I am confused about your answer to Frank Acland. He statet first, that you have mentioned you are doing R&D on a 1 kW Ecat SKLep. And he asked what affect this has on the plans for sales and production of the 100 E SKLeps.
Your reply was only „No“.
Could you explain, what that means in concrete? That there is no effect on the plans for sales and production of the 100 Ecat SKLeps? Or what?
Thank you if you can clarify this
Best regards – Lorenz
there is a science fiction book of Arthur K. Clarke (1953, „Childhood’s End“) which describes exactly a society in which „ordinary people never have to worry about how to fulfill their necessary needs again“. And they have „room for development of education, science, culture and care for people who are sick or old”.
I read your opinion about the recent ‘success’ of the European fusion energy experimental unit. The technologists are boasting od doubling the sustained power time from a few seconds to a few more seconds. Your explanation gives more proof of the ‘joke’ that has been around for decades: Nuclear fusion is the energy of the future, and it will always be.
But more than that, fusion energy investments have always been funded by governments, which means taxpayers’ money, our money, since the 1950s. Billions have been spent on a dream which has failed to come true after 70 years of experimenting. In the beginning it was justified, but with time, failure upon failure, the project became a fraudulent one. If there was ever hope of reaching a safe and sustainable fusion reaction, that project would have been taken over by private investment, which never happened.
I think that the E-Cat Lep will beat them to it and render the fusion project irrelevant.
Neri Accornero:
I totally agree with you. What has been presented as a success, every expert has perfectly understood that it has been a failure. They had to shut down the plant after few seconds because the magnetic fields started to be unstable, which makes the plant extremely dangerous. This is the same problem that they are having 50 years since, and this test has shown that they are still far away from a working machine. In fact they are saying it will work ” Within 20 years “. Same thing they are saying 50 years since. This stunt has been made to contiune to get funding from the taxpayer.
I envy them: they can get endless funds without being responsible or liable of anything, because they got the magic formula: ” We will have a working pant in 20 years”: like an egg that as expiration day has the mark ” Next week”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Roberto Ruffato:
Thank you for your kind support.
1- yes
2- which value of vacuum are you talking of, expressed in Torrs ? The Ecat SKLep is not designed to work in high vacuum.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi,
I have been following you for many years in silence (I can say from the beginning of your adventure) very interested in the excellent work you have done together with your team.
Of course I will soon have the opportunity to receive those few SKLeps that I have been able to order with my economic capabilities. Meanwhile I would like, if possible, to confirm the single SKLep can work in a hermetically sealed container:
1) i.e. 1.0 atm. @ 25°C with no internal gas exchange
Or
2) in vacuum
Thank you and good luck for the rapid achievement of the target of one million devices ordered.
Dear Andrea, I am scandalized! You will have seen that here in Europe for a couple of days all the media speak about the “fantastic progress of the JET reactor which would have produced a fusion of hydrogen for a good 5 seconds, a huge step forward compared to the experiment of 25 years ago” (which lasted 2 seconds). It is very clear that it is hoped to divert attention from the current energy disaster which has tripled the costs of electricity and gas in Europe and which risks blocking industrial production. It is a pity that only at the bottom of a few articles is it specified that perhaps only in 2050 we will have this energy. I do not dispute that this project run a lot of money, employ a lot of people and stimulate research, but the necessary energy will not come from here. And in any case, if it ever works, we will always be under the yoke of large retailers. They also try to peddle fission nuclear power as renewable energy to hook up with state contributions. But do they think they really take us by the nose? Run Andrea run free us all.
For example, in theory, Windmills could be produced using electrical energy generated by windmills. They could also be installed, maintained, serviced and at end of life recycled using renewable energy generated by windmills.
That could be true in terms of energy used in manufacture of your Ecat SKLep, if not initially of supplying the necessary materials.
That feature could be a good advertising or ‘selling point’ for your device and Company.
Do you like that concept and maybe aim to use that in your Ecat production facilities at some point?
With best wishes for reaching your target of one million pre orders, mass production and distribution of your Ecat SKLep product, hopefully this year;
LarryG:
There are not statistics I can link you to, but my profession makes me read RG everyday and I made a calculation of which is the average physics paper readings number to compare it to the readings of http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
that today is over 91200 readings
and observed that the readings of the paper published by Andrea Rossi is superior of 2 orders of magnitude to such average.
Best
Prof
Caro Dr. Rossi, non riesco a capacitarmi come un imprenditore innovativo e visionario come Elon Musk, non si sia ancora accaparrata l’esclusiva sull’utilizzo di una tecnologia come la Sua che gli consentirebbe di vendere milioni di veicoli elettrici con una autonomia energetica decennale, sbaragliando la concorrenza mondiale.
A mio modesto parere costui è totalmente all’oscuro dell’esistenza del Suo reattore rivoluzionario.
Cordiali saluti
If ordinary people never have to worry about how to fulfill their necessary needs again, there will be room for development of education, science, culture and care for people who are sick or old. If the consumer society and the depletion of finite resources lead to a fully circular economy, and we can stop the rat race, then the world can also become much better if we have unlimited energy resources.
The decline of the planet as a result of the necessary and by many desired economics, as you describe it, was a necessary intermediate step to arrive at the necessary insights and technology.
However, the minds of the people of our time are not yet ripe for this. You need at least three generations – four according to the visionary authors of the Bible – for a cultural shift to sustainability, and afterwards you have to guard against the return of the old demons: We must not forget that many people who still have to fight today for food and survival and for that reason declare that we must become more sustainable, could soon become great lovers of luxury products and prestige. A true civilization worthy of the name should be able to avoid the latter.
In order to achieve that, all successful examples and protagonists of today’s systems must first have died, and their consolidated power structures collapsed or rationalized to the needs of society. That collapse is now beginning. The big names on the set will either have to conform or they will be reviled and discredited. That process is also well underway.
Se la sua invenzione funziona, Rossi, le conseguenze per il pianeta saranno “devastanti”. Alcuni esempi positivi e negativi senza volerli giudicare:
1. Scomparsa di pale eoliche e pannelli fotovoltaici in tutto il mondo
2. Scomparsa di un infinito numero di fabbriche/impianti: petroliferi, produzione di batterie, elettrici, distribuzione energetica, impianti di riscaldamento convenzionali… con enorme perdita di posti di lavoro
3. Conseguenze geopolitiche per il disinteressamento generale per il petrolio
4. Incrementato “spreco” di energia (“tanto non costa nulla o quasi”)
5. Progetti “pazzi” (la fusione del ghiaccio artico in inverno per aprire rotte commerciali, riscaldamento o raffreddamento di aree del pianeta…)
6. Maggiore benessere generale
7. Progressi enormi nella lotta a fame e povertà
8. Col benessere diminuzione della popolazione mondiale
9. …
Ha in mano una “bomba devastante” sia in senso positivo che negativo, Rossi.
Ne faccia buon uso, anche se non dipenderà tutto da lei.
If your invention works, Rossi, the consequences for the planet will be “devastating.” Some positive and negative examples without wanting to judge them:
1. End of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels around the world
2. End of an infinite number of factories / plants: oil, battery production, electrical, energy distribution, conventional heating systems … with huge loss of jobs
3. Geopolitical consequences for the general disinterest in oil
4. Increased “waste” of energy (“it costs nothing or almost nothing”)
5. Crazy” projects (melting of Arctic ice in winter to open trade routes, heating or cooling of areas of the planet…)
6. Greater general well-being
7. Enormous progress in the fight against hunger and poverty
8. With increasing welfare decrease in world population
9. …
You have in your hand a “devastating bomb” both in a positive and negative sense, Rossi.
Make good use of it, although it won’t all depend on you.
Thank you for your continuing updates re Research Gate statistics for Andrea.
In one of your posts you mentioned the averages for Readings: 200, Recommendations: 20, Citations: 3. Total Research Interest index: 15. I was unable to locate these statistics on RG, could you please link me to them?
I was observing the E-Cat logo and as all cats are, this cat is very intrigued about this specific red ball. Why this red ball, I wondered? Then it struck me, perhaps the curious cat is questioning why an unusual red light is emanating from it. So, with a little abstract fun, I thought why not reposition the red LED power light behind the translucent red ball in emphases to the cat’s curiosity. This would be a great eye-catcher for what the E-Cat module really represents – energy generated from an endless invisible source. You had mentioned eventually a final design work may be done and thought something like this may be considered.
Looking forward to your cats’ arrival.
Brokeeper
Dear Mr. Rossi,
once you wrote ‘it is cheaper to produce an ecat SKLed than an ecat SKLEP’ because it is less complex.
The SKLed produces just heat/light(also light end as heat). Therefore i would think it is a good idea to produce an SKLHeat for heating. It will be achieved at a more favourable price than to produce first electricity and therewith the heat.
Best regards
Rainer
It occurred to me that the techniques discussed in this article on ‘Density Functional Theory’ (DFT) might be useful not only for
chemical structure analysis but perhaps in low density plasma simulations & analysis. e.g., of Clusters of electrons, ions and composites (such as ‘Tresinos’)
On a more down-to-earth matter, if the owner/operator of a set of
E-Cat SKLep units (e.g. 10-30), has used them for approx. 10-12 years and afterwards has to replace 1 or more of them:
1. Will replacement/recharging(?) costs for each unit be the same as the original cost in current (2022) US dollar or Euro value, or
2. Will the repair/replacement depend on the nature of the failure mode (reduced power, erratic performance, or internal damage.
Perhaps, in another 10 years, newer models may have more capability and therefore be of greater value.
These questions probably will be better answered after multitudes of Cats have been running for some time.
‘Auguri’ on reaching (nearly) 800,000 orders. In the next decade, I predict this number will increase by a few ‘orders’ of magnitude. The world certainly needs it. Take care of yourself.
Andrea, to paraphrase your answer, I think you are saying using Wh/h takes into account the option of not constant power during the time period.
My point is for an average of X wH/H power production or consumption for time period T, this is also an average of X w power production over the same time period. Please explain why this statement is false if you do not agree with it.
LarryG:
No sir, power is expressed in W = Watts ( or kW for 1000 W, MW for 10^6 W, etc ); energy is expressed in Wh = Watthour ( or kWh for 1000 Wh, MWh for 10^6 Wh, etc ).
Wh/h is the expression that indicates how many Wh are consumed or generated in one hour. This is the way (typos permitting) I use and anybody who has understood the concept of energy and of power uses.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Because SKLEP is very small, I would like to know if the internal temperature of SKLep at the max output power is significantly higher to the ambient temperature, and so it is important to make a thermal design of the system in case multiple SKLep are connected in series or in parallel to create high output power system
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I am confused about your answer to Frank Acland. He statet first, that you have mentioned you are doing R&D on a 1 kW Ecat SKLep. And he asked what affect this has on the plans for sales and production of the 100 E SKLeps.
Your reply was only „No“.
Could you explain, what that means in concrete? That there is no effect on the plans for sales and production of the 100 Ecat SKLeps? Or what?
Thank you if you can clarify this
Best regards – Lorenz
Albert Ellul:
Thank you for your opinion, I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Koen Wanderwalle,
there is a science fiction book of Arthur K. Clarke (1953, „Childhood’s End“) which describes exactly a society in which „ordinary people never have to worry about how to fulfill their necessary needs again“. And they have „room for development of education, science, culture and care for people who are sick or old”.
Maybe this will become true soon.
Dar Dr. Rossi,
I read your opinion about the recent ‘success’ of the European fusion energy experimental unit. The technologists are boasting od doubling the sustained power time from a few seconds to a few more seconds. Your explanation gives more proof of the ‘joke’ that has been around for decades: Nuclear fusion is the energy of the future, and it will always be.
But more than that, fusion energy investments have always been funded by governments, which means taxpayers’ money, our money, since the 1950s. Billions have been spent on a dream which has failed to come true after 70 years of experimenting. In the beginning it was justified, but with time, failure upon failure, the project became a fraudulent one. If there was ever hope of reaching a safe and sustainable fusion reaction, that project would have been taken over by private investment, which never happened.
I think that the E-Cat Lep will beat them to it and render the fusion project irrelevant.
LarryG,
You are very welcome,
Best,
Prof
Prof, thank you very much for your fast and informative response re RG statistics.
Best Regards
LarryG
Neri Accornero:
I totally agree with you. What has been presented as a success, every expert has perfectly understood that it has been a failure. They had to shut down the plant after few seconds because the magnetic fields started to be unstable, which makes the plant extremely dangerous. This is the same problem that they are having 50 years since, and this test has shown that they are still far away from a working machine. In fact they are saying it will work ” Within 20 years “. Same thing they are saying 50 years since. This stunt has been made to contiune to get funding from the taxpayer.
I envy them: they can get endless funds without being responsible or liable of anything, because they got the magic formula: ” We will have a working pant in 20 years”: like an egg that as expiration day has the mark ” Next week”.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Roberto Ruffato:
Thank you for your kind support.
1- yes
2- which value of vacuum are you talking of, expressed in Torrs ? The Ecat SKLep is not designed to work in high vacuum.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi,
I have been following you for many years in silence (I can say from the beginning of your adventure) very interested in the excellent work you have done together with your team.
Of course I will soon have the opportunity to receive those few SKLeps that I have been able to order with my economic capabilities. Meanwhile I would like, if possible, to confirm the single SKLep can work in a hermetically sealed container:
1) i.e. 1.0 atm. @ 25°C with no internal gas exchange
Or
2) in vacuum
Thank you and good luck for the rapid achievement of the target of one million devices ordered.
Regards
Roberto
Dear Andrea, I am scandalized! You will have seen that here in Europe for a couple of days all the media speak about the “fantastic progress of the JET reactor which would have produced a fusion of hydrogen for a good 5 seconds, a huge step forward compared to the experiment of 25 years ago” (which lasted 2 seconds). It is very clear that it is hoped to divert attention from the current energy disaster which has tripled the costs of electricity and gas in Europe and which risks blocking industrial production. It is a pity that only at the bottom of a few articles is it specified that perhaps only in 2050 we will have this energy. I do not dispute that this project run a lot of money, employ a lot of people and stimulate research, but the necessary energy will not come from here. And in any case, if it ever works, we will always be under the yoke of large retailers. They also try to peddle fission nuclear power as renewable energy to hook up with state contributions. But do they think they really take us by the nose? Run Andrea run free us all.
Richard Wells:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
No
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Brokeeper:
Thank you for observing our trade mark !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi.
I ‘like’ the concept of virtuous circles.
For example, in theory, Windmills could be produced using electrical energy generated by windmills. They could also be installed, maintained, serviced and at end of life recycled using renewable energy generated by windmills.
That could be true in terms of energy used in manufacture of your Ecat SKLep, if not initially of supplying the necessary materials.
That feature could be a good advertising or ‘selling point’ for your device and Company.
Do you like that concept and maybe aim to use that in your Ecat production facilities at some point?
With best wishes for reaching your target of one million pre orders, mass production and distribution of your Ecat SKLep product, hopefully this year;
Richard Wells.
LarryG:
There are not statistics I can link you to, but my profession makes me read RG everyday and I made a calculation of which is the average physics paper readings number to compare it to the readings of
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
that today is over 91200 readings
and observed that the readings of the paper published by Andrea Rossi is superior of 2 orders of magnitude to such average.
Best
Prof
Caro Dr. Rossi, non riesco a capacitarmi come un imprenditore innovativo e visionario come Elon Musk, non si sia ancora accaparrata l’esclusiva sull’utilizzo di una tecnologia come la Sua che gli consentirebbe di vendere milioni di veicoli elettrici con una autonomia energetica decennale, sbaragliando la concorrenza mondiale.
A mio modesto parere costui è totalmente all’oscuro dell’esistenza del Suo reattore rivoluzionario.
Cordiali saluti
Vincenzo Bonomo
Dear Enzo Amazo
If ordinary people never have to worry about how to fulfill their necessary needs again, there will be room for development of education, science, culture and care for people who are sick or old. If the consumer society and the depletion of finite resources lead to a fully circular economy, and we can stop the rat race, then the world can also become much better if we have unlimited energy resources.
The decline of the planet as a result of the necessary and by many desired economics, as you describe it, was a necessary intermediate step to arrive at the necessary insights and technology.
However, the minds of the people of our time are not yet ripe for this. You need at least three generations – four according to the visionary authors of the Bible – for a cultural shift to sustainability, and afterwards you have to guard against the return of the old demons: We must not forget that many people who still have to fight today for food and survival and for that reason declare that we must become more sustainable, could soon become great lovers of luxury products and prestige. A true civilization worthy of the name should be able to avoid the latter.
In order to achieve that, all successful examples and protagonists of today’s systems must first have died, and their consolidated power structures collapsed or rationalized to the needs of society. That collapse is now beginning. The big names on the set will either have to conform or they will be reviled and discredited. That process is also well underway.
I agree with your reasoning on that point.
Kind regards,
Koen
I think is best to produce 100W for 10 years for 250$ than 59 megajoule for only 5 seconds for many millions of €…
https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2022/02/09/nucleare-gli-scienziati-europei-annunciano-una-svolta-nella-ricerca-sulla-fusione-carrozza-cnr-passo-cruciale-verso-la-produzione-di-energia-abbondante-ed-eco-sostenibile/6487905/
Se la sua invenzione funziona, Rossi, le conseguenze per il pianeta saranno “devastanti”. Alcuni esempi positivi e negativi senza volerli giudicare:
1. Scomparsa di pale eoliche e pannelli fotovoltaici in tutto il mondo
2. Scomparsa di un infinito numero di fabbriche/impianti: petroliferi, produzione di batterie, elettrici, distribuzione energetica, impianti di riscaldamento convenzionali… con enorme perdita di posti di lavoro
3. Conseguenze geopolitiche per il disinteressamento generale per il petrolio
4. Incrementato “spreco” di energia (“tanto non costa nulla o quasi”)
5. Progetti “pazzi” (la fusione del ghiaccio artico in inverno per aprire rotte commerciali, riscaldamento o raffreddamento di aree del pianeta…)
6. Maggiore benessere generale
7. Progressi enormi nella lotta a fame e povertà
8. Col benessere diminuzione della popolazione mondiale
9. …
Ha in mano una “bomba devastante” sia in senso positivo che negativo, Rossi.
Ne faccia buon uso, anche se non dipenderà tutto da lei.
If your invention works, Rossi, the consequences for the planet will be “devastating.” Some positive and negative examples without wanting to judge them:
1. End of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels around the world
2. End of an infinite number of factories / plants: oil, battery production, electrical, energy distribution, conventional heating systems … with huge loss of jobs
3. Geopolitical consequences for the general disinterest in oil
4. Increased “waste” of energy (“it costs nothing or almost nothing”)
5. Crazy” projects (melting of Arctic ice in winter to open trade routes, heating or cooling of areas of the planet…)
6. Greater general well-being
7. Enormous progress in the fight against hunger and poverty
8. With increasing welfare decrease in world population
9. …
You have in your hand a “devastating bomb” both in a positive and negative sense, Rossi.
Make good use of it, although it won’t all depend on you.
Dear Prof:
Thank you for your continuing updates re Research Gate statistics for Andrea.
In one of your posts you mentioned the averages for Readings: 200, Recommendations: 20, Citations: 3. Total Research Interest index: 15. I was unable to locate these statistics on RG, could you please link me to them?
Best Regards
LarryG
Dear Andrea,
I was observing the E-Cat logo and as all cats are, this cat is very intrigued about this specific red ball. Why this red ball, I wondered? Then it struck me, perhaps the curious cat is questioning why an unusual red light is emanating from it. So, with a little abstract fun, I thought why not reposition the red LED power light behind the translucent red ball in emphases to the cat’s curiosity. This would be a great eye-catcher for what the E-Cat module really represents – energy generated from an endless invisible source. You had mentioned eventually a final design work may be done and thought something like this may be considered.
Looking forward to your cats’ arrival.
Brokeeper
Dear Andrea,
You have mentioned you are doing R&D on a 1 kW Ecat SKLep. What affect does this have on the plans for sales and production of the 100 W Skleps?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Italo R.:
Thank you for your opinion, but it is wrong.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Rainer H.:
It does not work that way,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
once you wrote ‘it is cheaper to produce an ecat SKLed than an ecat SKLEP’ because it is less complex.
The SKLed produces just heat/light(also light end as heat). Therefore i would think it is a good idea to produce an SKLHeat for heating. It will be achieved at a more favourable price than to produce first electricity and therewith the heat.
Best regards
Rainer
Dear Dr. Rossi,
when you will make a 1 kW SKLep, the current type will become obsolete.
Best regards,
Italo R.
Anonymous:
We are making R&D on this issue,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Stephen:
He,he,he…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
This should get some creative minds speculating 😉
The SKLEP has been looking strangely familiar for a while and I was was wondering why.
Just now I realized it was this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS
Best Regards
Stephen
Dr Rossi:
Are you presently working to make a single unit with a power in the order of magnitude of 1 kW ?
Prof:
Thank you for the update,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
I watched today the stats of
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
The readings as of now reached the number of 91000 ( and counting )
Congratulations,
Prof
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I recently read a recent ‘Quanta Magazine’ article on Quantum Complexity and thought it might be interesting to you and your readers.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-complexity-tamed-by-machine-learning-20220207/
It occurred to me that the techniques discussed in this article on ‘Density Functional Theory’ (DFT) might be useful not only for
chemical structure analysis but perhaps in low density plasma simulations & analysis. e.g., of Clusters of electrons, ions and composites (such as ‘Tresinos’)
On a more down-to-earth matter, if the owner/operator of a set of
E-Cat SKLep units (e.g. 10-30), has used them for approx. 10-12 years and afterwards has to replace 1 or more of them:
1. Will replacement/recharging(?) costs for each unit be the same as the original cost in current (2022) US dollar or Euro value, or
2. Will the repair/replacement depend on the nature of the failure mode (reduced power, erratic performance, or internal damage.
Perhaps, in another 10 years, newer models may have more capability and therefore be of greater value.
These questions probably will be better answered after multitudes of Cats have been running for some time.
‘Auguri’ on reaching (nearly) 800,000 orders. In the next decade, I predict this number will increase by a few ‘orders’ of magnitude. The world certainly needs it. Take care of yourself.
“Keep on keeping on.”
Joseph Fine
LarryG:
Nonsense, please read carefully my answer to you earlier today,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Frank Acland:
No, but it is possible to make turn electricity into heat using a resistance as a load,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joseph J:
None: the Ecats for the EU will be made in Europe.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
JULIA:
Thank you for your attention to our work,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
I studied the paragraphs 2,3,4,5 of
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
and, as you wrote today here, actually I understood which is the theoretical root of the Ecat operation.
It is not a case that this paper is the most read physics paper of Researchgate.
Best,
Julia
Dear Andrea
In which category (Tariff number) do you bring the SKlep to the European market?
https://www.tariffnumber.com/2022/8501
Best regards
Joseph
Dear Andrea,
Is it possible to ‘tune’ the Ecat SKLep with a different control system so that it becomes a heater, rather than an electricity generator?
Best wishes,
Frank Acland
Andrea, to paraphrase your answer, I think you are saying using Wh/h takes into account the option of not constant power during the time period.
My point is for an average of X wH/H power production or consumption for time period T, this is also an average of X w power production over the same time period. Please explain why this statement is false if you do not agree with it.
Regards
LarryG
Maico:
Not yet, but close,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I sincerely hope your wonderful discovery finally goes into production.
A question if I can:
have 800,000 pre-orders been reached?
thank you for all the effort you are making to bring your technology to market
best regards
Maico
Roberto:
The core is in the paragraphs 2,3,4,5
Warm Regards,
A.R.
LarryG:
No sir, power is expressed in W = Watts ( or kW for 1000 W, MW for 10^6 W, etc ); energy is expressed in Wh = Watthour ( or kWh for 1000 Wh, MWh for 10^6 Wh, etc ).
Wh/h is the expression that indicates how many Wh are consumed or generated in one hour. This is the way (typos permitting) I use and anybody who has understood the concept of energy and of power uses.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
I have only seen you use kWh/h for units of power, rather than the simpler kW. Is there a reason you prefer the kWh/H?
Regards
LarryG
Dear r Andrea Rossi,
in the paper
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330601653_E-Cat_SK_and_long_range_particle_interactions
which is the part that better explains the theoretical bases of the Ecat’s operation ?
Mario:
No, the heat is irrelevant. That’s a feature of our technology.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi
Because SKLEP is very small, I would like to know if the internal temperature of SKLep at the max output power is significantly higher to the ambient temperature, and so it is important to make a thermal design of the system in case multiple SKLep are connected in series or in parallel to create high output power system
Regards
Mario
Richard Wells:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.