with a 1 year operational use could last for years with a time load adjustable computer system before needing a recharge. This all sounds like the work of someone aiming to bring a viable product to market.

        As to it having been 5 years and you still can’t buy an E-cat.
        OMG, That is so, so unremarkable. It seems as if NASA has spent about 15 years trying to build a heavy lift rocket comparable to a 50+ year old Saturn 5. Wont even bother mentioning Hot Fusion or ITER.
        ———————————————————–
        Question. What is it about people who don’t believe in technology like LENR that drives them to rant about it so. To go so far as to create websites to try and stop something that they claim is not possible. Personally, If I didn’t believe LENR posssible, I’d done moved on. Life is to short to wast time on something that’s not possible.

  • DrD

    I suppose 6 is safer good enough for now but just a little surprising that Andrea isn’t confident to revise the COP Spec when the average increased from 6 to > 60 (I include the energy to heat the return water).

    Paul
    June 28, 2016 at 10:07 AM
    Andrea,
    When will Leonardo Corporation be able to update the ECAT 1MW
    Technical Specifications to the benchmarks established during the one
    year Beta test?
    Paul

    Andrea Rossi

    June 28, 2016 at 2:54 PM
    Paul:
    Thank you for the suggestion, but I prefer to be very conservative, so far.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • DrD

    Correct and the temperature difference wasn’t even 100degC.
    We already know there was an intermediate heat exchanger, not that it matters much.

  • DrD

    Very true.
    The lack of a mention is a bit conspicuous and flow rate is every bit as crucial as the other parameters as others have recently debated.

  • Patrick Ellul

    52 small ecats + 4 tigers = 56. At least that bit checks out.

    • Gerard McEk

      So the bulk of the instruments will not, or perhaps during a short period, have been used.

  • Warthog

    Unnecessary. Examination of the wattmeters comparative readings over a years worth of data will certainly show periods of excess heat, completely independent of ANY measurements on the E-Cats themselves, simply from the differences between the meters. If the E-cat is providing excess heat, it will show up as lowered readings on the customers wattmeter, with no change in the “E-cat site” wattmeter, even for a COP of 10. Recall that Rossi is claiming long periods of SSM and a COP of 50 at times. With measurement devices totally independent of Rossi, IH, the ERV or anyone else.

    Heh…..too bad nobody thought of putting in an internet cam on each meter, and just broadcasting that to the world. REALLY hard to argue with THAT data.

  • LuFong

    No mention of flow meters. Or is that the same as pressure gauges?

    “if they receive this energy they pay for the plant” They were paying for the steam, not the plant.

    The plant was not just there for testing purposes. It was supposed to be their as part of the plant operations and continue to be used after the test.

    There are serious allegations by IH (via DW) that Rossi attempted to swap flow meters.

    There are serious allegations by IH (via DW) that the data reported was the same whether the plant was running or not.

    Also Rossi’s elaboration of the Customer’s master Guage is another example of Rossi relying on customer operations to validate his E-Cat. “Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts.”

    • Warthog

      All of these speculations can be answered from the power company’s wattmeters. 1 MW is a LOT of energy, and easily discernible by the total loads of the two sources of electricity used (the customers section of the industrial site, and Rossi’s Ecat installation section). The relatively puny parasitical loads of the two sites lights/heat/AC are largely irrelevant by comparison.

      • LuFong

        Nobody has disputed the power consumption numbers, at least not yet. The issue is the heat produced and not the electricity input.

        And I don’t think the customer ever had the ability to run 1MW of electricty. The electrical panel/service line is limited just like your house’s is to something like 100-200AMP (at 240V).

        IH (via DW) is alleging that the data showed 1MW results even when the plant was down for maintenance.

        • Warthog

          It doesn’t matter. What you are looking at is the DIFFERENCES between the two electrical inputs and how they vary with time. The absolute magnitude of the total energy is irrelevant. And nothing has been said as to whether “the customer” had additional power capacity installed (which will, of course, be metered).

          • LuFong

            Sorry, I don’t follow you. How can the difference between the customer’s electrical input and the E-Cat’s tell you anything?

            Are you assuming when the E-Cat’s output goes down, the customer has to make this up by increasing electrical input and there would be a factor of 50 with this? I don’t see this as necessarily true and probably not as well because there probably is excess heat coming in to cover any variances.

            • Warthog

              Basically, yes.

              There are only three inputs to this system. Electricity to the customer site (measured by wattmeter). Electricity to the Rossi site (measured by wattmeter). Heat (or no heat) from the Ecat reaction That is IT.

              The parasitical loads to run the lights and heat/cool the two (probably close to identical) industrial office sites will be negligible (probably a max of 10KW or so each) compared to the 30KW0 to 1000 KW consumed by the “customer” process.

              You WILL be able to see differences of that size between the two wattmeters.

              • LuFong

                Well I think this could be true but probably not for the reasons I mentioned. Also if input is less the customers process might just be extended (take longer) with no additional electrical input. Also what I’ve heard (public discussions) is that the E-Cat data is surprisingly stable, impossibly so, which we may know now why. We need more data that’s for sure.

                • Warthog

                  A “process extension” will still show up in the wattmeter reading difference.

                • LuFong

                  OK I’ll do an example. I have a big vat of something that I need to maintain a temperature of say 1000C for 2 hours or 800C for 4 hours (or some combination in between) in order for some endothermic reaction to complete. Any excess energy from the E-Cat is vented. I don’t rely on additional energy other than electricity for the instrumentation and perhaps some mechanical work like stirring the vat or something. As the E-Cat’s output varies I adjust the length of the process but the electrical energy input is constant.

                  This, a contrived but quite plausible system, doesn’t change electricity inputs although the process product output does vary.

                  Now I think Rossi did say that the customer has a backup so maybe this example can be ruled out.

                • Omega Z

                  Dewey provides just enough info to create doubts. That’s his job.

                  How can the data be the same when it’s down. Exactly what does this vague statement mean. Completely shut down. When a single reactor is down. So many unanswered question created by a vague statement.

                  Even tho Rossi was never specific, I concluded the 10KW reactors were capable of 13KW to 15KW output.(30% to 50% excess capacity) If the 250KW reactors have a similar over capacity capability, then a single reactor being down could easily compensate the output for some period of time. Issues would arrise as to output only should multiple reactors be down.

                  Perhaps Dewey was taking about how the COP can be the same when some reactors are down. When a reactor is down, this wouldn’t impact operational COP numbers. My Car always gets 30mpg while driving. Being in the garage doesn’t change this. Also, a single reactor being down wouldn’t effect the COP of the other reactors.

                  As you can see, By cherry picking Data, most of us can/could make it say whatever we want it to say. Until we have access to all the data, we won’t know all the facts.

                • LuFong

                  I’m aware of this and I know there is PR war going on between IH and Rossi. But DW is alleging that the data was cut and pasted. I don’t have the exact language, and he may indeed be playing word games, which by the way Rossi certainly has engaged in. I wasn’t trying to claim absolute certainty but I was just trying to round out the ‘facts’ being presented.

                • Warthog

                  Chemical plants simply are not designed or operated that way. A LOT of effort is invested in determining a set of conditions that yields optimum results, and the plant is run to stay on the peak of that optimum 24/7/365.

                  The preceding comment for continuous processes, of course. Batch processes are another matter. There is NO indication that “the process” is batch, and a batch process would be a horrible test location for an Ecat, given the demonstrated tendency to “run away”.

                • LuFong

                  Well my example was contrived as I said but unless you are saying that there is no such process etc I tend to believe that the electrical usage of the customer and Rossi’s E-cat are more or less independent.

                  I also wonder about the customer’s operation. It appears to be fairly small and portable. We cannot make too many assumptions about what it was despite the name assigned to this fake company.

                • Warthog

                  How can they possibly be independent??

                  There are only two inputs, and only two outputs, both cross-connected.

                  The inputs are the electrical mains to the customer “site” and the electrical mains to the Rossi “site” (which actually comprise only one input, measured at two points). The other input is any excess heat generated by the E-cats, which is cross-connected into the customer’s process.

                  The two outputs are the finished product, and waste heat. The customer knows exactly how much energy is “embedded” in their product from years of production data.

                  The only “unknown” in this system is how much waste heat is given off…..but that HAS to be related to the two electrical inputs and E-cat heat. The waste heat is “dumped” 1) in the customer’s “site” (and includes any input from the E-cat, and 2) directly from the E-cat into Rossi’s “site”.

  • Warthog

    “…..the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider….

    THE overlooked but decisive piece of instrumentation. This device BY ITSELF can answer the controversy over whether the E-cat worked or not, independent of ANY sensors installed on the eCat OR the “ERV” (idiot or not). Ecat running, wattmeter shows one value (low), Ecat not running, wattmeter shows different value (high). Probably also need “time-similar” values for the wattmeter of the building space in which the Ecat is being run. No fancy calorimetry needed.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    It would have been easy to use pressurized water. The heat can be transferred through an intermediate heat exchanger.

  • Gerard McEk

    As you rightly say, Frank it seems that most of these instruments were not used, because the 250 kW ‘Tigers’ did the job. I am sure these were also equipped with (a part of) these instruments. It appeared quite a while later that these tigers did do the whole job. As you know, there were quite a bit of problems in the beginning and that may have had to do with all these small Ecats. Just using the four big ones may have solved that problem and made it better controllable by the team.

  • JDM

    Pressure and temperature. From this one can get flow rate?