And lastly, I am still clinging to the vain hope that someone will explain to me why an industrial user with a requirement for hundreds of KW of heat would prefer a system of hundreds of tiny units as opposed to say a system of 4 x 250 KW ecats
It quite simple actually as the believers will tell you....... Rossi said so! That is all the "facts: they need! 
I think we can safely assume that you do not fall into the 'working device ' category.
It must be frustrating for you: who from various nods and winks here I suppose sincerely believe that Rossi does have working devices. How annoying that every one of his demos has such obvious error mechanisms lying around fro anyone with a curious mind to find. That IH with an inside track and given working devices proclaim, after changing from Rossi's tests to others done by technically competent 3rd parties, that they just don't work at all!
If he has working devices, Rossi must be both incredibly unlucky and incredibly good at shooting himself in the foot - while also good at becoming a multi-millionaire accumulating condos.
QuoteBTW I look at facts, and I'm not a believer. Ele
Thanks for that. I really needed a good laugh.
Does the same apply to BLP, Steorn, Papp, etc, etc...?
@THH: Next time you should complete the list with ITER / SUPER-Phenix (German Diesel..) and other main stream mind-blowing concepts...
It must be frustrating for you: who from various nods and winks here I suppose sincerely believe that Rossi does have working devices.
Neither frustrated nor annoyed. Not in my nature.
Neither frustrated nor annoyed. Not in my nature.
I predict then that you have the patience to stay a closet Rossi fan for a long long time!
@THH: Next time you should complete the list with ITER / SUPER-Phenix (German Diesel..) and other main stream mind-blowing concepts...
The thing is W, ITER etc publish high quality experimental science which is coherent and describes precisely how well their stuff works. Further, no-one makes claims inconsistent with that.
You may think what theyb do a waste of resources, but it is transparent and honest.
Unlike the people on my list who are the opposite of transparent and make claims for experiments they have done that are unsubstantiated.
You may think what theyb do a waste of resources, but it is transparent and honest.
Unlike the people on my list who are the opposite of transparent and make claims for experiments they have done that are unsubstantiated.
@THH: Spoiling 50 Billions of public money is honest, if you write a report how it has been vaporized ???
(Even if there is known proof that Deuterium/Tritium hot-fusion never will work in costs, because the Neutron shield cannot be payed for!??)
And you express deep concerns for a money laundry company, that spoiled 11.5 (+5.5 AEG) millions?
the fact that anyone on this forum argues for Rossi being a lying cheat proves he must in fact having a working device which will solve the world's energy problems means said device must work?
Well we can call it an indirect clue based on lateral thinking. It means that Rossi has enemies that are motivated to fight him at any cost. And this means that Rossi should be a real threat for those people meaning that Rossi has something.
They don't fight any fool (e.g. flat earth society https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/ ) they fight Rossi because the technology Rossi is real.
And who sustain Rossi do it for the same reason.
Does the same apply to BLP, Steorn, Papp, etc, etc...?
With your question you provide even more evidence. In fact who remember BLP, Steorn, Papp ecc... ? They are forgotten because they were out of reality. (I was not even able to find BLP on google. )
German Diesel
German Diesel engines are the most powerful and fastest in the world 
Spoiling 50 Billions of public money is honest,
Just to note. Rossi never asked or used public money for the Ecat. This is a quite important fact,
In contrast seems that Darden has obtained and wasted a huge quantity of public money,
Darden has more money than Rossi, so he must be right and Rossi is wrong.
THH has received more than 1.5 likes per post, so everything he says must be right.
Am I getting good at this lateral thinking game?
And lastly, I am still clinging to the vain hope that someone will explain to me why an industrial user with a requirement for hundreds of KW of heat would prefer a system of hundreds of tiny units as opposed to say a system of 4 x 250 KW ecats
I do not believe either system exists but . . . to answer your question, if the reactor made of small units is more reliable, better controlled, or has other advantages, users would prefer it. In the modern era, small sized, mass produced components are not difficult to make, expensive or less reliable than large components. As I mentioned before, a modern electric car has many battery cells. A fission reactor has many fuel rods, each containing many small pellets.
Multiplicity of components is not a problem. It would have been 50 to 100 years ago, when manufacturing was manual rather than robotic. When computer RAM memory was made of individual magnetic cores, adding components increased the cost and complexity of RAM. The cores were originally threaded by hand, and later by machines as I recall, but it was always difficult. With semiconductor RAM millions (and now trillions) of devices are fabricated simultaneously with photolithography. The cost does not increase proportionally with the number of memory cells. When you double the amount of RAM on a computer chip of roughly the same die size, the cost may increase but it will probably not be twice as high, whereas adding more magnetic cores always increased the cost proportionally.
Here is a late model 1024-bit planar core memory that hangs on my wall. You can see it is a combination of discrete components and mass produced circuit board technology. This is a scanned image. Click on the image to see the entire device. It is square, 10.5 cm per side.
lenr-forum.com/attachment/2559/
Here is a close-up of the magnetic cores, at 1200 dpi. You can see the manufacturing imprecision.
How annoying that every one of his demos has such obvious error mechanisms lying around fro anyone with a curious mind to
findspeculate about based on faulty premises, only to be later debunked by IHFB and others.
FTFY
The thing is W, ITER etc publish high quality experimental science which is coherent and describes precisely how well their stuff works. Further, no-one makes claims inconsistent with that.
You may think what theyb do a waste of resources, but it is transparent and honest.
They transparently and honestly take the tax payers to the cleaners. And guarantee their lives of financial stability including in retirement, with any benefit to the public being always 50 years in the future. I'm tired of the scam. LENR. And if not LENR, solar.
QuoteWell we can call it an indirect clue based on lateral thinking.
ROTFWL! Oh yeah! And supported by ALTERNATIVE FACTS!
QuoteMultiplicity of components is not a problem.
Generically true but misses the point. How do you control and assemble, not to mention cool and extract energy from as well as, if you believe Rossi, take heat and electricity away, oh and... it does require a DC supply (why?) And there are 50,000 tiny devices CONTAINING A PLASMA to make a megawatt plant?! As someone else noted, why (oh WHY?) would someone do this when he can assemble 4 compact 250kW ecats to get the same power with what Rossi claims is a cheap to make, cheap to fuel, simple and well tested technology?
And lastly, I am still clinging to the vain hope that someone will explain to me why an industrial user with a requirement for hundreds of KW of heat would prefer a system of hundreds of tiny units as opposed to say a system of 4 x 250 KW ecats
According to Rossi, many of the small E-Cats in the 1 MW plant didn't work and he is disassembling them to find out why. You may remember the earlier public demo of a 1 MW plant that only produced about half a MW. He has problems with the 250 kW units too, so they were not yet fit for commercial sale. So it appears that the E-Cat QX is more reliable and has a higher COP (Not to mention a more useful higher temperature.) Both Rossi and his customers would rather go with the improved design.
A self sustained plasma has been demonstrated by Mills of BLP as well as Rossi with his E-Cat QX. It is easy to measure the current going through it and the method of using a 1 ohm resistor and two voltmeters is quite adequate to do so. He says it runs in ssm 67% of the time.
Now if you are like many on this forum who don't believe anything Rossi says there is no point is having a discussion. The fact remains that he has has improved his demonstrations over the years. His last one with a heat exchanger, described by Mats Lewan, shows that he has nearly got it right (one water temperature was measured too close to a heat source) and I suppose he has learnt from that criticism and will be more careful with the October demo.
I'm not going to speculate how that demo will go until after seeing it. What the libelous critics need t o explain is why Rossi spends so much time and money on developing the E-Cat when he could have retired with enough money for the rest of his life. It's not as if he is trying to extract money from the public. Big companies should be able to do due diligence.
FTFY
How annoying that every one of his demos has such obvious error mechanisms lying around fro anyone with a curious mind to
findspeculate about based on faulty premises, only to be later debunked by IHFB and others.
Name one error mechanism (not off-hand blog comment only tangentially related to errors) that you have debunked?
What you are good at is giving the counterarguments to speculations such as Paradigmnoia here that a specific experiment was inconsistent because a TC would have melted. There are many other such speculations from Doral.
Proving any of those speculations is a tough call, given limited evidence.
Showing that they cannot be proved (as you try and sometimes succeed in doing) is not debunking error mechanisms. For rhetoric purposes you do what Rossi does, and take experiments that prove nothing as success. From Rossi's POV they are that.
To debunk error mechanisms, for example, you'd need to show that TC's paper was wrong.
Display MorePara, you really can't help but FUD can you?
Kanthal A1 has a melting point at 1500 C.
The hot cat reactor is designed to operate in a range of 250-1200° C. The max measured temp in Lugano was ~1410. The reactor was designed such that the convective thermal exchange from internal to external is maximized, so the differential between internal and surface temp is probably negligible.
If the outside of the Main Tube was around 1410 C, then the below the ridges, under the ceramic potting compound, (where the wound heating coil is), the temperature is higher.
The caps have more insulation, and even with a cooler outside temperature, will have a very high core temperature. Remember, three sets of glowing hot wires pass around the inner fuel tube filler area (and extend past it), beneath 1.5 cm of cast alumina.
For a fun test, heat a Kanthal A1 wire 1400 C (at an un-insulated section), while 4 cm of it are encased in 1.5 cm of hardened alumina paste. Then try encasing 4 cm of it in 3 mm of alumina paste (use a new wire for this).
Note that surface convective improvements have minor effects on surface temperature compared to the radiative power dissipation unless the overal surface area is increased by multiples rather than fractional increases. The fins on the Lugano device contribute little to the overall cooling.
A question: if Rossi's reactor gets so hot, why does it require continuing electrical heating to keep on "working". Why not simply shut off the heater when the reactor gets hot on its own? And get a COP of infinity? Control it by forced cooling-- forced energy extraction. If it's supposedly unsafe to cut off what Rossi hilariously used to call his "safety heater" (which makes no sense), take it out in the desert.
