John:
My Attorneys made the application on February 2012, the patent has been allowed on August 2015: the reviewing is lasted 3 years and 6 months.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi
Congratulations for your US Patent. How long has been the peer reviewing made by the examiners of the United States Patent Office?
Godspeed,
John
Hello Mr. Rossi.
I am following your work from long time ago.
It seems that the main problem for the e-cat is starting the reactor and keep it stable.
I was thinking if the 1MW plant need constant adjustment the test should be considered positive only if it doesn’t need your constant attention.
So the period of time of 1 year should be reset from the moment the plant starts working “by itself” with a normal check routine made by customers.
Same for ecat-X
JCF 16, will be held December 11-12, 2015 at Japans Kyoto University,
where Dr Hideo Kozima will present 4 papers on his LENRs research as
well as other presentations suggesting a strong potential for a new
source of clean energy.
Robert Verdoux:
at 11.46 p.m. of Wednesday Dec 09 the 1 MW E-Cat is marching without troubles and the E-Cat X is working. I can study without interruptions and this is good.
Good night!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I want to add my congratulations to your US Patent.
I wish you good luck to put your invention massively in the market so that, as you said, we all can make money out of it.
Godspeed,
Patrick
Gerard Mc Ek:
Between the E-Cat and me after this last year a total transfert happened, so that your question is resolved in the fact that I AM the E-CAT! (he he he)
Warm Regards
A.R.
1/ Modern solar panel power systems produces about 100 W/kg and those in planning stage aim at ~300 W/kg. While the raw E-cat can apparently produce more than that (heat, per kg), if one makes a Carnot cycle engine around it to make electric power, one must reject the waste heat from the cold side, and that requires a largish radiator which adds mass. To be efficient, the radiation needs some fluid circulating in it, but then the radiation walls cannot be too thin or else micrometeoroids punch holes in it and the fluid escapes. It may be possible to match 100 W/kg in the overall system and maybe somewhat better if the system is large, but also one needs lots of moving parts and fluids which makes it more difficult to achieve long lifetime.
It is a widespread misunderstanding, even among some professionals, that thermal nuclear reactors with Carnot electric output would be somehow inherently better than solar panels, in space. Such assertion was perhaps true in the 1970s, but solar panels have improved tremendously since then. The assertion is true on Earth, because on Earth very efficient coolant (water) is typically available to carry away heat from the cold side. But it does not hold in space, because in vacuum only thermal radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law) is available for waste heat rejection, and radiation has to take place from the cold side of the circuit (and the cold side must be significantly cooler than the hot side or else Carnot efficiency drops down). Even an ideal thermal source (very large W/kg ratio and very high temperature) wouldn’t make much difference, because the radiator would still weigh the same. The E-cat is already close to ideal in that sense, probably.
2/ Such as the E-sail (click the link on my name), yes, but it doesn’t need so much power. True, it would benefit from LENR somewhat in the outer solar system, as well as the payload would need it there of course.
3/ Agreed and that was exactly my point.
4/ Agreed, at least in principle.
What I had in mind was a small E-cat, actually as small as possible (I don’t know how small that is), which only makes it possible keep the spacecraft’s critical systems such as battery somewhat warm during lunar night. No need to produce electric power for instruments, because they can sleep.
Dear Andrea,
In a previous comment to me, you said you would continue working in your plant even on Christmas and New Year. I believe you are very devoted to your work and invention. When the tests are done and you tell us it was positive hopefully, some sceptics may say that you were there every day to fill your plant with gas or another fuel ;-).(I have calculated it must be at least 2300 litres of diesel a day). Others may say you needed to tweak your Rossi effect daily.
My question is, can you ensure us that when you start to sell Ecats, it will not be necessary to put on the box ‘Rossi included’?
Take care of yourself!
Robert P:
We are not looking to a Sterling Engine,but to a jet engine.
Anyway, as I said, we are at the beginning of a long and difficult R&D with this subject and any answer would be premature.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
I have been following your story and research into LENR for a long time now, and am very excited for the conclusion of your 1 year test! It has been a long time in coming, and the end finish line seems close now!
I for one look forward to seeing units hit the market, and wish you all success in your endeavors. I recently read you are looking at seeing how LENR will work with jet engines, are you looking at other possible uses of LENR such as driving a Sterling engine? Back in November you mentioned using a hybridized approach to a jet engine with ecat assembly. Have you seen any success working with this project? Does it seem now that new engine applications are becoming more feasible with the ecat?
Pekka, thank you for your posts. I’m a little bit more optimistic…
1- You refer to launch vehicles from Earth, but LENR would make miracles for other types of rockets launching from space, like ion-thrusters. Dawn Ceres probe’s ion thrusters drew 2.6kW of power from solar arrays. The entire propulsion in ion thrusted Deep Space 1 probe can produce 92 mN of force which is equivalent to the pulling power of an insect, and DS1 weighs 489.5 kg! If I remember well, a large VASIMR ion engine capable of sufficient thrust for 39-days human expedition to Mars would need an input about 2 kilowatts per kilogram.
2- Aside from ion thrusters, there are other types of better engines undergoing research today, and they would all benefit largely from LENR technology as energy supplier.
3- LENR would be better than plutonium in space. Radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) containing tiny amounts of plutonium have been used in a variety of space probes to generate electricity, because solar panels aren’t effective beyond the orbit of Mars, where the sun dwindles to a speck. Nasa’s Pioneer, Voyager and Galileo missions to the outer planets all used RTGs. The most recent Nasa probe, augmented with nuclear materials, was Cassini, launched in 1997 with more plutonium (32kg) than on any previous mission. This generated 900W – enough electricity to power a microwave oven. It also generated massive controversy for dangers if its carrier rocket failed. Moreover, currently, supplies of high-purity Pu-238 are scarce and there are already problems in developing of spacecrafts. Since the early 1990s after production ceased at Savannah River plant, the USA has been buying all its supply for spacecraft from Russia – some 16.5 kg, produced at Mayak – but Russia is no longer producing it.
4- you could bypass the vibration problem on launch, charging the reactor (or directly fabricating the charge) directly in orbit instead… Andrea Rossi would be very pleased having 18h/24h daily shifts inside a space module to control his Cats.
Dr. Rossi: May I please add something to your explanation of giving away IP: “but should Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have given away for free their IP, the enormous investments made for their tech could not have been made and the diffusion of their products would have been very limited.” …….. and crony capitalists would have controlled the IP for their own profit at the expense of, free enterprise, the poor and the average “Joe”. You may delete this if you like, I just had to get it off my chest. (: Keep up your good work, please take time for exercise and relaxation.
Dear Andrea,
My point is that in the domain of space, what I described (the surface of Moon and Mars) is the low-hanging fruit for LENR. By writing the I mean that other LENR space fruits hang much higher. In other words, quite simply, wherever one currently needs RTG or RHU (radioactive heater unit), LENR could potentially replace it, and those cases are basically the surfaces of Moon and Mars as well as the outer solar system.
Other space applications are more difficult. Satellites are already happy with solar panels because sun shines 24/7 for them, and replacing solar panels with E-cat wouldn’t necessarily produce large, if any, benefits. And concerning launch vehicles, the relevant power per mass ratio is some 1 MW/kg, that says a lot… Those are unlikely applications. But I would call the RHU/RTG replacement application potentially near-term, because it’s (at least plausibly) not harder and possibly even easier than many ground-based applications already envisaged (F9).
Marco Serra:
Thank you for the interesting link.
By the way: what I said is that the global warming exists and that it is mainly due to natural cycles, even if human activity can contribute to it.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Using powerful computer simulations, researchers from Brown University have identified a material with a higher melting point than any known substance.
The computations, described in the journal Physical Review B (Rapid Communications), showed that a material made with just the right amounts of hafnium, nitrogen, and carbon would have a melting point of more than 4,400 kelvins (7,460 degrees Fahrenheit, 4,127 Celsius). That’s about two-thirds the temperature at the surface of the sun, and 200 kelvins higher than the highest melting point ever recorded experimentally.
The experimental record-holder is a substance made from the elements hafnium, tantalum, and carbon (Hf-Ta-C). But these new calculations suggest that an optimal composition of hafnium, nitrogen, and carbon—HfN0.38C0.51—is a promising candidate to set a new mark. The next step, which the researchers are undertaking now, is to synthesize material and corroborate the findings in the lab.
Dear Andrea
you said you was not so sure climate change is real and caused by humans.
If you are interested, in this article in ScientificAmerican are reported the results of the examination of 12000 climate paper abstracts, only 3% of them reject that hypothesis. In a further study this 3% are found to present some sort of flaw in method or coherence with other denier studies.
Here is the links:
Pekka Janhunen:
Let’s first be sure the E-Cat is able to work on the Earth…
Thank you anyway for your interesting futuristic insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carlo Venturini:
That would be the end of the diffusion of the technology, because nobody would invest a cent in a technology that does not have an intellectual property.
I already said this many times, but maybe useful to repeat: also the computers have changed the world for good, but should Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have given away for free their IP, the enormous investments made for their tech could not have been made and the diffusion of their products would have been very limited.
It is naif and irresponsible to give away graciously an important IP for the narcissistic pleasure to be considered a benefactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi
Somebody insists in some blog that you have to give for free to the world the technology to make the E-Cats, for the good of mankind.
How do you answer?
Concerning applications in space, I think the easiest one is to use the E-cat in Moon and Mars landers (rovers and stationary surface stations). The present situation is that it is very difficult for any vehicle to survive the 2-week long very cold night on lunar surface, without using a radioactive heat or power source whose direct and indirect cost effects (launch safety, etc.) are enormous. Also on Mars, it is difficult although not impossible to build a vehicle, without using nuclear energy, that can survive the Martian night at non-equatorial latitudes.
A heat-producing electric-powered E-cat would suffice. The input electricity would come from a battery. Of course, if the E-cat can also produce electricity, it helps because it reduces the required battery size, but is not completely mandatory. The pricetag of a Moon surface vehicle (that operates longer than 2 weeks) could drop right away from the current one billion to few tens of millions.
For whether the E-cat can be space-qualified easily, my main and almost only worry is whether the loaded charge survives launch vibrations. Do you know, would the loaded charge (of an unstarted reactor) somehow break down if one shakes it violently? If the answer is not known, it would be very easy to directly test it using a standard vibration bench. I know a place where vibration space qualification test could probably be done at no cost, even; anyway the cost is at most few thousand even if done commercially. The fact that launch vibration occurs only once in a space mission (during launch) simplifies the matter, because it means that only the cold, unstarted reactor has to withstand the vibration. Of course, it’s possible also to damp launch vibrations by technical means, so even if the direct launch vibration test would fail, it does not mean that the idea is dead. It just means that implementing it is not quite as easy.
The Ecat technology, as I understand it, works best for constant output power and has very long duration run times (days or months).
For an aviation application, the cruise mode would be most beneficial using eCat while take-off and landings would most likely use a supplemental thrust/power support. NASA did a study awhile ago on LENR applications for aviation.
Another transportation application would be naval powerplants as they also feature long duration steady state requirements for ocean crossing vessels. But it will take decades for certifications to be achieved for widespread usage.
So I doubt that you will see wide-spread usage of Ecat technology (F9) in aviation or naval except for experimental cases.
There might also be an application for space travel using water as the propellant and super-heated using Ecat technology although additional study will be needed to see if it is viable (compared, say, to ion-drive).
LHLaFond:
I suppose you refer to the application of the jet engine we are studying to aero-space applications. We are very far from having reached a level of reliability to even think to this kind of application. We are studying, but even a prototype of jet has not been made yet. But we are studying, this yes, as a development of the E-Cat X possible applications. Some experiments are on course with the E-Cats finalized to that target, but it is premature any projection.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Number one what do you estimate would be the range of a flying tiger.
Number two do you feel that it would be better to have a hybrid system with conventional engine supported by Tigers for cruise mode or will the Tigers be for continuous operation including landing and takeoff.
Thank you advance for your attention
Dear Dr. Rossi, you have written “operation stable for both the creatures.”
Yes it really is very good and we know (as obviously you know) that it means for the 1 MW plant production of excess heat for your Customer.
Yes, I also know F9 and that the final results could be positive or negative.
But we would like very much if you could clearly write “I am satisfied till now and we have an interesting COP”
Gaul:
We will be able to deliver all the E-Cats pre-ordered, industrial and domestic, in about one year of massive production. Obviously this consideration is dependent from the results of the tests and R&D on course, positive or negative as they might be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
How is going the E-Cay X?
Edwige
Paul Calvo:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Paul:
Around 50 keV the distinction between X and Gama is very approximative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Pekka, thank you, very instructive. So you are a professional researcher in the field of space sails? Wow. In november I saw this
http://www.space.com/31063-electric-sail-solar-wind-space-exploration.html
missing your name… half a million km/h… in which way could be circumvented the problem of interstellar dut becoming missiles against the ship?
Luca:
Thank you for your kind attention.
The issue is very complex and I cannot answer by now.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
John:
My Attorneys made the application on February 2012, the patent has been allowed on August 2015: the reviewing is lasted 3 years and 6 months.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi
Congratulations for your US Patent. How long has been the peer reviewing made by the examiners of the United States Patent Office?
Godspeed,
John
Hello Mr. Rossi.
I am following your work from long time ago.
It seems that the main problem for the e-cat is starting the reactor and keep it stable.
I was thinking if the 1MW plant need constant adjustment the test should be considered positive only if it doesn’t need your constant attention.
So the period of time of 1 year should be reset from the moment the plant starts working “by itself” with a normal check routine made by customers.
Same for ecat-X
Thanks,
Bye Luca
Hi, Andrea!
Could the Rossi Effect be caused by X-rays instead of gamma rays?
JCF 16, will be held December 11-12, 2015 at Japans Kyoto University,
where Dr Hideo Kozima will present 4 papers on his LENRs research as
well as other presentations suggesting a strong potential for a new
source of clean energy.
Robert Curto:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi, Please Google:
CLEANERGY
Click on:
Cleanergy-A new Generation of sustainable energy
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Tom Conover:
Thank you for the enjoying link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for the interesting link. I agree with you. With all respect.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello dr. Rossi:
I am sending an interesting article on LENR funds raising: all thesepersons should make you a monument, because all this funding is born from your enormous work: without you and your endless efforts, LENR would be zombiland.
http://www.octafinance.com/lenr-invest-fund-ii-filing-brandon-j-stewart-submitted-dec-4-form-d/
Dear Readers,
The Truth is Out about Rossi! http://www.cultture.com/pics/2014/02/thanos03.gif
Enjoy,
Tom
Robert Verdoux:
at 11.46 p.m. of Wednesday Dec 09 the 1 MW E-Cat is marching without troubles and the E-Cat X is working. I can study without interruptions and this is good.
Good night!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I want to add my congratulations to your US Patent.
I wish you good luck to put your invention massively in the market so that, as you said, we all can make money out of it.
Godspeed,
Patrick
Mr Andrea Rossi
Last update?
Patrick
Gerard Mc Ek:
Between the E-Cat and me after this last year a total transfert happened, so that your question is resolved in the fact that I AM the E-CAT! (he he he)
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear orsobubu,
1/ Modern solar panel power systems produces about 100 W/kg and those in planning stage aim at ~300 W/kg. While the raw E-cat can apparently produce more than that (heat, per kg), if one makes a Carnot cycle engine around it to make electric power, one must reject the waste heat from the cold side, and that requires a largish radiator which adds mass. To be efficient, the radiation needs some fluid circulating in it, but then the radiation walls cannot be too thin or else micrometeoroids punch holes in it and the fluid escapes. It may be possible to match 100 W/kg in the overall system and maybe somewhat better if the system is large, but also one needs lots of moving parts and fluids which makes it more difficult to achieve long lifetime.
It is a widespread misunderstanding, even among some professionals, that thermal nuclear reactors with Carnot electric output would be somehow inherently better than solar panels, in space. Such assertion was perhaps true in the 1970s, but solar panels have improved tremendously since then. The assertion is true on Earth, because on Earth very efficient coolant (water) is typically available to carry away heat from the cold side. But it does not hold in space, because in vacuum only thermal radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law) is available for waste heat rejection, and radiation has to take place from the cold side of the circuit (and the cold side must be significantly cooler than the hot side or else Carnot efficiency drops down). Even an ideal thermal source (very large W/kg ratio and very high temperature) wouldn’t make much difference, because the radiator would still weigh the same. The E-cat is already close to ideal in that sense, probably.
2/ Such as the E-sail (click the link on my name), yes, but it doesn’t need so much power. True, it would benefit from LENR somewhat in the outer solar system, as well as the payload would need it there of course.
3/ Agreed and that was exactly my point.
4/ Agreed, at least in principle.
What I had in mind was a small E-cat, actually as small as possible (I don’t know how small that is), which only makes it possible keep the spacecraft’s critical systems such as battery somewhat warm during lunar night. No need to produce electric power for instruments, because they can sleep.
regards, /pekka
Dear Andrea,
In a previous comment to me, you said you would continue working in your plant even on Christmas and New Year. I believe you are very devoted to your work and invention. When the tests are done and you tell us it was positive hopefully, some sceptics may say that you were there every day to fill your plant with gas or another fuel ;-).(I have calculated it must be at least 2300 litres of diesel a day). Others may say you needed to tweak your Rossi effect daily.
My question is, can you ensure us that when you start to sell Ecats, it will not be necessary to put on the box ‘Rossi included’?
Take care of yourself!
Thanks and kind regards, Gerard
Robert P:
We are not looking to a Sterling Engine,but to a jet engine.
Anyway, as I said, we are at the beginning of a long and difficult R&D with this subject and any answer would be premature.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
I have been following your story and research into LENR for a long time now, and am very excited for the conclusion of your 1 year test! It has been a long time in coming, and the end finish line seems close now!
I for one look forward to seeing units hit the market, and wish you all success in your endeavors. I recently read you are looking at seeing how LENR will work with jet engines, are you looking at other possible uses of LENR such as driving a Sterling engine? Back in November you mentioned using a hybridized approach to a jet engine with ecat assembly. Have you seen any success working with this project? Does it seem now that new engine applications are becoming more feasible with the ecat?
Pekka, thank you for your posts. I’m a little bit more optimistic…
1- You refer to launch vehicles from Earth, but LENR would make miracles for other types of rockets launching from space, like ion-thrusters. Dawn Ceres probe’s ion thrusters drew 2.6kW of power from solar arrays. The entire propulsion in ion thrusted Deep Space 1 probe can produce 92 mN of force which is equivalent to the pulling power of an insect, and DS1 weighs 489.5 kg! If I remember well, a large VASIMR ion engine capable of sufficient thrust for 39-days human expedition to Mars would need an input about 2 kilowatts per kilogram.
2- Aside from ion thrusters, there are other types of better engines undergoing research today, and they would all benefit largely from LENR technology as energy supplier.
3- LENR would be better than plutonium in space. Radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) containing tiny amounts of plutonium have been used in a variety of space probes to generate electricity, because solar panels aren’t effective beyond the orbit of Mars, where the sun dwindles to a speck. Nasa’s Pioneer, Voyager and Galileo missions to the outer planets all used RTGs. The most recent Nasa probe, augmented with nuclear materials, was Cassini, launched in 1997 with more plutonium (32kg) than on any previous mission. This generated 900W – enough electricity to power a microwave oven. It also generated massive controversy for dangers if its carrier rocket failed. Moreover, currently, supplies of high-purity Pu-238 are scarce and there are already problems in developing of spacecrafts. Since the early 1990s after production ceased at Savannah River plant, the USA has been buying all its supply for spacecraft from Russia – some 16.5 kg, produced at Mayak – but Russia is no longer producing it.
4- you could bypass the vibration problem on launch, charging the reactor (or directly fabricating the charge) directly in orbit instead… Andrea Rossi would be very pleased having 18h/24h daily shifts inside a space module to control his Cats.
Bernie Koppenhofer:
Thank you for your opinion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi: May I please add something to your explanation of giving away IP: “but should Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have given away for free their IP, the enormous investments made for their tech could not have been made and the diffusion of their products would have been very limited.” …….. and crony capitalists would have controlled the IP for their own profit at the expense of, free enterprise, the poor and the average “Joe”. You may delete this if you like, I just had to get it off my chest. (: Keep up your good work, please take time for exercise and relaxation.
Pekka Janhunen:
Thank you for your insight
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
My point is that in the domain of space, what I described (the surface of Moon and Mars) is the low-hanging fruit for LENR. By writing the I mean that other LENR space fruits hang much higher. In other words, quite simply, wherever one currently needs RTG or RHU (radioactive heater unit), LENR could potentially replace it, and those cases are basically the surfaces of Moon and Mars as well as the outer solar system.
Other space applications are more difficult. Satellites are already happy with solar panels because sun shines 24/7 for them, and replacing solar panels with E-cat wouldn’t necessarily produce large, if any, benefits. And concerning launch vehicles, the relevant power per mass ratio is some 1 MW/kg, that says a lot… Those are unlikely applications. But I would call the RHU/RTG replacement application potentially near-term, because it’s (at least plausibly) not harder and possibly even easier than many ground-based applications already envisaged (F9).
regards, pekka
Dennis:
Very interesting.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Marco Serra:
Thank you for the interesting link.
By the way: what I said is that the global warming exists and that it is mainly due to natural cycles, even if human activity can contribute to it.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Hi Dr. Rossi,
I know you have been working with materials that can withstand high temperatures. I saw this link and thought it may be of interest.
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-material-record-setting.html
Using powerful computer simulations, researchers from Brown University have identified a material with a higher melting point than any known substance.
The computations, described in the journal Physical Review B (Rapid Communications), showed that a material made with just the right amounts of hafnium, nitrogen, and carbon would have a melting point of more than 4,400 kelvins (7,460 degrees Fahrenheit, 4,127 Celsius). That’s about two-thirds the temperature at the surface of the sun, and 200 kelvins higher than the highest melting point ever recorded experimentally.
The experimental record-holder is a substance made from the elements hafnium, tantalum, and carbon (Hf-Ta-C). But these new calculations suggest that an optimal composition of hafnium, nitrogen, and carbon—HfN0.38C0.51—is a promising candidate to set a new mark. The next step, which the researchers are undertaking now, is to synthesize material and corroborate the findings in the lab.
Regards,
Dennis
Dear Andrea
you said you was not so sure climate change is real and caused by humans.
If you are interested, in this article in ScientificAmerican are reported the results of the examination of 12000 climate paper abstracts, only 3% of them reject that hypothesis. In a further study this 3% are found to present some sort of flaw in method or coherence with other denier studies.
Here is the links:
ITALIAN: http://www.lescienze.it/news/2015/12/08/news/clima_torto_scettici_convergenza_prove-2885575/
ENGLISH: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-climate-skeptics-are-wrong/
God bless you
Marco Serra
Pekka Janhunen:
Let’s first be sure the E-Cat is able to work on the Earth…
Thank you anyway for your interesting futuristic insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Carlo Venturini:
That would be the end of the diffusion of the technology, because nobody would invest a cent in a technology that does not have an intellectual property.
I already said this many times, but maybe useful to repeat: also the computers have changed the world for good, but should Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have given away for free their IP, the enormous investments made for their tech could not have been made and the diffusion of their products would have been very limited.
It is naif and irresponsible to give away graciously an important IP for the narcissistic pleasure to be considered a benefactor.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Andrea Rossi
Somebody insists in some blog that you have to give for free to the world the technology to make the E-Cats, for the good of mankind.
How do you answer?
Dear Andrea,
Concerning applications in space, I think the easiest one is to use the E-cat in Moon and Mars landers (rovers and stationary surface stations). The present situation is that it is very difficult for any vehicle to survive the 2-week long very cold night on lunar surface, without using a radioactive heat or power source whose direct and indirect cost effects (launch safety, etc.) are enormous. Also on Mars, it is difficult although not impossible to build a vehicle, without using nuclear energy, that can survive the Martian night at non-equatorial latitudes.
A heat-producing electric-powered E-cat would suffice. The input electricity would come from a battery. Of course, if the E-cat can also produce electricity, it helps because it reduces the required battery size, but is not completely mandatory. The pricetag of a Moon surface vehicle (that operates longer than 2 weeks) could drop right away from the current one billion to few tens of millions.
For whether the E-cat can be space-qualified easily, my main and almost only worry is whether the loaded charge survives launch vibrations. Do you know, would the loaded charge (of an unstarted reactor) somehow break down if one shakes it violently? If the answer is not known, it would be very easy to directly test it using a standard vibration bench. I know a place where vibration space qualification test could probably be done at no cost, even; anyway the cost is at most few thousand even if done commercially. The fact that launch vibration occurs only once in a space mission (during launch) simplifies the matter, because it means that only the cold, unstarted reactor has to withstand the vibration. Of course, it’s possible also to damp launch vibrations by technical means, so even if the direct launch vibration test would fail, it does not mean that the idea is dead. It just means that implementing it is not quite as easy.
regards, /pekka
Luca:
I think between February and March 2016.
Warm Regards
A.R.
LHLaFond,
The Ecat technology, as I understand it, works best for constant output power and has very long duration run times (days or months).
For an aviation application, the cruise mode would be most beneficial using eCat while take-off and landings would most likely use a supplemental thrust/power support. NASA did a study awhile ago on LENR applications for aviation.
Another transportation application would be naval powerplants as they also feature long duration steady state requirements for ocean crossing vessels. But it will take decades for certifications to be achieved for widespread usage.
So I doubt that you will see wide-spread usage of Ecat technology (F9) in aviation or naval except for experimental cases.
There might also be an application for space travel using water as the propellant and super-heated using Ecat technology although additional study will be needed to see if it is viable (compared, say, to ion-drive).
Hello Mr Rossi
When the 1MW plant test will be completed?
Thanks,
Bye Luca
LHLaFond:
I suppose you refer to the application of the jet engine we are studying to aero-space applications. We are very far from having reached a level of reliability to even think to this kind of application. We are studying, but even a prototype of jet has not been made yet. But we are studying, this yes, as a development of the E-Cat X possible applications. Some experiments are on course with the E-Cats finalized to that target, but it is premature any projection.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Number one what do you estimate would be the range of a flying tiger.
Number two do you feel that it would be better to have a hybrid system with conventional engine supported by Tigers for cruise mode or will the Tigers be for continuous operation including landing and takeoff.
Thank you advance for your attention
Italo R.:
Sorry, data related to the COP will be released only after the results of the tests on course.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi, you have written “operation stable for both the creatures.”
Yes it really is very good and we know (as obviously you know) that it means for the 1 MW plant production of excess heat for your Customer.
Yes, I also know F9 and that the final results could be positive or negative.
But we would like very much if you could clearly write “I am satisfied till now and we have an interesting COP”
Best Regards
Italo R.
Germana:
Now it’s 01.46 of December 8: operation stable for both the creatures.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Bob:
1- yes
2- no
3- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Thank you for the link.
This confirms what I have said about the oil price.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
hello Dr. Rossi, I send a recent article:
Oil to a minimum of 7 years: the risks and prospects
http://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/economia/11857301/petrolio-minimi-7-anni-bollette-deflazione.html
Dear Andrea Rossi
1. Does the E-Cat X employ the wafer concept disclosed in the U.S. Patent?
2. Can you see inside the E-Cat X when it is in operation?
3. If no to #2 is your team presently working on developing an E-Cat X that you will be able to see inside while it is in operation?
Thank you again for your kind attention to all the questions posed by your readers.
Bob
Gaul:
We will be able to deliver all the E-Cats pre-ordered, industrial and domestic, in about one year of massive production. Obviously this consideration is dependent from the results of the tests and R&D on course, positive or negative as they might be.
Warm Regards,
A.R.