1 MW E-Cat Plant Watch Thread [UPDATE #41 — 350 Day Test is Over, Results in Approx 1 Month]

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/18/1-mw-e-cat-plant-watch-thread-update-1-rossi-production-cost-in-kw-is-very-competitive/']Since there are beginning to be more frequent references to the 1 MW E-Cat plant that we have been told will be installed and be open to visitors at some point (perhaps this year, according to Andrea Rossi), I thought I would create a dedicated thread to the topic which I will update as needed, […][/feedquote]
  • Now everything depends on the credibility of the "ERV", aka "Expert Responsible for Validation".


    If it is a nobody or Rossi-related party the complete results are useless, as the lugano report was because Rossi's participation.
    If it is a well known really (!!) independent party, then very interesting times are ahead of us...

  • Hi all


    If the results are Positive the ERV may delay to have others analyse them but more likely will grab the glory and let others pick over the bones.


    If there is a delay there will be major market moves as the test results get blabbed about, same as there was with the Lugano report.


    Kind Regards walker

  • Very anti-climatic finale. Rossi has been tending to the 1MW in that cramped shipping container for one year (16 hours a day)...the test ends, and all we get from his is: "oh, by the way, the test ended yesterday. Now onto my latest and greatest...the ECat-X". Where is the champagne? ;)


    Like everything with this story, his ho-hum response, and redirecting attention to something even better, could be construed either way...scam, or not a scam. If everything he has said so far is true; i.e. credible 3rd party overseeing (ERV), factory owner unaffiliated and independent of [lexicon]IH[/lexicon]/Leonardo...the results are "positive", and that data is publicly released -or at least authenticated by a trusted source...


    Then again, there always seems to be a catch with Rossi. So nope, I'm not going to wait with baited breath as before, and set myself up for disappointment yet again. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" is how I think the saying goes.

  • I lost track of the number of lives this old blue container has had.
    But judging from Rossi's worn out F9 key the one that just ended was the ninth.


    (Talking about F9, SpaceX is launching the next Falcon 9 the at the 24th. Don't miss the show!)

  • My guess is that Rossi told the client the plant needed a stop and go for refuelling short to the conclusion of the year. They had a meeting and Rossi was given the chance to anticipate the end of the test. So he was given the chance to move the official end date "to the past". He agreed. The Plant was stopped for good and everyone moved to a new lab.

  • WOW, this might change everything. If he's smart he'll let independent experts analyze the data. Otherwise the controversy will continue.


    I'm very much hoping the report of the "expert responsible for validation" is released to the public, because I am very curious about what it says. I am only moderately hopeful that it will be rigorous. Even if it turned out to be rigorous, I am doubtful that it would end the controversy.

  • I surely hope Mats is right. What you at least can say is that Andrea calculated the fuel accurately. Maybe he should have put in a little bit more, just to overcome the full 400 days period. On the other hand, maybe the fuel would have lasted that period as well, but the test was simply finished?
    If the latter is the case, the 'customer' must have decided to continue the for him profitable situation, otherwise refueling would not be needed.

  • Barty: Right, so just wait a month, if the ERV report is positive, it is hard to believe we will not soon know the name of the customer. If the customer verifies and has financial reports that support saving money with the Rossi plant, all the skeptic rhetoric about testing errors and the soon to be vilifying the ERV, will be moot points.

  • I've always wondered ... what is it about a '1 year test' that isn't materially revealed by a '1 week test'?


    Clearly its not about the season of the year. There should be no Winter-versus-Summer performance differences.
    It shouldn't be about the effect of sporadic unpredicted power outages.
    Its operating point shouldn't depend on the phase of the Moon.
    Nor the height of the tides.


    MOREOVER, a machine that is purportedly putting out some 1,000,000 watts of thermal energy in a week, will have put out over 600 BILLION joules (145 billion calories, 145 million kcal, 595 million BTU, 168,000 kilowatt hours, etc.) of thermal energy. This is a large enough value that simply heating a significant (and easily quantified) amount of flowing water by digital sampling of flow-rate and delta-temperature would reveal correlation - long term - as to the validity of the claim.


    Which doesn't need a year.
    At all.


    Just saying,
    GoatGuy