Rossi: Customer’s Manufacturing Process was Endothermic (Update — AR: Water Used for Cooling Purposes)

Here are a couple of exchanges from the Journal of Nuclear Physics that give us something of Rossi’s case in regard to the E-Cat customer’s use of the heat from the 1MW plant during the one year test.

Q: When you say that the Customer “used the heat” does this mean that the manufacturing process was endothermic — i.e. the heat delivered by the E-Cat was absorbed in the customer’s production process?

A: Andrea Rossi
August 13, 2016 at 7:13 AM
Frank Acland:
Warm Regards,

Q: If the 1MW of thermal power emitted from the ECAT reactors in the plant of the customer was used by the customer and not continually vented away, this seems to imply an endothermic process that trapped heat within the molecular structure of the chemical being produced.

Can you confirm?

A: Andrea Rossi
August 13, 2016 at 7:12 AM
Candice Bee Watson:
Warm Regards,

So Rossi’s case is that there would not have been the heat signature that many critics of the 1 year E-Cat test — Including Industrial Heat — have been saying should have been present if the plant was actually producing 1 MW of heat over a long period of time.

Rossi is saying that the heat was somehow absorbed in the manufacturing process, since that process was endothermic — and the heat did not need to be disposed of continually. Rossi did say in an earlier comment that there were times (he has not said how frequent) when the plant needed to dump excess heat, presumably when the manufacturing plant was offline for whatever reason, and in those cases, there was a ventilation system used to move the heat up through the roof.

Of course this brings up the question of what kind of endothermic process might be able to absorb the quantities of heat that were transmitted to the customer, and Rossi has provided no details at all about that. I would hope that he would provide evidence to support his claim of this apparently endothermic process in the court case, but I do wonder whether the customer would want to provide too many details if this was a trade secret proprietary process, which Rossi has implied that it is.

UPDATE: (Aug 14, 2016)

Here’s another possibly relevant piece of information with a question from Oystein Lande on the JONP:

Oystein Lande
August 14, 2016 at 4:40 PM
Dear mr Rossi,

Did the 1MW customer also use water for cooling purposes in his endothermic process ?

Andrea Rossi
August 14, 2016 at 7:23 PM
Oystein Lande:
Warm Regards,

And here’s another similar question:

August 14, 2016 at 6:37 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I imagine that the JMP plant used the thermal energy for endothermic physical and/or chemical interactions, while the excess heat, if necessary, was removed by means of air and water, am I correct?
Thank you if you can answer,

Andrea Rossi
August 14, 2016 at 7:26 PM
Warm Regards,

  • Alan DeAngelis

    It just doesn’t look like a place where you would set up a synthetic fuel production operation (even if it’s just a pilot operation). For safety reasons it would be segregated from other businesses. This looks more like a place for let’s say the batching of cosmetics or the production of fish food pellets.
    It’s a rather boring endothermic process.
    This is a rehash of what I said before.

  • GiveADogABone

    The header article for :-
    Industrial Heat Amends Answer to Rossi’s Complaint on Aug 11th (Update #2 — Rossi: “The Heat Was Used, Not Vented Away”)
    quotes IH’s amended answer :-

    ’82. … Murray also recognized that the building in which the Plant was located had no method to
    the heat that would be produced by the Plant were it producing the
    amount of steam claimed by Rossi, Leonardo, and Penon …’
    A bit of a problem here? No, the heat was embodied in hydrocarbon fuels.

    ‘… such that persons would not have been able to work in the building if the Rossi/Leonardo/Penon claims were true. ‘
    a problem. ALL heat, bar the last few kilowatts was embodied in
    hydrocarbon fuels and the ambient temperature would have been fine.

    conflicted with the claims of individuals who had been in the building
    when the Plant was operating, all of whom claimed the temperature in
    the building was near or not much greater than the outside temperature.’
    The ‘claims of individuals’ were correct, in my view.

    83. ‘… when in fact it was simply recycling steam from the Plant and sending it back to the Plant as water.’
    that would require a condenser to turn the steam into water, which is
    actually what happens. The issue is what the heat removed by the
    condenser does and where it goes.

    In my view claims 82 and 83 fail.

    Overall Thermal Analysis of the Production Plant Process in the 1MW test in Doral, Florida :
    Note: All this depends on there being a gas supply.

    a transport container that contains the whole production process of
    SMR(Steam Methane Reforming) and FT(Fischer-Tropsch). Another
    container contains an E-cat producing 1MW of steam and receiving a
    condensate return flow.

    Inputs to the SMR+FT container :
    1a: Air for combustion @ 20C
    1b: Methane for combustion @ 20C
    2: Methane for process raw material @ 20C
    3: Towns water for cooling @ 20C
    4: E-cat steam that goes to a heat exchanger @ 100C
    Electricity to run the plant

    Outputs from the SMR+FT container :
    1: Flue Gas from combustion @ 60C
    2: Liquid+solid hydrocarbons @ 60C
    3: Towns water return from cooling @ 60C
    4: E-cat return condensate from heat exchanger @60C
    Heat loss from container surfaces is zero.

    The combustion of air and methane is clearly inputting to the SMR+FT
    container considerable quantities of heat and the flue gases are cool;
    no different to a domestic central heating boiler. This air flow is
    taken from the ambient air inside the container and maintains the
    ambient air at a reasonable temperature. The air eventually emerges
    from the container via the flue gases, so the container must have a
    grill through which the outside air can enter when the doors are shut.

    The methane is the raw material for making the liquid+solid
    hydrocarbons that are things like diesel, paraffin, avaiation kerosene
    and solid paraffin wax. They contain a great deal of embodied energy
    that can be released by combustion at a later time and another place.
    These are fuels that are storable and transportable.

    3: With so
    much heat around there is going to be a need for some cooling by air or
    water at 20C. How much cooling? Perhaps 20kw for the water.

    4: The E-cat supplies 1MW of net enthalpy.

    Where did the 1MW of heat from the E-cat (and more from the combustion) go?
    Into the liquid+solid hydrocarbon fuels where it is stored.

    Where did the most of the mass of methane go?
    Into the liquid+solid hydrocarbon fuels where it is stored. Some went up the flue gas pipe as combustion products.

    How much heat was released into the Doral factory?
    20kw via the towns water cooling return and that went into the drains,
    so nothing escapes into the building, except perhaps in a bit of warmth
    in the liquid+solid fuels that are made. Even the heat from the
    lights inside the SMR+FT container goes into the liquid+solid fuels.

    you know why IH are on a hopeless quest to find a heat signature,
    except perhaps from the flue pipe and that will be as cold as the
    exhaust from my domestic condensing boiler.

    • Mats Lewan

      Brilliant GivADogABone!

      Ironically, Jed Rothwell who insists that ‘a megawatt of heat in that space would have killed everyone, yet people say it was no warmer than any normal building,’ covers exactly this kind of process in his pdf-book ‘Cold Fusion and the Future’ (see below).

      Not only that! In the excerpt below he also describes the process of making oil from organic waste, which Rossi worked with in the 80’s, and which some people still claim was fraud.


      – – – –

      ‘I have asked experts: “Could you synthesize oil from raw materials? If I gave you carbon and water, could you make any hydrocarbon petrochemical you like?” They say yes, but it would take fantastic amounts of energy. It would take as much energy to synthesize oil from carbon and water as you get from burning the oil, plus some overhead. This would be the most uneconomical chemical plant on earth. It does not occur to them, at first, that the plant would be cheap to run if energy costs nothing.

      A synthetic oil plant would resemble today’s oil refinery. The only major ongoing costs would be for the wear and tear of the equipment, such as pipes and pumps. The carbon might come from carbon dioxide in the air, or it might come from coal, garbage, or sewage, which cities will pay the plant to take. Oil is already being synthesized from organic waste in Japan and in Pennsylvania, in thermal depolymerization plants. “Personal computers, old tires and even turkey bones and feathers” are converted into oil. The Chief Executive at one such plant explained: “We are supercharging that process and doing in minutes what the earth would naturally do over hundreds of thousands of years.”

      Critics charge that the resulting oil is too expensive, it may not be useful for many applications, and the process itself consumes too much energy. With cold fusion, it will be much cheaper, and it will be widely developed in many different variations until it meets all applications for petrochemicals, from asphalt to lubricating oil. Smaller versions of these plants will be installed at factories that produce plastics. It will be more convenient, cheaper and safer to synthesize petrochemicals where they are needed, rather than pumping them out of the ground and transporting them over great distances.’

      (From Cold Fusion and the Future, Jed Rothwell, Fourth Edition April 2007, Chapter 13, p 108-109).

      • GiveADogABone

        Not finished as yet.

      • GiveADogABone

        ‘It would take as much energy to synthesize oil from carbon and water as you get from burning the oil, plus some overhead. This would be the most uneconomical chemical plant on earth.’
        MISTAKE : Coal is made of Carbon!!

        websearch: CTL coal
        CTL – Coal to Liquids
        Coal-to-Liquids can provide energy security to countries with large coal and small oil reserves
        Sasol’s Iron low-temperature technology is ideally suited for the production of diesel from Coal (CTL technology)
        Page 33 : gasification of coal and use in CTL
        Coal liquefaction is a process of converting coal into liquid hydrocarbons: liquid fuels and petrochemicals.

        I think this book Jed wrote needs another edition with the mistakes removed.

      • GiveADogABone

        Much better.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Most chemical research centers have their pilot plants some distance away from the other research labs on the sight. Some chemical companies even have their own fire trucks. They’re not a Mom and Pop organization. They wouldn’t put a synthetic fuel pilot plant here.

      • GiveADogABone

        Not even if there was a $billion profit in it?

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Especially if there’s $billion in it.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Energy is needed to keep the sodium aluminate (a salt that is created in the activation step of the Raney nickel process) in a concentrated aqueous solution so it can be filtered away from the fine nickel powder.