Rossi on the Challenges of Developing E-Cat Plants

Quote from IH Fanboy

I'm no expert in the production of sponge metal, but apparently it involves heating large vats of water. So you would also need to account for whatever heat loss occurs due to the endothermic chemical process of creating the sponge metal, and the energy required to heat and maintain the temperature of the water. Siffer also calculated that you could put several saunas in the customer area, which would sufficiently sink 1 MW of heat. There are plenty of other speculative conjecture out there of how you can absorb 1 MW of heat in a warehouse of its size. One simple way would be to just heat water and then send it down a drain (not very useful, but easy enough).

Definitely no expert in thermodynamics....

Saunas? Saunas do not "sink" heat. You can heat rocks. Then what do you do with them? The rocks will radiate heat. The sauna idea is completely crazy. So you heat a lot of water. Same thing. By the way, the heating is with steam. Yes, you could heat a lot of water. Again, then what do you do with it? You cannot heat it to make it boil, more than a small bit with true superheated steam, and you would need an efficient heat exchanger....

The amount of water you would need would be more than 36 cubic meters per day! That is, if 36 cubic meters per day were converted to superheated steam, to move the heat away with water, say down the drain, it could not be more than very little steam -- and the heat exchanger would not be efficient -- so ... then there is the problem that it isn't legal to put water above a certain temperature down the drain, as I recall, plus there is a sewer charge that would be enormous. Like thousands of dollars per month, as I recall.

It doesn't work. What is happening is that you are trying to figure out ways that this heat could be dissipated, but don't know what you are doing. So you believe Not Even Wrong answers like saunas and casually think up water down the drain. Look, when the issue first came up, I researched Miami water and sewer charges. I wrote it up and then someone complains about I write too much. If you really want to know, do the research yourself! Or you could find the topic here where it was discussed. Or you could continue with mistakes and no learning.

Quote from "Jed"

Why should I stop? I have information.

Jed, If the data you have been fed is real at all, it is a by IH very well sampled part of it showing what they want you to see (ie. you have been seriously XXXXXX by IH, unless of course ...). As I understand the ERV report consists of a reasonably short and very clear report with many many pages of data attached covering the whole test. The report only leaves room for a total fraud case including Penon to explain away (as Mats wrote); not even your "certified idiot" rant will do it.

I was also wondering, where he found the time, to answer a lot of mails ans to post a lot of info on jonp, while constantly argumenting, that he works 16 hours a day. He is indeed the most heroic fraud ever seen, oh, wait, what about those orbo guys ? Suddenly really silent, isn't it ?

Quote from "ML"

Clearly heat loss in an enclosed space is determined directly by surface area and insulation (including open apertures), not the cubic space

Of course. The sauna analogy is a rule of thumb. However saunas are usually dependent on good insulation and a closed door... (which hardly is the case in a Florida factory) And at some point, even then, it simply does not get any hotter if the power is too low. A 10kW heater in a 10m³ sauna in good conditions, will maybe reach 90-100C full thottle, but hardly more. If there was ventilation in the roof, even without a fan, it would be a hopeless task... Ie. this is not about the thermostatic control.

When I build my sauna I tested it before adding insulation on the roof (only ~1cm wood). Going full throttle (burning wood) I managed to get it up to ~70C. Same power with insulation (15cm) will easily get it to 120C (above that it is not really comfy anymore...).

Btw, Rossi stated that the temp. sometimes reached ~40C in the plant, which actully fits pretty nicely with a 1MW produced. If only 20kW (as Jed et al states) was produced the 6000m³ factory (with open vents in the roof) would never ever reach that temperature. Simply not possible.

I encourage people to look at reasonable facts and not conjecture when making judgment.
I watched a 1920's silent film about man going to the moon. It was quite funny. It was quite ridiculous as well.
Man has went to the moon. They were not shot from a big gun as in this movie.
Manufacturing can use heat, but really, one must look at ALL reasonable, known parameters when evaluating an unknown.

1) Sponge metal? If this or anything else using 1MW heat was being manufactured, there would be fairly large semi truck traffic to this building. Bringing in raw material and taking out the finished. The building is ABSOLUTELY not large enough to hold manufacturing AND significant storage. So forget the heat dissipation, where was the product?

2) There would have to be ancillary employees. Fork lift driver(s), quality control etc. Perhaps not a lot, but there would be some. From all accounts, the facility was completely off limits and no one was allowed. No one seen. No one has come forward.

3) If the secret customer was manufacturing, they would have had to purchase and install equipment. Would they have created a whole new facility for this, or would it be more logical to ship the "already in a shipping container reactor" to an existing plant to provide heat? They would have had to dealt with the not small task of arranging shipments of raw material in and finished out. Production certifications for their product would have had to been met, such as ISO 9000. All these require several "outside people" to have access.

4) The place is now closed up. Supposedly under lock and key. What happened to all the raw material? The finished product? What happened to the production equipment? Did the secret customer simply "leave it behind"? Very doubtful. Was it removed? Is it logical that a customer would have spend such money for a 1 year, very controversial test?

5) Top secret? Sponge metal production is hardly top secret. Is it likely that a customer would require such secrecy, keeping away the very people funding their future power source, to a point they could not even walk through the building?

6) Certainly if production was being performed, with any number of employees, then licensing would have had to been issued. Payroll taxes, workers compensation insurance, inventory tax records, value added tax, emissions reports, sewer discharge approvals and the list goes on. I have performed startups personally. I am very aware that one does not simply rent a building and start production using a very large amount of power, "X" number of employees, receiving, shipping, discharge, etc. etc. and keep it all "Secret".

I could go on, but my point is that when one considers the total scenario, the total picture, as almost always the case, the "most likely" or most logical scenario is true! There was no manufacturing process using 1MW of heat for over a year in this facility. It amazes me how people come up with "shooting man to the moon via big gun" scenarios to try and explain away the most obvious conclusions. The mindset is one of "the alternative is unthinkable!", "It MUST be true at all costs". Look at the total picture. Remain civil. I am open minded. If evidence comes forth that gives reasonable certainty that production was performed there, I will believe it. As it stands now, there is much circumstantial and logical evidence that there was no production. There is no evidence, other than "Rossi says" that there was. In fact, there is evidence countering that.

Does this mean the reactor did not work? Not in itself. Does this lend credibility that the reactor worked? No, it detracts from it. Why fabricate some big story?

By the way.... " ~40C in the plant..... Simply not possible". !?! 40C is 104 degrees F. Florida gets that hot without any heaters! It most CERTAINLY is possible that a plant could reach ~40C. It could reach that without any heater. Start dumping 1MW of heat and it would indeed go much higher! One should check some facts first. The average temperature in Doral FL in August is 97 F or 36C. That is average!

http://www.areavibes.com/doral-fl/weather/

The internet is so nice. One can find actual facts with just a very little effort. That is if one truly wants to find the truth!

Quote from "Jed"

No, it is direct from Rossi. He showed it other people, and other people of I.H. saw the lab notebooks and instruments.

So, it has nothing to do with the ERV report and the Penon meassurements then?

Quote from "Bob"

40C is 104 degrees F. Florida gets that hot without any heaters! It most CERTAINLY is possible that a plant could reach ~40C. It could reach that without any heater. Start dumping 1MW of heat and it would indeed go much higher! One should check some facts first. The average temperature in Doral FL in August is 97 F or 36C. That is average!

Not the average temp, but to average MAX temp. Different actually. During the 24h of a normal day it seems to be more like 97-70/2... ie 83.5F, more like 28.5C...

Quote from Alan Smith

While we are discussing reasonable facts, try this. Just because you have a 1MW heater you might not want to operate it at 1MW for all (or indeed any) of the time. I have an elderly Alfa Romeo 2-seater with a 300hp V6 engine. I don't suppose I have ever needed or used all 300 hp since I bought it 14 years ago. In the same way, maybe this device was never 'flat out'.

But who knows? Certainly not me.

100% agree! I do not know either. I can make reasonable assumptions based upon education, past experience and logical conclusion.
One thing that is interesting about heaters. At least the standard kind. My wife will often turn the thermostat up to 90F when we return home to a cold house. She thinks that turning the thermostat to 90 will make the room heat up faster. It will not. Most furnaces run at one capacity. Full on. The thermostat simply controls when it runs and for how long.
It will not get warmer any faster setting the thermostat to 90 versus 80. Almost all electric resistance and gas powered heating devices work this way. My gas furnace only burns at one level, full on.

The eCat may be a different animal. I doubt it though. It probably runs "full on" if it runs at all, who knows? Rossi stated he worked 16 hours per day in the container. So the plant must have been producing close to 16 hours per day. Given what I have read, the eCat is not well suited for fast start up and shut down, but long duration. The contract even stated that it had to run 350 out of 400 days, or some similar number, I do not recall the exact parameter at the moment.

Your scenario is certainly logical and very reasonable for many applications. Based upon what I have read about the eCat and know about most heaters, what the contract seems to spell out and many Rossi posts, Rossi supposedly working 16 hours per day, etc. etc. it would seem that the plant would fit under the "runs full on most of the time". You could certainly be correct in that perhaps it never ran at 1MW capacity at all, but then why call it a 1MW plant?

I do not know. When looking at all the information that is available to me, it seems more likely that no production was done in that small warehouse. The only importance I see to the whole question is WHY would one setup it up anyway? Why the secrecy? Rossi stated many times that he was ready for mass production right after the test. The secret customer purchased (3) more plants. Others had pre-orders. Now he is back tracking stating that the plant is for "pioneer customers" only and still needs much more R&D. Total picture? Total question mark!

Who knows? Not me!

Quote from JedRothwell

Me, that's who. As I said, the data shows it running full time at 1 MW, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I don't believe it was 1 MW but that is what Rossi and Penon claim.

Sorry, my sentence was not worded very well. I meant to convey that "who knows if it runs at all" not "who knows if it runs full on"!

The English language is wonderful. It can be quite expressive, but more often quite confusing! :cookie:

(I actually appreciate Mr. A. Lomax in that he is very lucid in his posts. He does a very good job of avoiding my above mistake)