We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

dickyaesta • 1 year ago

ADMIN, sorry Frank for repeating, but I still get a blank page on your recently installed "Go to Comments" button, it doesn't work on several platforms, as comments of others, on my earlier post, confirm, Thanks again for the magnificent job you are doing!

Frank Acland • 1 year ago

Thanks, I hope it works now.

dickyaesta • 1 year ago

Yes perfectly,thank you.

Michel Vandenberghe • 1 year ago

Hello Mats, Franck, my 2 cents opinion :-) I think what is the most important is not the technological proof but the market proof. What would unleash investment will be the proof that there are effective manufacturing agreements with China, US and some others. If there is manufacturing agreement there's working product. What is important is the core technology, not the product. Core technology cannot be protected and msut not be protected. I bet that the LENR law will soon such as "effective power density will double every 6 months" Thus will decrease size, weight, raw materials costs, enable wider integration and so on... The only way for any company with a as usual business model is to be in a position to propose a return on investment short enough to get customers to invest in the product. Do not forget how much value this technology will destroy at first...

Best,

Michel.

clovis ray • 1 year ago

Interesting,Michel.
Would you care to elaborate, on which tech, you feel will be destroyed, other than substantially putting a hit on fossil fuels, which i would think it would take some time to take them completely out, as we need lube to reduce friction, for now.

NT • 1 year ago

Yes, lubricats, tires, asphalt roads, plastics, etc will be with us for awhile yet...

Michel Vandenberghe • 1 year ago

and Peter Gluck on his blog outpeters.blogspot.ro has posted the following https://www.sciencedaily.co... about Heat transfer...

Michel Vandenberghe • 1 year ago

Hello Clovis, Talking about 'Reactor" is way of thinking of the fossil fuels era... Do you think that it makes sense to build energy plants with a such Energy and power densities. Let's Bet on consumer products and more with "LENR Inside'...

AlainCo • 1 year ago

power plant were invented because it was polluting or dangerous , in cities, or there was need for big units to make economy of scale.

today with lenr, big plant just add cost as power lines .

clovis ray • 1 year ago

It is becoming more clear, as the vials are pulled away, just how significant a discovery the rossi effect will become, it's really scary if you look deep enough into the rabbit hole.

Michel Vandenberghe • 1 year ago

Clovis, and it is the work of a community of pionners... I know it is the Ecat web site but... I'm ready to bet that as soon as the game is unlocked, one will find, let's say some tens of different working 'reactors'....

clovis ray • 1 year ago

Well, you want to name some of those pioneers, that have called or went to Dr. Rossi and said here you go a new advanced part for your e-cat, or does any of them have a working reactor device that actually produces usable power.
Dr. Rossi, is the only one that has produced such a device, he and he alone has developed this new techanogly, i personally believe that it is neither lenr, or any of it synonyms, and cold fusion , maybe but not in it f/p configuration, what i think it is would be something brand new, i call it the Rossi effect, nothing else seems to fit, i personally don't think it's even nuclear , not sure about that one.

Michael W Wolf • 1 year ago

Yes it is LENR. But I changed up the acronym to fit. Low Energy Nano Reactions. LENR. Which it should be called until we know what exactly it is.

Michel Vandenberghe • 1 year ago

Hello Clovis, if it is fully unknown I will agree to talk about the Rossi effec :-)

clovis ray • 1 year ago

Hi,mike.
What,Do you mean fully unknown, the mechanism is known, the parts mostly comes off the shelf.
How it is operated, and what's in the fuel , is the unknown, and i personally think no one will figure it out because it is quite complected, Dr's Rossi and Focardi, are the MASTERMINDS, That developed this device. after many years, of hard work and huge amounts of Dr. Rossi money, nothing is free.
And he,they will not give it away,
P.S, If the unknown parts were known, there would be plenty of knock off, around, now , this has never been done before, and not likely to be figured out soon.

Michel Vandenberghe • 1 year ago

Scary? Yes, be ready :-) For instance : To design flying objects, let's say planes for instance, W/KG is a key criteria Designers are close to the optimum as regards the weight of the object. But what if W/KG is becoming larger and larger, We might increase the weight :-) Be ready : https://www.youtube.com/wat... :-)

clovis ray • 1 year ago

i love it,

Ophelia Rump • 1 year ago

This is a very curious statement.

"The charge size has been refined with the experience in thousands of experiments and, obviously, also on the base of theoretical considerations."

It suggests that the fuel size is a found window rather than a chosen value and that it is a critical factor.

Pekka Janhunen • 1 year ago

No but he could also just mean GIVEN THE WANTED DURATION the charge size is calculated by the experience etc.

Ophelia Rump • 1 year ago

That is not what those words mean.

If they could make the charge any desired size then there is no point in refining the charge size. Altering the charge size would be trivial and the adjustment of other variables critical.
That is the opposite of what he stated.

Michael W Wolf • 1 year ago

That is what the ecat x is about, right?

Sanjeev • 1 year ago

Mats wrote a new blog:
https://animpossibleinventi...

Wishful Thinking Energy • 1 year ago

From the blog:
"I have also been told that the total amount of fuel—mostly harmless elements such as litium, hydrogen and nickel, according to Andrea Rossi’s granted patent on the technology—was in the range of tenths of grams."

I assume that is referring to the amount of fuel that was changed from mass to energy. I assume the total amount of fuel was in the 100's of grams.

Andreas Moraitis • 1 year ago

Certainly. Let’s say the plant has produced 7 GWh during the 350 days (COP 6 assumed). The relativistic mass equivalent of that amount of energy comes to 0.28 g – indeed a few “tenths of grams”.

Zeddicus Zul Zorander • 1 year ago

I think it's quite safe to use a COP of 20. That makes the numbers even more impressive.

Bob Greenyer • 1 year ago

Most of the energy comes from the two of the lightest atoms that exist - H and Li.

It is my feeling that the 2 outer heat transfer plates in each wafer are thin to 'thick' film coated with Ni62 via physical vapour deposition and each plate would actually use extremely little actual reactants.

Axil Axil • 1 year ago

When does MFMP plan to come up to speed on physical vapour deposition if at all.

Bob Greenyer • 1 year ago

We will use 96% pure 62Ni in powder form from same source as Rossi in our next *GlowStick*. baby steps.

ke • 1 year ago

This is in reference to update 40, the changing of the charge. The initial device was the E-cat. Then along came the E-cat X a few months into the year long test. The original E-cat was relegated to function as a backup, sitting on idle (I would guess)in case the E-catX malfunctioned. Correct? Neither the E-cat nor the E-catX have been running at full power for 11 or 12 months. And that was the stated goal? To run for 350 days without having to recharge?? Rossi may have been able to provide continuous heat for his customer, but a year without having to refuel is stretching it.

Frank Acland • 1 year ago

No, I don't believe the E-Cat X was used in the 1MW plant. According to AR it is still in the R&D phase.

kenko1 • 1 year ago

I was confusing the E-catX with the 20kW and 250 kW E-cats. Were both the 20 & 250 started at the same time?

Omega Z • 1 year ago

Note both the 20kW and 250kW E-cats were of low temperature reactors.

The 20kW reactors were tested to confirm they would work. These were kept on hand for backup puposes, but never used.

Only the four 250kW E-cats were used throughout the test.

Guest • 1 year ago
Zeddicus Zul Zorander • 1 year ago

Or he had much more downtime on the four 250KW modules, but the 10KW modules took over in those instances.

Either way, good calculation. Makes sense.

Axil Axil • 1 year ago

I don't remember seeing that Rossi fired up the backup unit.

Zeddicus Zul Zorander • 1 year ago

Me neither, but I doubt we hear or see everything that's going on.

Omega Z • 1 year ago

Rossi has said that the 20KW reactors were never used other then to initially operate them in the beginning to assure they worked.

It could be questioned if the 1MW system actually completed 350 days of operation. Say it were only 340 days completed, but the fuel charge is exhausting and needs replaced. All concerned could agree the test period has conclude within reason as a few days would not matter.

Anyway, we don't know the exact day it started or how many down days were counted. Do you count as 1 day down when a single 250KW reactor is off line for a few hours, yet the reactors still in operation can compensate for that short period. Was the contract of expectations really rigid or was there some flexibility.

clovis ray • 1 year ago

I believe this is correct Omega,after the standby l/t cats were tested, the 250kw kitty's were put to the test, both l/t e-cat, the design is what was being tested, and doing so a new design was discovered, the new and improved model, don't you know, smile

Zeddicus Zul Zorander • 1 year ago

Good points. So if those 20KW reactors haven't been used, the downtime was probably less than we thought or what constitutes downtime is more loosely defined than we think.

bachcole • 1 year ago

Even if the ERV has high creds, the end of opposition is not yet in sight. Most people are still completely unaware of these developments. Skeptopaths are as likely to fill their ears with $hit as we are to fill them with the light of truth.

Ian Walker • 1 year ago

Hi all

In relation to sometthing Axil Axil said

"Axil Axil deleo77 • 18 minutes ago

Currently, with the price of natural gas so low, it will be a hard market for the E-Cat to penetrate,"

I pointed out some time ago, several years now :) that the only solution available to fossil fuel sellers in the start of the LENR age was a market decline strategy of minimising price to slow the uptake of LENR so as to maximise the period of time Fossil Fuel was of value.

It was advice in a report I made ;)

It would appear those who took the report, acted upon it with the strategy I suggested and that many others followed suit.They had no problem with me making the gist of the report available later. Very hard to cause people problems with regard to insider trading when they can point to aspects of the inside information being publicly available. :)

Kind Regards walker

Carl Wilson • 1 year ago

"Currently, with the price of natural gas so low, it will be a hard market for the E-Cat to penetrate"
Currently the price of natural gas is low if you are positioned well with respect to a major gas pipe line. If you are depending on LNG (liquefied natural gas) it's a different mater. There's a hell of a lot of capital investment that goes into LNG delivery.
Natural gas price is low in the US because (1) a lot of it is produced in conjunction with fracked oil and (2) a lot of the fracked gas has to be produced in order to meet interest payments. Familiarize yourself with the saga of Chesapeake Energy if you have doubts.

builditnow • 1 year ago

or, self interest, i.e. the Saudi's aiming to be the "last to pump oil". Within a month of the Indian panic to get back into LENR, (Persian Gulf News a few years back) the Saudi's started their strategy of "keep on pumping". When the news hits the public that there is a new energy source... from water ... the lack of interest in oil could help to push the oil prices up a bit and give the Saudi's some breathing room to adjust.

Many other oil producers have to now pump furiously in order to try and stop their budgets hemorrhaging, hence, an oil glut.
The "mysterious" oil glut explained?

Heath • 1 year ago

Or purposely lower the price of oil (...talking to you, OPEC) for the world so that the introduction of LENR with regards to oil commodities and futures is already priced in, thus preventing global economic collapse of an oil-based world.

clovis ray • 1 year ago

BOB DYLAN, If you an't got nothing, you an't got nothing to lose, the Rossi effect, does work for us, almost for nothing, wouldn't you say, so it would be hard to squeese the e- cat out.. because e-cat is in no way dependant on fossil fuel, it has captured it own space, and there it will grow until it has captured the entire energy market, that would be my guess. ---smile

Ian Walker • 1 year ago

Hi all

In reply to Heath

Also true :)

Also add in

* Sell off Fossil Fuel Assets
* Short lease energy asset production
* Short Fossil Fuels :)
* Have lots of cash to buy the prizes :)
* Invest in space industries
* Invest in energy dependent industry

To name a few.

There will be a boom. It is the owner of the prospectors store/bank who makes the real money in a gold rush.

Kind Regards walker

Steven Irizarry • 1 year ago

That's your advice for anyone wanting to profit from lenr?

Ian Walker • 1 year ago

Hi all

In reply to Steven Irizarry

The gist of a section of a report I wrote some time ago, so as to it still being relevant hmm... some might be, it is for the person involved to choose. Some already took the strategies I suggested many years back, particularly with regard to the fossil fuel market back in 2012/2013 those that did appear to have done well. :) but that ship has long since sailed, there may be a few scraps but that is all.

I also advised that the only way for Fossil Fuel Suppliers to protect them selves against LENR would be to follow a market decline strategy and drop prices to the minimum to slow market penetration by LENR, and that the lowest cost suppliers should look to maximise market share so as to replace high margins on low volumes with low margins on higher volumes; the classic stack it high sell it cheap strategy of Walmart and Tesco. It would appear Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran are following this suggested strategy.

As to big oil, they have their money in the bank they will be able to buy up soon to be bankrupt Fracking companies who have massive loans they cannot afford because they believed the oil bubble hype of Drill baby Drill. The loans were for Drilling which was very expensive, the wells are still viable and pump at costs not far from Saudi costs, so Big Oil and the banks will ride in on their Tax deductible white Chargers of corporate responsibility so snap up all the bankrupt wells, minus the tax write off for the defaulted loans. ;)

That aspect on a boom is something I standby; in a boom it best to be the owner of the prospectors store/bank because that is who makes the real money in a gold rush.

Kind Regards walker

Omega Z • 1 year ago

Oil would have to drop to 1 cent a gallon or 42 cents per barrel. Once E-cats use electricty from other E-cats then it would need to sell for about 4 cents a barrel. Neither would ever happen.

Oil is based on current supply/demand. The advent of LENR being publically known would only impact future oil lease right costs. The current cost of oil would still be based on current supply/demand.

Carl Wilson • 1 year ago

"The current cost of oil would still be based on current supply/demand." And many say that current cost is below the cost of "producing" the oil from non-conventional sources (tar sands, LTO (light, tight oil -- which is gotten by fracking), very deep off shore). How long can that go on?