Hi Andrea, why do you personally worry about the robotized lines? It wouldn’t better that you leave at specialized facility this issue?
You have not to design the robots and the factories I hope.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In you posting with Hank Mills, you indicated that eCat technology with other metals, namely Palladium and Platinum, might be possible even though they are more expensive than Nickel. Can we therefore assume:
a. You have experimented with Palladium and with Platinum in eCat technology use?
b. Are you saying that for specific, unique applications, Palladium or Platinum might have a possible advantage over Nickel?
Please remember that until the R&D on course has been completed we do not know precise data related to our market strategy.
This said, if the results will be positive I think we will have models of 10 and 20 kW for the domestic versions, while the industrial plants will be initially of at least 1 MW, made by modules of 250 kW. Eventually is possible that the modules of 250 kW will behold separately and it is possible that a module of 100 kW will be made. These are just projections of virtualities. Somebody wrote somewhere that as soon as the tests will have been completed we will start the distribution of the E-Cats, but this is impossible. Provided the results will be positive, it is unthinkable that we put for sale the E-Cats before reaching an economy scale able to make our products impossible to be conveniently reproduced; we have to set up robotized production lines, make big investments…nobody can seriously think that we will be ready to distribute the E-Cats in months! Certainly, we are already working on it: for example right now, tonight, I will spend my time- if She lets me in peace- studying the robotized lines, that are very important.
When you initially put your industrial plants in the marketplace, what will be the maximum and minimum power outputs that will be available for sale?
I have looked up the prices of the two other column 10 elements, other than nickel, that could be used in an E-Cat X that was designed strictly in accordance with the patent. Palladium and platinum both cost over 1000 times more, per gram, than nickel. Palladium is $664 dollars an ounce and Platinum is $948 an ounce. Nickel, on the other hand, is about $5 dollars a pound in bulk. That equals about .31 cents an ounce. Since there are about 28 grams in an ounce, per gram, nickel only costs less than 2 cents per gram. Palladium would cost at least $23.71 a gram.
Does this rule out using column 10 elements, other than nickel, in an E-Cat X that has to be produced in the millions?
Theoretically the E-Cats, if the tests on course will confirm positive results, can be integrated in a nuclear plant as a differentiated source of heat, not in the uranium rods room, though. Practically the issues under the authorizations point of view look quite complex. What you propose is an interesting issue if we just conceive a parallel system. To put the E-Cats in the room of the uranium would contaminate them in first place, and there is no reason to do that.
Dear Mr. Rossi:
Have your Company considered feasibility of changing uranium fuel rods in Nuclear plants with rods of E-cats?
I assume the ecat could be designed to fit within the Size of uranium fuel rods, and with same energy density?
I’m sure That would be a cost effective and preferred Future for existing nuclear power plants.
Please go to http://rossilivecat/all.html
to find comments published today on the other posts of this blog.
Thank you for the very interesting information, but we are not ready for this.
As I said already, it is unthinkable that the E-Cat technology can be applied to aircrafts before 15-20 years. Surely we will make R&D immediately after the end of the tests on course also in this field. To arrive to make something real in this field will demand investments of orders of magnitude higher in our case.
Maybe some Reader of us can be interested to the link, though. We must realistically stick on the heat and electricity production.
The US Air force is having a contest:
“US Air force has $2 million prize for engine that has turbine power to weight but piston fuel efficiency”
We will evaluate all the opportunities in due time. Basically, anyway, we’ll sell products.
Now we have to think to complete our R&D.
Then , if F9>0, we’ll go in the market.
Then we’ll see, but I think we will integrate with synergy our production.
in just over three days, in accordance with European legislation 2005/32 / EC so in all countries of the EC, you will no longer install boilers which are not condensing.
As estimated by the European bureaucrats, this imposition will generate about 250,000 jobs.
How many will be able to produce (jobs) for the potential arrival of ECAT on the world market? Have you ever tried to estimate what the impact of his invention on the environment and climate?
Thanks a lot for your constant attention to our curiosity
Dear Andrea Rossi,
What will you sell, contractually?
A) A licence
B) A product
C) The energy
D) The energetical savings
Thank you for the link.
We are covering all the bases. F9.
Pekka Janhunen: thank you for the insight.
About wrapping gifts: F9.
I have great respect of your opinions on the blogs.
And here You actually take peak demand into account. many don’t
However, sometimes the “data” you depend on can let you down.
That is to say-10kW/household seems overestimated.
This depends very much on where you live & lifestyle. In the U.S., 10kW is to little for a vast number of homes peak demand. My relative(A family of 5), 2000 sq-ft home. A/C with condenser fan & evaporator blower-8kW. Clothes dryer 3.5kW, Daughter/wife blow dryer-1.8kW. The welder in his garage-10kW. That’s 23.5kW. There’s also a refrigerator, freezer, 2 flat screens(1 Large), washer, dishwasher, computer & monitor, electric range, lights, & more I’m sure I missed. Note, he would need 40Kw(135K Btu) of heat in the winter for peak periods.
The odds of all these being powered up at least once during a month at the same time is high. The odds of exceeding 10kW on any given day is a given 99%. Most of this happens within a few hours in the evening or on the weekend. His overall monthly utility use isn’t that high. But for very short periods, his electric meter phases into another dimension.
In reality, If E-cats are used as individual CHP units, every home will need to be sized for it’s individual needs with a margin of error allowed or possibly still be connected to a local district grid of some sort. Note, If someone moves in with you for a short time, this will increase utility use. As much as 25%.
People will be very dependent on a very good technician for these calculations. Peak demand has to allow for those extreme whether periods even if they are a rare occurrence. Many variables involved here.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Concerning high temperature tolerance of materials, one way might be to enclose the whole reactor, or an assembly of several reactors, in a lightly built airtight box which has a wrinkled or elastic bag attached to it for balancing internal pressure. When the box is initially closed, it contains normal air. When the reactor is started, the air inside gets heated and oxidation of the reactor parts starts, but the oxidation stops quickly when all the oxygen in the box is used up. At the same time the heated airmass expands, but pressure does not increase since the volume can change by the presence of the wrinkled bag or elastic membrane. When the reactor is stopped, the airmass cools down and shrinks and the bag gets back its wrinkles, but the air inside remains oxygen-free.
As a further improvement, there might also be some sacrificial material inside the box which gets oxidised more easily than the sensitive parts of the reactor. If so, then one can open the box for servicing the reactor when it is cool. Another batch of atmospheric oxygen then gets inside the box, but it is not harmful if there is a sufficient amount of the sacrificial material and if servicing is not done too often. When servicing, there is no need to rush with closing the box again, because nothing gets oxidised at room temperature.
If the reactor’s environment is made free of oxygen, obviously the number of materials (especially metals) that are compatible with high temperature increases a lot. What I suggest above is a way to keep oxygen away from the reactor without having to use a heavy 1 bar pressure vessel and/or an argon bottle. One only needs to have an airtight wrap and to use some sacrificial material (I don’t know which, but probably there are many, probably in powder form to have enough surface area etc).
PS. Gifts are usually wrapped so why not the E-cat.
Intelligent critics have taught to me important things that I applied during the evolution of our technology. I prefer not to disclose which have been the issues we made use of, but I can guarantee you that when a critic paper or comment is published from an intelligent person I study it carefully to squeeze out of it all the useful information it contains. We got substantial consulting from our best critics, so I can say “Thank you” to them. Our evolution is also merit of them.
In which sense your critics are useful to you?
Thank you for your kindness.
For sure we will privilege all the People of the Pre-Orders!
Anyway, we have already chosen our responsible for the marketing.
About our critics, when we will have our products in the hands of satisfied Customers, can you explain what will be their point? As I always said: if my technology will work well in the market, the critics will be the least of my problems…and if my technology will not work, the critics will be the least of my problems…so, as you can easily understand, my critics will be in either case the least of my problems. On the contrary, they are useful, because I learnt much from the critics.
When you are ready to start selling more industrial plants, will there be a marketing effort, or will you just rely on your pre-order list?
Is there an advantage to expanding your customer base without satisfying your critics?
I am following your adventure since many years…
Just wanted to thank you for your amazing work and dedication.
May the F9 be with you 😉
You have made a number of repairs on reactors over the course of this long-term test.
1. Have you changed any of the fuel or charge in any of the reactors yet?
2. Are you using the same reactors as when you started?
3. Have your repairs involved replacing components and/or materials surrounding the reactors?
4. Have you been successful in your repairs in reducing the amount of problems with the E-Cats?
If the outcome of the R&D and tests on course will be positive, the focus will be on the industrialization and the manufactiring.
The outcome of the test could be “positive or negative”, however let us assume for now that the outcome will be positive… What happens next?
Will you arrange a big press conference and start giving media interviews again? Maybe show some journalists round the test plant?
Will a roll-out of other plants to new customers begin? Can you foresee a rough timetable for this?
Thank you for your insight.
About electricity consumption, 10kW/household seems overestimated.
French household basic power is 6kWmax, and if you don’t use it for heating is overkill (I tested it).
Developed countries consume about 6MWh per year per capita, when there is few nuclear/geothermal energy (else people use electric heating) which makes below 800W per capita on average.
Peak power is linked to electric oven, iron, when not heating home.
LENR will probably find applications as CHP/trigen, either at home, or why not at district level. In my city (Villejuif-FR and around) they develop heat grid for geothermal energy, and I imagine it could be retrofitted easily with LENR. This is not optimal, but it would be stupid to waste such investment once done.
I imagine that Iceland, and their ~60kW per capita average use and abuse of electric heating (or of aluminum foundry? … this number is huge!), and may replace it with CHP.
Steven N. Karels:
Thank you for your insight.
I am not convinced of the data you calculate, but also I am not expert of solar energy and related components, therefore I am not able to comment. I will think seriously to this issue if I will have to face really this problem.
Yes, I still think the work made with Prof. Norman Cook has merit. We are still working on it.
Are you still happy with the hypothesis formulated in your paper with Norman Cook “On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production
by the E-Cat”?
Do you still think that in the e-cat “a major source of
energy is a reaction between the first excited-state of Li-7 and a proton, followed by
the breakdown of Be-8 into two alphas”?
Or have you moved on to other theories?
Should be 20m x 200m for the solar area.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You mentioned possible use of a thermal battery with solar cells for remote application of eCat technology (or words to that effect). Let’s see what this might imply…
1. 1MW thermal output running with a Carnot efficiency of 40% yields 0.4 MW of electrical power. This might be typical of a remote town of about 40 homes/building each requiring 10kW of electrical power.
2. A solar cell farm of sufficient size to convert solar insolation and store the power in a thermal battery for use to control the eCat (COP of 6 is assumed)
3. The thermal battery output runs an inverter with 80% efficiency
4. The thermal battery has a round trip efficiency of 75%
5. A DC/DC converter is needed between the solar cell farm and the thermal battery and has an efficiency of 85%
6. The insolation for the site is 1000W per square meter and the effective solar power generation time is 10 hours per day.
The 1MW thermal output eCat requires 167kWhr/hr * 24 hrs = 4MWhr in one day
The energy to the inverter will then be 5MWhr in 24 hours
The round trip efficiency of the battery will require 6.67MWhr of energy per day
The input to the DC/DC converter will need to be 7.84 MWhr per day
The solar insolation will need to be 39.2 MWhr per day or an average output of 3.92 MWhr/hr.
At 1000W/meter squared the collecting area of the solar farm will need to be about 4000 square meters or about 20m x 100m.
The eCat waste heat could be used to keep the thermal battery at its operating temperature and also used for heating the remote village.
Eliminating the eCat and just using solar cells would require the farm to be 20m x 470m… much to large for a rural project.
Compliments, of course !
I feel that your work looks like this movie: