We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Steven N. KarelsJune 17, 2019 at 8:15 PMDear Andrea Rossi,
“you stopped the E-Cat SK Leonardo test because of certain components failing.”
Were the failed components involved in:
a. Electrical energy conversion (output from the LENR process)?b. Control problems?c. Thermal issues?d. Starting and Stopping issues?e. prototype board reliability?
TranslateAndrea RossiJune 17, 2019 at 8:50 PMSteven N. Karels:a. yesthe others no.Warm Regards,A.R.
Colin WattersJune 17, 2019 at 10:34 AMDear Andrea,
Do you still consider the SK to be at the prototype stage? Given the amount of time and money you have spent I had hoped you were at the pre-production stage at least.
Andrea RossiJune 17, 2019 at 3:29 PMColin Watters:We are serving a restricted number of “pioneers” and fixing problems.Warm RegardsA.R.
It looks like the ECat SKL test resulted in a mixed bag of outcomes. At this point, I would imagine a great deal of analysis is occurring at the California lab of his mystery partner, looking to understand the reasons for the failure of specific components. One can only speculate on how long it will take to do this analysis, build the improved ECat SKL, and schedule a new test.
However, I appreciate the positive movement on signing up new customers as well as installing new ECat SKs for an expanding customer and revenue base.
Gerard McEk June 15, 2019 at 7:02 AM
1. Are you happy about the progress in testing your E-cat SKe?2. Has the reliability of the heat supply to your customers already improved?3. Are you already satisfied with that heat supply?4. Do you already accept and deliver new orders for heat supply?
I hope things are developing well!
Kind regards, Gerard McEk_________________________________________________________
June 15, 2019 at 9:22 AM
1. Partly: some parts of the Ecat SK-Leonardo worked very well, better than expected, but some worked poorly. We had to suspend the test and return to remanufacture some parts differently. Much work still to do. Never give up.2. yes3. yes4. yes
June 16, 2019 at 8:12 AM
Dear Andrea,You said that you stopped the E-Cat SK Leonardo test because of certain components failing.
1. Do you know yet what corrections need to be made?2. What is the timetable for retesting?3. How serious is do you feel this setback for the prospects of direct electricity production from the E-Cat SK?Many thanks,Frank Acland
June 16, 2019 at 12:23 PM
Frank Acland:1- yes2- 1 month3- we will never give upWarm RegardsA.R.
BobJune 16, 2019 at 3:20 PM
Dr Rossi,We strongly appreciate your candor when you tell us of your unsuccessful trials. This is evidence of your sincerity.
Andrea RossiJune 16, 2019 at 3:39 PM
Bob:Thank you for your sustain,
I no longer believe Rossi will commercialize his technology. In my opinion, the previous totally unprofessional demo with puppets in his kitchen as an intentional effort to push people away. But I do believe the basic concept of his technology is valid and he's likely producing copious excess energy. Instead of waiting for him to commercialize the tech, however, I believe people who can do so safely could replicate the effect themselves without too much difficulty.
Steven N. KarelsJune 12, 2019 at 9:22 PMDear Andrea Rossi,
You had previously mentioned building different eCat reactor sizes, up to 100kW thermal output.
1. Are you still investigating or planning different sized reactors?2. Is there any practical limit to the number of reactors that may be combined in parallel?3. Can you forecast what cost you expect to charge for electrical power, e.g. $25 USD per MWhr?
TranslateAndrea RossiJune 13, 2019 at 12:55 AMSteven N.Karels:1- yes2- no3- prematureWarm RegardsA.R.
TranslateFrank AclandJune 12, 2019 at 10:58 AMDear Andrea,
1. Is the current test for direct electricity from the E-Cat being done by you personally, or is a third party doing it?2. Will a report be published if it is a success?
TranslateAndrea RossiJune 12, 2019 at 6:57 PMFrank Acland:1 it is made by our Team2 in due time, yesWarm RegardsA.R.
manuel ciliaJune 12, 2019 at 5:28 AMDear Dr RossiAre you anticipating excess heat as well as electricity out of the new experimental Ecat. Would it be possible to generate hot water as well as electricity (Co-generation).
Andrea RossiJune 12, 2019 at 10:42 AMManuel Cilia:We expect it and we are working for it.Warm Regards,A.R.------------------------------------------------It is conceivable that the extraction of electrical power from the SK reactor will not lower the production of heat in that hybrid configuration. If this possibility comes to pass, it will have a decisive impact on the theory of where the main source of energy ultimately originates in the LENR reaction.
Focus Fusion, which I think is the same as or related to LPP Fusion is developing a system of fusion containment and generation that they had previously said produced copious X-rays which could be easily converted directly to electron flow/ electrical generation. Their theory and device is quite advanced and supported by solid and extensive theoretical development. If Rossi's machines can generate X-rays i would assume he could use a similar method of direct generation of electricity.
Since 1989, there are clear indications that the power of society, which is largely based on fossil energy, is working to stop the new. They can do that in many hidden ways, via the CIA for example. If new energy comes powerful and unexpected, it can become a shock to society and country. The natural thing for the CIA would be to get in touch with companies that Rossi is working with and threaten them to end the partnership. Can this be averted, and how can it possibly be averted?
A key country can be China. They had a whole city that was aimed at LENR research through collaboration with Cherokee Investment Partners in 2015-2016. The premise was probably extensive openness about research worldwide. However, the recent evolution of the trade war can easily make China closed, and thus the 2015 program can be a two-edged sword against Western countries.
The risk should at least bring much greater acceptance and willingness to public attention on the topic of Western countries, such as acceptance of Rossi, and more money for research.
Any suggestions about -possible- mechanisms by which the SK could produce useful electrical power?Going back to the arc light / plasma model, the SK presumably produces a plasma, which means a lot of free electrons.So far so good. How then might the SK, or SK rigged up with some other equipment, produce current and voltage? Seems like that would require some geometric differential of charge density in the plasma (one part of the plasma being more positively or negatively charged than another.)How could that occur?I'd like to believe the SK can produce direct electrical power, however, if it is treated as a black box, it still has to hook up to a standard electrical circuit at some point. So again, what are possible ways that it might work?
Could electricity be extracted from the E-Cat (representedby B in the picture) with an induction coil (A in the picture)?
Alpha voltaic cell at 00:44 min.
Use the alphas from.
Li-7 + p > 2 He-4 17 MeV
I beleive that Bose condensation acts as a black hole that hides the radiation energy and activation produces produced during transmutation.
Li-7 + p > 2 He-4 might occur but the 17 MeV gamma is lost while the Bose condensate is active.
There is no gamma.
It’s a fusion-fission reaction. Fuses to berillion-8 that in turn fissions into twoalphas. All kinetic energy. No gamma-ray.
No kinetic energy also.
Should I believe you or Ernest Walton?
This tech maybe over Rossi's head.
There could also be a version of this tech that utilizes changes in the magnetic field inside the plasma.
This is also over Rossi's head.
Rossi is most likely using the back current that caused him problems during controller debugging in early SK reactor testing.
Or maybe he has something that’s way over our heads.
In his last theory paper, Rossi does not support the classic cold fusion meme which is easy for everybody to understand. It is to Rossi's credit that he now supports the Holmild cluster mechanism that underpins the EVO posit.
It is very hard to make that tech widely understandable. Even Holmlid does not understand it.
Magnetohydrodynamic power generation?
How did Magnetohydrodynamic power generation work out for Mills?
Pretty good actually.
Post moved from the "Brilliant Light Power Claims Confirmation of Existence of Hydrino in New Presentation" thread revised and extended. as follows:
In the ongoing SK electrical generation test, there are two ways in which free electrons can be produced over the long term (a year or more): the electrons could be coming from the reconfiguration of existing matter contained in the plasma and/or fuel, or it could be coming from the vacuum as the realization of virtual particle pairs (electrons and positrons).
If the electrons could be coming from the reconfiguration of existing matter contained in the plasma and/or fuel, the SK reactor will perform much like a battery where the electrical flow will start out strong and decline over time as the limited amount of matter comprising the plasma is transmuted until the fuel/matter supply is gone (converted to ash).
Another process that can produce steady power for over the long term (a year) is iterative conversion of matter to energy as elements continually transmute into other elements in a cycle. I doubt that this produces gainful excess energy because of my belief that transmutation contributes little energy to the reaction, but it is possible that the rolling transmutation of matter leaves copious particle fragments such as mesons and muons that eventually decay down to electrons. If this condition is the case, then the heat produced by the reaction will remain unaffected by electron formation.
An expected process where the plasma produces ionization which induces current flow is unlikely from what we know from the way the controller works. There is no feedback mechanism supported by the controller that feeds large volumes of electron to complete the circuit into the plasma to counter the ionization of the plasma. The controller produces a very small current flow from which a huge COP is derived.
If the electrical flow is coming from the vacuum as the realization of virtual particle pairs (electrons and positrons). The current flow will be steady and will not decline over time. There will be no limit to how long the SK will produce electrical power.
I will place my bet on the vacuum as the source of electrical power. In the past, the Papp engine generated its power for its ignition from the plasma that it produced. There was no report that the Papp engine slowed or failed due to a lack of self generated electrical power.
When the Papp engine exploded during the Feynman demo, the ignition controller was disabled when Feynman pulled the power plug. The creation of ever increasing current eventually destroyed the engine through uncontrolled positive feedback. Electron production in the LENR reaction is nothing new.
Also see the plasmatron here
Why go to California?
Rossi's controller must have gotten far more complicated as the electrical capture tech developed. It not only has to pump the LENR plasma reaction but it also has to as in the Papp engine capture the back current produced by the plasma.
There is likely a complex feedback based connection between the pumping signal and the flow of back current. This feedback relationship may need a top of the line oscilloscope to visualize such a situation together with an expert in the utilization of that device.
Rossi's corporate partner most likely has a division in California that specializes in complex electrical applications and has the equipment to support such R&D.
Also, it may now have gotten to a point where Rossi's team as well as his partner is gently pushing Rossi to the side and assuming the bulk of the R&D effort. This move to the west coast to conduct the test may be an indication of this situation.
I have liked ABB as Rossi's corporate partner:
Power Grids - Grid Automation & Electrification - Installation Products3055 Orchard DriveSan Jose, CA 95134
So, in your model, yes, free electrons are generated in the plasma...but how are they converted into a current or voltage? Is it because there are a lot of them, and that have to go somewhere? Does the gadget create a small voltage differential from end to end of the plasma tube, which then draws the current (free electrons) in one direction. I'm comfortable that if they can get the electrons moving they can do work. I'm not clear how they get the plasma-blob of free electrons to move.
Now maybe if the electrons are in fact coming out of the vacuum, then there will be more of them than the local protons can handle, so they would have to go somewhere...is that your model? Can you offer more detail around that?
I've always like ABB as the partner too. Power Grids is highly suspect.
Plasma ionization cannot work because of the way that Rossi has his controller configured... a very small pumping voltage.
The only other driving mechanism is through the generation of a static electrical charge where the plasma becomes increasingly negatively charged through the creation of electrons.
The creation of excess electrons can come in two possible ways. The breakdown of matter as per Holmlid or the milking of electrons from the vacuum.
[Also slightly off topic]: Since I'm curious to get a picture of what the opinion is today about Andrea Rossi and his claims, I invite you to answer to a poll on whether he has what he claims. Feel free to share. https://animpossibleinventi...
I would have like to have voted 'Yes', but I am no by no means sure about the "more or less ready for commercial use.". So I had to vote 'Not really'.
Soliciting responses to this poll on ECW is akin to soliciting responses on Flat Earth websites asking if you still believe the earth is flat. You are selecting a group that has a built in bias (some would say irrational bias). Since Rossi has given no shred of evidence that any claims on JONP about the SK are factual, (robotic factories, unnamed customers, unnamed employees, "industialization", highest echelon partner companies ...) believing in Rossi is entirely a function of faith. Even his puppet song title is "I believe in the e-cat SK", asking for believers, not showing evidence of power out > power in. Faith is not scientific. Perhaps you have more inside information than the general public, if so I would like to know. I will change my mind with real evidence.
You have already demonstrated that you are functionally innumerate as you have been repeatedly presented with such evidence and continue to post the same libels ad nauseam.
I voted Yes, because analyzing all informations of the last 8 years I find too many things that don't make sense or can't be explained unless he has what he claims. On the other hand there also have been many strange things that have never been explained. It's like the Universe is on the verge a radical transformation but meanwhile it's enjoying trolling us
Not uncommon with little known phenomenal experiments in their infancy. Patience is golden.
To me the possibility of pure deception is at this point so small that it worth taking the risk of believing that Rossi has mostly what he says he has. The possibility of pure deception is small because 1) LENR has been validated elsewhere (per McKubre) and 2) the number of ways in which pure deception could be revealed is very large, being proportional to the number of people who are involved. Lugano, Doral, Stockholm, etc. Just do the math. (Another possibility is some mass collective misunderstanding, which, given the number of people involved, is improbable to the point of fantasy).
Plus if it all falls apart, that will be an astonishing "social science" phenomena that would be by itself worth watching unfold, and to me surely deserving of a hearty laugh if it occurs.
Lugano, Doral, and Stockholm all had excruciatingly poor measurements.
At Doral, the Plant used more electricity than was supplied by the utility, for a month.
The Lugano measurements have been demonstrated wrong by the MFMP, as well as being demonstrated wrong by experiments I have done with a solid, inert cylinder where I managed to DOUBLE the COP of Lugano, using the Lugano method. That’s right. COP 7.3 Lugano Style.
Anyone could measure power like Rossi did in Stockholm and prove that every appliance in their home, city, state, and continent has a large COP.
So I suggest that the social science part is where one should zero in on, with tears and laughter where appropriate.
I am a Beliver and I don't give a monkeys what other people think about the matter. I am an experimenter and on that basis I say he has made an important Discovery.I will answer your poll later today Matts.
[Slightly off topic]: What if LENR reactions turn out to be more energy dense than fission and fusion, or in other words, that they have a higher efficiency extracting mass out of a certain quantity of fuel and turn it into energy?
Rossi told me that the total quantity of fuel (powder) in the Doral 1MW plant was about 6-7 kg. He hasn't told me about any results of an isotopic analysis of the used fuel but I got an impression that he considers the portion of the fuel that was involved in the reaction to be too small to result in any significant isotopic shifts. I don't know if this is correct, since I have no knowledge about the analysis.
But let's assume that this is correct. Let us then compare to well-known nuclear and chemical reactions.
Releasing 1MW of power for one year means a total energy of about 9 GWh which, according to E=mc2, corresponds to about 0.3 grams of mass turned into energy. The question now regards the fuel efficiency.
For example, the Hiroshima bomb contained 64 kg of uranium out of which a little less than 1 kg underwent nuclear fission. The released energy was about 15 kt TNT or 17 GWh which corresponds to less than a gram of mass turned into energy.
The Nagasaki bomb offers similar numbers—6 kg of plutonium of which about 1 kg underwent nuclear fission releasing 21 kt TNT or about 24 GWh, which corresponds to about 1 gram of mass turned into energy.
In other words, in order to turn about 1 gram of mass into energy, you need to let 15-20 kt of fuel undergo a chemical reaction, or about 1 kg fuel undergo a nuclear fission reaction (and you need several times more mass of fuel to make one kg undergo fission). This makes nuclear fission about 10 mln times more fuel efficient than chemical reactions.
(The mass turned into energy in chemical reactions and in nuclear fission derives from binding energy in atoms/molecules or in nuclei respectively, being released, resulting in a corresponding decrease of mass).
This also means that if the LENR reaction powering the E-Cat system in Doral had the same fuel efficiency as nuclear fission, about 300 grams of the 6-7 kg of fuel should have been involved in the reaction. That would be about 5 percent of the fuel which would easily be detected through isotopic analysis of the used fuel.
Now, *IF* the isotopic analysis didn't show any significant shift, this could mean that the fuel efficiency is higher than in nuclear fission, or in other words that only a minor amount, let's say a few grams of the total fuel amount of 6-7 kg, was involved in the reaction in order to turn 0.3 grams of mass into energy.
The smallest possible amount would obviously be 0.3 grams of fuel involved, meaning that the LENR process would be 100 percent fuel efficient, compared to nuclear fission being about 0.1 percent fuel efficient and chemical reactions being less than 0.00001 percent fuel efficient.
Optimising the technology, which Rossi apparently has done through the development of the E-Cat SK, this could mean that instead of needing 6-7 kg of fuel to produce 1 MW of power, you would need much less fuel. Looking at the photo of the QX which essentially would be the same core reactor as the SK, this seems probable–you would need about 50 SK (each rated at 20 kW) to produce 1MW of power and I don't think that you would fit about 100 grams of fuel in each reactor.
On the contrary, I think Rossi says there's about a gram of fuel in each reactor, meaning that the total amount of fuel would be about 50 grams. This already puts the LENR reaction ahead of nuclear efficiency–in the worst case the fuel lasts only for a year, meaning that you need 50 grams of fuel ot transform 0.3 grams of mass into energy, making the fuel efficiency 0.6 percent or six times higher than nuclear fission.
If the SK on the other hand is 100% fuel efficient, this fuel would last for about 150 years.
You ignore the possible reaction of excess electron creation from the vacuum. This could occur through either Hawking radiation or Unruh radiation.
A quantum simulation of Unruh radiation
In this article, a Bose condensate is pumped with a magnetic field and that field extracts energy from the vacuum.
Could the gigahertz pumping signal that Rossi uses in the SK reactor milk the vacuum using a super fast oscillating magnetic field to produce energy from the billions of polaritons in a polariton condensate on every cycle of the pumping signal?
By the way, to my great surprise and delight this post got through moderation by Sabine Hossenfelder, a top particle physicist where I verify my science on her blog. Any post with the word "LENR" in it, does not make it through moderation, but this one did.
Thanks Axil. I always wondered if the idea of fluctuating particles appearing out of the vacuum within the limit of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle—e.g. an electron-positron pair—and then annihilating each other releasing energy, had any theoretical support in physics. To me it would break the law of conservation of energy which I thought was still considered fundamental.
The particles are virtual, not real, so virtual particle-antiparticle pairs do not annihilate and release energy. They just disappear. Virtual particles are actually field disturbances. The use of the word ‘particles’ in ‘virtual particles’ was a poor idea, but now we are stuck with it.
The physics of black holes is the area in science where the majority of the conservation laws don't apply. LENR is also where many conservation laws are broken.
In over-unity memes, dark processes seem to universally apply. The hydrino is completely black and is a candidate for dark matter, Holmlid claims that ultra dense hydrogen is also dark matter, then there is Ken Shoulders who claims that the black EVO is a black hole.
In general, over-unity memes are black and break conservation laws.
This is interesting I’m also curious.
I’ve up to now had two models in mind when thinking of his work and and have been curious what comes up.
On one hand I’ve been thinking he has may be found a way to use glow discharge from metal hydrides and it’s subsequent handling to enhance p + Li fusion at low energies somehow.
On the other hand the above would only be valid for light nuclei (I suppose? Unless the high energy alpha can stimulate heavy nuclei transmutations somehow) so the reported transmutations and changes in isotope ratios of heavier elements maybe implies something different perhaps involving dense Hydrogen or something similar.
It’s interesting the point you raise though about conversion efficiency. It’s a completely alternative way to look at it. Where as low numbers of transmutations might imply the first option I was considering the efficiency would also indicate something new may be.
I had thought that he has maybe found a way to control the heavier transmutations in his later devices by displacing the Li7 reaction from the source of the glow discharge plasma in the metal hydrides to a more distant dense region in the thermal plasma. This might be useful for thermal reasons, and to control alpha bombardment of the metal hydride. It might also be useful if particular isotopes with small nucleus energy gaps need to be protected from transmutations in order for it to work correctly for example).
So I guess the question is really if there is sufficient Li7 and H in the device and what affects and enhances the efficiency of that reaction over its life time.
Is it the Li7 and H content that is sufficient to last 150 years?
I’m very curious because I like both possible mechanisms. Li7 and p and Dense Hydrogen.
I tend to think it’s a mechanism optimized to combine both these approaches somehow. Even enhancing Li+p fusion requires some special mechanism. And all the different data from different sources in different places for some very different applications are pointing to a common mechanism in someway. I find that even more exciting than the e-cat even though that is already incredibly astonishing in it self.
What would be truely astonishing would be if there is less Helium from the alpha or less Lithium consumption than we would expect given the energies generated. That would imply something really new and exotic and potentially groundbreaking new physics and it’s applications as has sometimes been speculated.
IMO, the LEN reaction is more efficient for a simple reason - LENR in Rossi devices is based on fission of Lithium induced by interaction with protons.
First, for the same gram amount of lithium and uranium you have much more number of lithium atoms than uranium. If the fission rate is the same for both elements then for the same gram amount you will have more decays events, and more energy release for lithium than for uranium. And plus to that is the fact that lithium fission to alpha particles produce more heat energy than fission of uranium to byproducts and neutrons, which can easily escape from interaction with absorbing substances and will dissipate energy without useful heat production.
If LENR is based on a nuclear reaction, then what happens to the gamma energy and associated nuclear activation isotopes produced by that nuclear reaction?
Mats, many thanks for all the deep research and analysis you do on Rossi, having brought your first signed book (which I am happy to sell now to help our work in Ghana for those with no clean water etc.) I am interested if in your second book you will be exploring the possible position the science of Cold Fusion would be in now, if Rossi had shared his discoveries (if genuine) from the beginning.He would of course have needed to be very well rewarded by the Society that he is helping and his further Research have been well funded, but having the millions of scientists Worldwide having confirmable Proof of his effect and immediately working on improvements, could have advanced our position many fold.Or will this situation not be covered?
Thanks Georgehants. First I plan to finish my book with a third edition, telling the end of the story, which will obviously also be the beginning of something new. I hope to do this within a year.
Then I have some ideas for another book, but I will come back to that later.
You might write a book about how the cold fusion meme nearly destroyed the LENR endeavor, and how that idea permanently tainted LENR as crackpot science. Then explain how that meme is nonsense.
Maybe so—the damage created by the term 'cold fusion' is often highlighted, but in the end I'm not so sure. As Rossi puts it—it somehow opened up a question and gave inspiration to further research and curiosity, in turn leading to the search for LENR.
Season 9 of Game of Postpones is under way!
I do believe that Dr. Rossi has a working e-cat device but his lack of scientific disclosure makes it impossible to judge the veracity of his claims. I hope that his claims of producing electricity directly from an E-cat Is true, we have been hearing about this since 2011, at some point the technology will be revealed, but the wait has been arduous.