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

  • Fuel endurance time.


    I completely missed that ... Well then, let's hope they got their parameters right.
    Should be visible in the output curves: 'fine ... fine ... fine ... drooping ... nada ...'


    I should think that the ongoing data collection should essentially be done-and-analyzed within hours of the "done switch" being shut off.
    After all, the data has been gathering for a year.
    And the data-analysis agency must sure have been taking spot-checks under non-disclosure the whole time...
    ... to work out base rates, operating parameters, differential response curves and the like.


    Just saying.
    It sounds thin.
    Like testing an ocean going yacht for a year to see when the fuel tank runs dry.
    Mmmm... hmmm...


    GoatGuy

  • @GoatGuy


    The test evaluator has vast nuclear industry experience so you know that he will milk this job for as much as he can get. That is business as usual in that industry. It might take a month before the report is prepared; this is consistent with the pace of nuclear industry report prep speeds. The test evaluator will milk this job for all fees that it is worth. After all when his ID is revealed to his nuclear brothers, he will be shunned from the nuclear industry and made to retire out of vindictive spite.


    After all, he is contributing to the demise of the nuclear industry if he in fact tells the truth.

  • Well Goat Guy, that is a good question. One that has been asked many times the past year. Not trying to embarrass you for asking it yet again mind you, as it is only asked so often because it makes sense...understand you aren't privy to prior discussions? Even our dearly departed Mary Yugo, ;) incorporated that very question into the majority of his anti-Rossi rants. I may have asked the same myself a time or two.


    The answer varies depending on the affiliation -skep/believer, of those answering. Skeps...well of course we know what they say. I assume you are in that category? Believers such as myself, who, when they put on the skep hat for a moment, are all over the place as is expected of us...hey, we don't want to disappoint. :)


    Seriously, and honestly, most explanations revolve around the "N" letter in LENR. That word alone changes the R/D of any product. Puts it onto an alternate, much more difficult, highly political, regulatory approval track. If this is all real, obviously the 1MW plant, or any of Rossi's products to come (hey what do you think of that ECat-X? ;) ) for that matter, are not going to be introduced into the marketplace so easily as other, non "N" products, would.


    According to Rothwell, not even a 1 year test run will come close to placating the regulatory agencies in western societies, possibly even communist regimes...not to mention keeping the greenies at bay. If I recall correctly, he thinks it will take hundreds of Ecat test beds being run simultaneously, for a long, long time to even come close to gaining approval for putting such a unique device in the public domain. He had some more graphic descriptions I won't mention so as not to scare the children. :)


    Yes, what I said raises even more questions as to how this one test was allowed? That has been discussed too. I've seen your stuff before, so I guess you already are wondering that too.

  • We are talking about Rossi here. No one else could have pulled it off. He has had a lot of experience dirty infighting with the Mafia and Big Gov.
    Anyone else would have blown it with bright eyed naivete.


    If I were Rossi I would not let anyone near the device just too satisfy your curiosity.


    He has all the cards. It's his call.

  • Why did they allow the test to proceed?
    Two reasons
    1 They were trapped by their own propaganda. How could they admit it was nuclear when they had previously denied such a thing was possible?
    2 They have a war to fight. You can bet your bottom Dollar that the competition was not bound by any theoretical niceties.
    I'll leave you with your demented imagination as to how this will effect warfare.

  • As said here that is was working have been proven in the first days of operation.
    If it was not working at all, if it were a scam, it would have ended after few days of analysis, at worst after first billing analysis.
    The goal of the test is just legal to determine contractual commitments, confirm reliability targets.
    The F9 is like "presumption of innocence", a legal position not related to factual evidences.


    I see 3 population.

    • The happy few of aware and convinced people will put more pressure on their projects, increasing evangelisation efforts. La Tribune article triggered such moves, adding to many others in process in many zone.
    • The mass of uninformed people will float between rare direct influence by happy few, seldom joining them, and wide influence of the massive FUD and Wikipedia lies. Most people will prefer comfortable FUD to disruptive hypothesis.
    • The few active nay-believers will increase their FUD efforts, developing conspiracy theories of increased complexity, which will satisfy the demand of FUD, as it happens since may 1989 in Baltimore conference.

    We will have to work for the growing few who support LENR, ignoring others while will only admit it when a kid of 5 years old will menace to ridicule them.

  • I would say that financial reports do take a while to prepare, especially if one is going to account for capex using a new technology.
    It isn't about whether the plant makes heat or not, it is about profitability.
    The report will be tied to the year-end financial report of the company is my guess.