By
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson,
Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
Abstract
Abstract-A heat by product of an oscillation has an exploitable potential as this relates to the efficient use of energy, which is the subject of the first part of this two-part paper.
This second part looks at the implications of that oscillation as it confronts certain assumptions related to current flow.
An oscillation is induced on a circuit that then enables a reversing current flow that exceeds the circuit restrictions to this flow.
This is explained using an extension to Faraday’s model of Lines of Force to include a dual charge in the material property of current flow.
These explanations are nonstandard and form a small part of a magnetic field model that predicted and required these results.
The analysis concludes that energy can be sourced from the inductive and conductive circuit material.
[…] Seimens Working on E-Cat Electrical Production August 1, 2012A couple of comments from Andrea Rossi indicate that Seimens AG, the giant German engineering firm is working with […]
Dear Andrew:
Average: about 50% of the time, both.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear AB:
you can contact
adolf.schneider@vtxmail.ch
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Louis Perez:
1- the industrial plants need specific local authorizations, as any industrial plant
2- no
3- yes
4- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Stan Lippman:
Thank you, I will go through it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Are you aware there is already an automotive 4 cylinder 62 KW Stirling engine developed by NASA in the 1980’s. It should have been mass produced, as it is almost twice as efficient as an ICE. The Infinia Stirling engine on the market is derived from this research. According to the linked report, the operating temperature of the heater head is 820 C, so your device could simply replace the fuel burning head with ~100 KW LENR head, since it is about 60% efficient.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880002196_1988002196.pdf
Dear Marco, Siemens was founded October 1, 1847.
They have 360,000 employees
in 190 Countries.
Their Net Income is about 10 billion USD a year.
In my opinion:
They will help Dr. Rossi.
They will not steal from him.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Thanks for your work on the E-Cat. It is a great invention that must be used.
The 1MW is the only E-Cat usable for now. The home E-Cat cant be sold.
Do you think the 1MW E-Cat is now usable for industrial applications without any special agreement or validation?
Is Siemens trying to make working a steam engine with 1MW E-Cat ?
Is there other attemps to do that?
Is there attemps to use the 1MW E-Cat as hot water or steam production for industry or services ?
Regards,
Louis
Dear Mr Rossi
I have read that the ecat technology will be presented at a conference in Zurich this september. Can you tell me the name of this event? I would like to come visit if it’s open to the public.
Thank you
dear Andrea
you said
It isn under third party validation right in these days.
I confirm el. pwr is not strictly necessary.
Warm Regards,
How long can the ecat run in self sustain mode now please!!!!
answers for the domestic and ‘hot cat’ if you can!
many thanks
Andrew
Dear Alessandre Coppi:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Marco:
We trust in Siemens.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron,
I have questions about the test circuit:
1. It appears the signal generator connection to the circuit introduce non zero capacitance and non-zero conductance even the off time, directly affect the self resonance of the circuit. Do you assure the circuit work as is reported when signal generator is removed from the circuit (see question 2)? Otherwise isn’t it difficult to repoduce without making exact replication of the setup(*)?
2. It appears the circuit oscillator will run indefinitely once a ‘kick’ pulse is received from the signal generator. So, isn’t it possible to remove the signal generator from the circuit and just give the kick by simple touching the gate by a small metal object which induce a transient enough to start the oscillations?
3. In the article it is mentioned the ‘offset’ of the signal generator in order to tune the circuit. This ‘offset’ is it the Offset knob?
4. Is the phenomenon has been ever observed with different configuration of the circuit?
If so please explain what make this final setup better than others?
(*) Parasitic capacitance down to few pf may affect the regime of self resonating circuit.
Thanks,
Hamdi Ucar
Dear Andrea,
some day ago I asked you something about Siemens turbines, since Siemens is about to buy Ansaldo Energia.
Now I have gathered more detailed information.
First, the acquisition of Ansaldo Energia by Siemens is very likely.
Second, Ansaldo Energia has better turbines as Siemens, so this is one of the reasons of its interest.
Third, Ansaldo Energia has strong Nuclear Power expertise, again a strong reason to buy it.
Fourth, and most relevant for your concerns, Ansaldo Energia has a department working on cold fusion/LENR energy…
I don’t know if after this acquisition Siemens is going to be the best partner for you. It could steal your secrets…
What do you think?
Hi Andrea, yesterday you said: “Yes, now the Sterling engine is an option”.
I remember you this my previous post:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=14#comment-31342
The el power production technology is already available for the consumer market! you have only to pick it.
Best regards
Alessandro Coppi
Dear Ivan:
Thank you, do not worry, we are working to produce, not to hidden.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear MR Rossi, Thanks lots for your answers,
now I visualize the e_cat like a stainless steel container, in whick a mix or Nickel powder and hydrogen at certain presure are combined with some secret catalizer, then you increase the entropy of the system by adding energy in the form of heat, and … !eureka. We have a heat reactor.
Mr Rossi, Thanks for your efforts in advancing humanity towards a more prosperous future, a future where poverty does not exists.
I just cross fingers your device is never lost of hidden. so its benefits could reach us all.
I know you and your family deserve the economic prosperity for your invention, but please take messures for your device never to be lost or hidden from humanity.
Kind Regards.
Ivan.
Dear Lucio Martini:
Thank you for your comment. Yes, now the Sterling engine is an option.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear gio:
yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
I do not know.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi: Do you think the third party validation of the Hot Cat will be an acceptable demonstration for the Patent office to issue a patent? Thank you for all your hard work and keeping us informed on this site.
Carissimo Ing.Rossi
are you working to improve the 1MW dimensions , making it smaller ?
Cordialità
gio
Estimeed Eng.Rossi
If hot-cat provides steam at 1000 ° C (Centigrade) = 1832 ° F (Fahrenheit), the Stirling engine should be very suitable. The drive might be talking about very elementary: Hot-cat/ Stirling Engine / Dynamo – storage battery / DC Motor
Everything installed on, Ships, Trains, Trucks, …, Cars ..? ..
Mi si permetta di segnalare, a proposito di BARONI UNIVERSITARI due citazioni:
Gli spiriti mediocri, di solito condannano quanto è fuori dalla loro portata (quello che non capiscono) (F.de Larochefoucault).
Nella scienza le nuove idee non si affermano grazie al loro valore, ma grazie al fatto che chi sostiene le vecchie idee, muore! (Max Plank)
Allow me, in order of the Universitary Barons, to signal these two quotations
1-Usually, the poor spirit condemn what is beyond their unreach (what they do not understand)
(F. de Larochefoucault).
2-In science, new ideas do not say thanks to their value, but thanks to those who support the old ideas, die! (Max Plank)
Thanks a lot for your attention, and
All the best
Dear Ivan:
It isn under third party validation right in these days.
I confirm el. pwr is not strictly necessary.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Mr Rossi, Always wishing the best in your endevours, In previous question you replied:
Andrea Rossi
July 25th, 2012 at 6:55 AM
Dear Ivan:
No, it is not.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ivan
July 24th, 2012 at 8:39 PM
Dear Dr Rossi, I have asked a too detailed question before, but I will like to put it in a more generic way. As initial energy could be supplied in different ways, Is electric input absolutely necesary for the ecat?
Kind Regards.
Ivan.
1- Four your answer, we could imply the ecat could run in areas where electricity is not available, using just heat to prime the device?
2- When are you planning to release the information about your device to public domain, for pier to pier review?
Kind regards.
Ivan.
Dear Antenna:
Yes, it is possible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
At 1000C your hot cat is very close to the temperatures I need in my electric kilns.
Could a high temperature ecat be placed directly into the bottom of one of these kilns and replace the need for the electric element heating (220v @ 60amps)? Is it possible that the existing electric elements in the kiln could supply the necessary heat to ignite and or control the ecat reaction?
Thank you,
Antenna
Dear Neri B.:
1- For cars applications you have to go through series of certifications and tests by the carmakers. It will take no less than 20 years.
2- Yes, the Hot Cats will be validated
3- the electric power production is close, after the high temp. has been reached
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
in your reply to Eugenio you stated that you think LENR for cars will take more than 20 years to come. Could you please be more specific? I don’t understand…LENR for cars are already there and for me they are electric cars. Once you will be ready to give an electric generator based on LENR (and your actual fantastic progress on 600/1000 °C eCat are in the right direction) cars will be charged with eCat generator.
If you mean LENR as “on board” generator there is eventually stirling engine technology: so far it has low energy density (you need more cubic cm for the same power in respect to gasoline) but a prototype of Stirling Engine LENR car i think you are already ready to build and R&D progress will come in parallel to increase efficiency and improving the technology.
By the way, if you can reply me, what is your estimate time for a prototype 1000°C eCat electric generator (based on whatever technology and not considering the certificators)? Are you planning a public demo of the future electric generator once ready as you did for 1 MW plant last October? It would be really exciting to see a generator taking no input from the grid and turning on a series of lamps (for example)…this way no more boring chatterings from skeptics, pseudo skeptics, calorimetric “experts”.. 🙂
Thank you for your kind attention…i patiently wait for your device as a hope for our energy need and global warming
Keep the good job
Neri B.
Dear andreafnk (Andrea Franchin):
Interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
thank you very much for the explanation. Everything is much more clear now.
About NASA, they decided to use the Plutonium RTG on the new Mars rover because the old “solar models” had 2 problems:
1. They could basically work 50% of the day (with sunlight)
2. The dust created problems with the efficiency of the solar panels
Regards
Andrea Franchin
Dear Italo R.:
You are right.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
You are right, but those things are laboratory prototypes. If anybody brings me a thermoelectric converter industrialized and ready to be used, I buy it on the spot and test it immediately, if the price is acceptable ( 1 000 $/ kW)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear andreafnk (Andrea Franchin):
As I expected. I know very well the Seebeck effect, because I worked very much with it in the USA in 1997, 1998, 1999. I succeeded to make a prototype with a very high efficiency ( around 20%), but it had been made by myself, making a very difficult and expensive process of directional fusion of the bismuth telluride, using antimony and selenium for the doping. The prototype of 100 W costed 30,000 $. When I tried to industrialize the production to reach acceptable prices, the directional fusion, even if slightly less precise, caused a drop of efficiency down to 3-5%. I abandoned this tech for this reason. We are trying a more efficient direct conversion, thanks also to the help of a US scientist I knew on this blog.
Anyway I must say your info is interesting: I knew that NASA had abandoned the plutonium thermoelectric generators because dangerous in case of fall of the vector.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Well, like you said is pretty low.
2000W of thermal power converted in 120W of electric power. It makes 6% of conversion efficiency.
For sure this technology is not adapted to power up buildings, but it has other advantages.
For example it’s “portable” and doesn’t require water steam (or other liquid) to convert the thermal power into electric power. It would be perfect to be installed in an electric car or other vehicles (trains, trucks etc)
How much thermal power does the latest single-module ECAT produce?
Thanks
Andrea Franchin
Dear Andrea Rossi,
A search of the internet indicated thermoelectric efficiencies are around 10% although I saw an MIT article about a new thermoelectric device achieving 18% or higher.
So let us assume a 10kW eCat with a COP of 6. Therefore, the input power is 10,000W / 6 or 1,666W. Assume the output electrical power is 10% efficiency. This would yield 1,000W of the 1,666W required. The addition “net” input power would now be 666W. The effective COP would be now 10,000 / 666 or about 15.
This assumes the cost and the size of the thermoelectric addition would not be prohibitive. If the efficiency were to reach 18 – 20%, and the power stored in a battery, perhaps the COP would become near infinite.
I suspect the cost, complexity and size would not be worthwhile for most eCat applications. But some specialized applications, it might be possible.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
“…RTGs use thermoelectric couples or “thermocouples” to convert heat from the radioactive material into electricity. Thermocouples, though very reliable and long-lasting, are very inefficient; efficiencies above 10% have never been achieved and most RTGs have efficiencies between 3–7%…”
Dear andreafnk:
Which is the conversion efficiency?
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Correct link on my previous post: http://nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/MMRTG.pdf
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I’m not quite sure about your answer to my previous question. The RTG doesn’t require radiations but it does require simply an heat source. NASA uses Plutonium 238 because is naturally hot (the natural radioactive decay keeps it hot).
That’s why I suggested to replace the Plutonium with your reactor.
The “Curiosity” RTG produces 120W of electric power and 2000W of thermal power (here the NASA document with the data , check bottom of page 2 on the left: http://nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/MMRTG.pdf).
I thought the ECAT could produce more than 2000W of thermal power. Am I right?
Thanks again
Andrea Franchin
-Dear Steven N. Karels,
thanks for your proposal, if you want to send me a synopsis I’ll be glad to give you my feedback. But I think Mr. Rossi would like to keep clean this site from Sci-fi topics 🙂
(send it to info@fnkindustries.com)
Bests
Andrea Franchin
Dear Joe:
1- yes
2- confidential
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
1. Are you following up your improvements to the E-Cat with the appropriate patent applications?
2. Is the phenomenon of pair production an option when trying to create electricity with the E-Cat? If the energies of the gamma photons exceed 1.02 MeV, they could be converted into the mass of an electron-positron pair. The geometry of the reactor and the distribution of the reactants would be such as to optimize for this potentiality. This should offer the most efficient conversion method with minimal heating of the Pb. The presence of a magnetic field from a permanent magnet would draw a current of electrons and positrons away from the reactor in opposite directions in order to be harnessed.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Steven N. Karels:
In a fantascientific screenplay that works!
Good luck for your novels,
Warm Regards,
A.
Andrea Franchin and Andrea Rossi,
In addition to posting here, my work in engineering, I also write sci-fi (and other genre) screenplays. One story I am working on involves mining Helium-3 on the moon for power production. Perhaps an adaptation of the Rossi eCat could be used with He3? If we assume the nickel structure allows the hydrogen atoms to fuse (with nickel?) perhaps the nickel might support He3-He3 fusion. The reaction is aneutronic (doesn’t produce neutrons). The scenario might be energy production on extra-terrestrial locations (moon, planets) where transportation of water is expensive. The lunar surface has a high level of He3 due to loading from the Sun.
Andrea Franchin – let me know if you would like to read any of my screenplays – I promise not to be a pest.
Dear Andreafnk:
Interesting issue. Seebeck effect has a too low efficiency to be useful for us, considering that , for obvious reasons, we cannot use…Plutonium!
With our materials, which are not radioactive, this tech is impossible.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Antenna:
The work of Rosemary Ainsle is interesting.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The work of Rosemary Ainslie is important and can be metaphorically validated by the work you are doing. As you work to switch the world to a more sustainable way of life, exorbitant amounts of waste heat and counter emf are returned by the impedance of the distractor universe.
Good afternoon, I’m not sure this is the right place to post, but I’m sure the previous comments are pertinent.
First of all, I’m not a physicist, but a motion picture producer (video/spot etc.), and I’ve a big passion for science.
About a month ago I proposed to Mr. Rossi, an adaptation of the RTG (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) used by NASA in several project (the last is “Curiosity Mars Science Lab” – btw it will land on Mars in 9 days).
Basically the RTG use the Seebeck effect to convert the heat naturally produced by the radioactive decay of a plutonium 238 bar.
The RTG produces about 120W of energy, not a lot, but enough to recharge the batteries of his host.
The Voyager probes launched by NASA in the 70s are still working today.
My idea was very simple. To replace the plutonium bar with a cold fusion nuclear reactor. Let’s call it “Cold Fusion Thermoelectric Generator”.
The CFTG could charge the batteries of (for example) an electric car.
Mr. Rossi already told me this is not possible, but he asked to post the idea on the Journal. So here I am.
Since this sounds more like science fiction, I guess I’ll recycle the idea for a TV show:-)
Thanks for reading
-Andrea Franchin
Dear Eugenio:
We are not thinking to the Seebeck effect, that, as you correctly say, has a too low efficiency. The COP is still 6. The issue of LENR applied to cars, in the terms exposed in the link you have cited, is very naif . First, before LENR will be ready for cars it will take not less than 20 years, second the application of the Seebeck effect has an efficiency so low that will never be convenient. Seebeck effect is useful only to recover waste heat that otherwise should be lost, therefore in this case efficiency would not be an issue.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
about the high temperature E-Cat, in a recent interview, you said you were interested in “direct conversion of heat into electricity.” However, if you mean the Seebeck Thermoelectric Effect, we know that now all researchers, including NASA, achieved total returns below 20%, still insufficient compared to a COP of the E-Cat of 6, while the product of efficiency and COP should be much greater than 1 to be convenient.
On the other hand, the performance of microturbines steam, which reaches 30%, would be very different. In this case the product between performance and COP is about 2, which means that for every kW input to the central E-Cat it gets two kW output from the steam turbine.
Curiously also the site http://ecatcar.org , which assumes a car powered by a reactor LENR, refers to the same technology TEG (ThermoElectric Generator) with a yield of 5-10%.
It is not clear. The high temperature reactor has perhaps a COP much higher of 6?
Thank you,
Eugenio