Rossi: Leonardo ‘Warship’ Ready With Robotics to Rapidly Produce Low Price E-Cats, ‘Burn Out’ Competition

@Paradigmnoia

Quote

while the activator is on the E-Cat is off.

This tells me that the magnetic field produced by the heater the surrounds the mouse stops the stimulation that flows from the mouse to the cat.

Being blocked by a magnetic field produced by the heater, the stimulation is most likely a charged particle, most likely a muon flux from the mouse to the cat.

Replicators who have seen a COP of 1.1 or 1.2 would be well served to surround their reactor with many unpowered drones to test the muon stimulation theory.

The E-Cat may be using a muon chain reaction to increase COP.

...another meaningless response...
It seems times with more compelling posts that I sometimes found interesting to read from your end are gone...

Quote from Rossi Q&A

we revolutioned the technology separating the activation from the E-Cat, making 2 separated apparatuses in the same house: mouse ( activator) and Cat. This has enhanced the efficiency of the E-Cat-
JoNP March 25, 2013
-----------Q: Does the cat and mouse both utilize separate electrical resistance based heating elements, or is the resistance element utilized by the mouse/activator the only source of external heat in the entire ECAT? A: the only source of external energy is the resistance of the Activator-
JoNP May 10, 2013
------------The average COP of the activator is 1.02 – 1.1; the average COP of the E-Cat is from 100 to 200. Margin of error about 10%. The activator is turned on for about the 35% of the operation time. This is what we are getting from prototypes working in these days in the USA.-
JoNP May 10, 2013
-------------Q: Could you, if possible, give us an idea of what the ratio of thermal output of the Ecat to thermal input to the activator is when both are active. A: They are never active together.-JoNP May 10, 2013--------------Activator and E-Cat never go at the same time.-JoNP May 10, 2013------------while the activator is on the E-Cat is off. the E-Cat, when operates, is always in ssm. with this configuration, since the Activator has a COP that allows to produce energy equal or more ( even if slightly) to the energy consumed, the resulting COP is the one of the E-Cat, otherwise you can make the average, but at this point the concept of COP changes foundamentally.-
JoNP May 11, 2013
------------Q: What is the power output of the Mouse? A: this depends on the model of the apparatus. In the basic Hot Cat it is about 1 kW-
JoNP May 12, 2013
------------Q: Have you run the Cat & Mouse configuration at temperatures higher than 350 degree Celsius? If so, what temperatures? A: yes, up to 1 000 Celsius-
JoNP May 16, 2013
------------Q: Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ? A: No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse vanishes.-JoNP October 11, 2014

Display More

Rossi is not a liar (in fact I'm not certain he has ever directly lied) in spite of the fact that he consistently misleads his audience with great effect. For example, has he ever directly said that the Lugano ash was not swapped (perhaps by swapping reactors)? I guess I need to apologise profusely for the many times I have used this word. It is just that his audience consistently believe things that are false as a result of listening to him.

This exchange is revealing.

(1) Unless you are Axil you would wonder what is the point in this setup of the "mouse". According to rossi the two components are very similar, with same fuel. They are identical if the cat is not operated in SSM. The mouse appears to be an electric heater, as measured at Lugano, COP too near to 1 to care. And the new thing is that the (unpowered except by heat from the "mouse") "cat" is separated from the "mouse".

(2) The miraculous thing here is the cat with a very very high COP.

Shall we investigate a bit more to see how the "cat" COP might be measured?

Rossi says the mouse is on when the cat is off and vice versa. So how on earth do you measure COP of the cat?

You and I might think that this is from the COP of the entire system. But that is not clear. How much of the mouse power goes into the cat? And why is the cat on (and thereby by definition in SSM) when the mouse is off?

I'd give 80% probability that I've worked this one out. Rossi gets his COP=100 from the claim that only 1% or less of the input power goes into the cat. He simply looks at electrical input and divides the energy into "mouse power" for when the mouse is on and "cat power" for when the cat is on. That would mean:
(1) the mouse looks like a low COP
(2) the cat looks like an almost infinite COP

Because Rossi is ignoring the stored heat in the system.

So with the Lugano magic (giving X3 or more spurious measurement of power) or some other power-measurement enhancing pseudo-technology, this setup will operate as stated.

Why the complexity? Well, as with Lugano where in spite of proper controls the "acceleration" was taken as proof of power generation, so here the cat SSM (self-sustaining mode => period with power out for no power in) could be used as proof of power generation.

It would not stand up to more rigorous measurement of course. OK, so what would more rigorous measurement be?

Maybe compare total input power with total output? It appears, from this exchange, that total output from the cat would be 100X total input, at 100kW or so?

Well, no. Given the measurement protocol above you can see that high cat COP comes from a very low assumed power input. The crucial question was asked above (in italics) - what is the ratio of total output energy to total input energy. It was not answered.

The mouse/cat complexity allows Rossi to claim exceptional characteristics for the cat from an overall much more modest measurement error. The fact that the cat has SSM and high COP would be used to answer any criticism about lack of overall power measurement, or about possible errors in measurement a la Lugano. After all, a X3 error is insignificant compared with the X100 gain.

So the mouse and cat mystery is (80% probability) solved. Rossi will have a working setup, he will correctly (sort of) measure these two COPs. He will not consider energy out / energy in - but if he did it would be whatever his measurement spoofing allowed. If he follows the Lugano method that could be X 3 or more (it was highly temperature dependent). Otherwise it will depend on whatever other measurement errors he has got going for him. On the basis of 15 or so past demos these seem easy enough to generate.

My next guess is (heavily into meta-data here and only 60% probability) that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] have had a report on this setup reviewed by competent enough 3rd parties and realised that is proves nothing. They have asked Rossi to tighten things up Krivit-style. Rossi has refused, claiming that they are doubting his technical competence. They have had a falling out. No public snake-calling - that would serve neither party - but nevertheless a big cooling off in the relationship.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

You and I might think that this is from the COP of the entire system. But that is not clear. How much of the mouse power goes into the cat? And why is the cat on (and thereby by definition in SSM) when the mouse is off?

I'd give 80% probability that I've worked this one out. Rossi gets his COP=100 from the claim that only 1% or less of the input power goes into the cat. He simply looks at electrical input and divides the energy into "mouse power" for when the mouse is on and "cat power" for when the cat is on. That would mean:
(1) the mouse looks like a low COP
(2) the cat looks like an almost infinite COP

Dear Thomas, sometimes its worth reading Rossis homepage.

http://ecat.com/ecat-products/…w/ecat-1mw-technical-data

All the clumsy details are there (at least were, some minutes ago). Rossi claims (guarantees) an overall COP of 6. Which is not much and possibly only usefull for heat production.

As I stated already months ago: With a dumb heater and a COP of 6 Rossi will not change the world. Remember Carnots law is the hurdle to the infinite world of electricity and low cost. A COP of 20 is mandatory to reduce interal obverhead. But things will changes. I'm shure.

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

My next guess is

Yawn!!!!

Quote from Alan Smith

Dream on Thomas. This fantasy of your is as good as I have read. How on earth do you imagine anyone would overlook comparing total electrical input with total heat output? You can't exactly ship 1MW of electricity into work in your lunch pail every day. Neither is a 1MW connection to the grid a trivial affair.

Quote from Wyttenbach

...References 1MW test claimed COP of 6...

You have perhaps not been following the Rossi saga?

The COP=6 claim related to the 1MW plant. I'm not commenting on the "1MW test result" which could, as Rossi tells us, be positive or negative and where details are so scanty even rampant speculation as above is impossible.

Furthermore, the claimed COP from the 1MW plant is not what I'm addressing. Mind you - even with overall claimed measured COP of 6 you can see there would be something fishy about this COP=100 claim and I stand by my guess as to what it is.

The "cat and mouse" system will I'm 80% sure now be Rossi's science proof of concept, working in-house, and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] will have had a report on how it works. A bench-scale system in a lab is more difficult to spoof than a 1MW system attached to someone's large factory and with output mixed with existing heating, where the number of sensors etc is very large and the overall system more complex. Not that Rossi finds bench-scale systems difficult to spoof as we have seen in Lugano.

Quote from Wyttenbach

As I stated already months ago: With a dumb heater and a COP of 6 Rossi will not change the world. Remember Carnots law is the hurdle to the infinite world of electricity and low cost. A COP of 20 is mandatory to reduce internal obverhead. But things will changes. I'm shure.

I think here you have no idea what you are talking about. A device that can (for free) generate heat from electricity with 6X gain and at a temperature of 300C+?

Heat pumps require large coolers, give only X3 gain, and work at low temperature (with gain decreasing at higher temp). And they are much larger for given claimed power out than Rossi's reactors.

Such a device would be a major technological revolution, even as a heat pump replacement. The demand for heating, industrial and domestic, is enormous. X6 from electricity is in all circumstances lower carbon than gas (which is not always available).

In fact, given that the device is so small & cheap, X6 is possibly enough to make electricity generation feasible, because 30% efficiency from a generating system is not challenging and so the output power available would be 12% with cooling power 5X output power.

Had Rossi what he claims, believe me, it would be worth trillions, a Nobel prize, and "hero of the century" award.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I think here you have no idea what you are talking about. A device that can (for free) generate heat from electricity with 6X gain and at a temperature of 300C+?

Heat pumps require large coolers, give only X3 gain, and work at low temperature (with gain decreasing at higher temp). And they are much larger for given claimed power out than Rossi's reactors.

Its time to refresh Your knowledge! My "tiny" heat-pump in my home has a (over the year) COP of 5.1. a little bit less that Rossi guarantees.

But this it not the clou: With a COP of 6 You probably need 1/2 of the net output (thanks to Carnot) to produce Your electric current which is needed by the "mouse heater..". So the net "standalone/off grid COP" of Rossi is 4!

Even this assumption is only true if the Rossi heater produces steam at a reasonably high temperature well above 600C. The higher T steam the 'better' the theoretical efficiency is.

Conclusion: The Rossi process can only be used on grid for bulk heating!!

Quote

Its time to refresh Your knowledge! My "tiny" heat-pump in my home has a (over the year) COP of 5.1. a little bit less that Rossi guarantees.

Your "tiny" heat pump will, at that COP, be using a low temperature difference and therefore not work at the high output temp that Rossi's stuff works at. I'm sure you know the Carnot limit equation and can apply it?

Even with similar performance there is a big difference between a device that requires a heat sink proportional in size to the power output and one that is highly power dense and does not. You have a difference in power density performance of maybe 100 to 1.

And re electric output if you check my calculations you will say I was pessimistically taking 18/30 = 60% of net output as required feedback. Since the system is very power dense the issue there is cooling, as I stated, and the capital and space cost of the generator. COP = 6 is just about possible for electricity output. For area heating the addition of a genrator would mean you had COP = infinity.

But all that is of course premised on Rossi's claims being accurate, when we known they are not.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

And re electric output if you check my calculations you will say I was pessimistically taking 18/30 = 60% of net output as required feedback. Since the system is very power dense the issue there is cooling, as I stated, and the capital and space cost of the generator. COP = 6 is just about possible for electricity output. For area heating the addition of a genrator would mean you had COP = infinity.

With that a can agree.

You will be able to "kick the nuclear reactors" (sense figure) out of the building and replace them with E-cats. The monopole stays in place...
Of course this works with all thermic power plants which have adequate cooling.

If the Cat and mouse is configured in a wafer format, then the center layer of the wafer is the heater. The layer that is directly beside the heater is the mouse. There would be two mouse layers that receive the heat directly from the heater on either side of the heater. The the two mouse layers are directly stimulated by the centrally located heater layer. On either side of the mouse layers are eight cat layers which are identical to the mouse layers which makes for a total of 16 cats layers. All cat layers are heated in turn by the heat and other stimulation(muons) coming from the mouse and cat layers located more closer in from the central heater layer.

In a tube format, the mouse would be the central tube in a bundle of alumina tubes around which is grouped 16 tubes in a bundle. The central inner most tub in the bundle is heated by a coil heater as in Lugano. The surrounding tubes would be layered on top of the heater tube stacked in layers atop the lower layers in a cylindrical stack.

The mouse/cat based tube reactor might look like this