Why are Rossi's intentions important, in the context of validating his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol which allows reputable scientists to replicate his results, and to obtain nearly identical (+/- 30%) results. That would be a tremendous contribution, much more valuable than tens of patents.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) ============================== On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:43 PM, David Roberson wrote: > Axil, > > Do you see any reference in this group of postings to a single mouse driving > 15 cats? I looked at it briefly and can not find it. There is plenty of > speculation on the part of Hank and others but I do not see where Rossi > confirms a configuration like we are discussing. > > Much of this information is from 2 years ago and Rossi just recently told me > to use the patent as a reference. What should we use? The patent seems to > be the best indication of his actual intentions. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:52 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement > > Hank Mills > December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM > Dear Andrea, > > The information you are sharing is fascinating. While we wait for the full > reports, it gives us something to think upon. > > 1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles > continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode? > > 2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended > periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable? > > 3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat > during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, > but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For > example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt > plant in self sustain mode. > > 4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the > end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage? > > Andrea Rossi > December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM > Hank Mills: > 1- no > 2- confidential > 3- no > 4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers > when the Mouse is turned on > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > Hank Mills > December 27th, 2013 at 7:34 PM > Dear Andrea, > > What happens if you do not apply power again once you put the reactor in to > self sustained mode? Do the reactions try to run away or will they fade over > time? With at least some of your previous reactors, if you did not apply > power every so often the reactors would run away. However, in one test the > data showed when the input power was cut off the reactions gradually faded > over time. > > Andrea Rossi > December 27th, 2013 at 7:56 PM > Hank Mills: > If we give too much energy to the reactor the temperature raises above the > controllability limits and the reactor explodes. We must maintain the drive > below this limit, and it is what we are learning to do, trying to reach a > controllability level at the highest temperature possible, because the COP > raises exponentially with the operation temperature. The apparatus is made by > two well separated components, the activator ( “mouse”) and the energy > catalyzar ( “Cat”). Now we have a mouse with a COP above 1 and a Cat with a > COP with zero energy consumption. If the Mouse excites the cat too much, the > cat gets wild and explodes. We must not risk to reach this level. We have > seen explode hunderds of reactors now, this way. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > Joseph Fine > May 12th, 2013 at 8:53 PM > Dear Andrea Rossi, > > The initiator/Mouse is at low (or zero power) when switched off. It/(the > Mouse) consumes 1 kW only 35% of the time (and produces essentially 1.02 kW > of heat during this time). Instead of using a (Joe)COP of 2.86(P2/P1) = 286, > assume the actual COP is only 100-125. This is admittedly much higher than > the presumed COP of 10-12, but lets continue along this path. > > If the “ETA”, or thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency at 350-400 C, is > between 30% and 40% (40% is on the high side), and COP is between 100-125, > (let alone 200-250) then each 100 kW Hot Cat would be able to drive from > .3*100 to .4*125 or 30 – 50 other Hot-Cats. So, each 1 KW input to a > first-stage Mouse can produce not 100 KW-th but, by generating 30+ kW-Elec, > may be able to drive 30 other second-stage 100 kW Hot Cat devices. > > Even if it is possible to produce 3 MW-thermal with one (1st stage) 1 kW > Mouse, it may be much simpler to have 30 1-kW Mice to drive 30 separate 100 > kW devices. > > Without getting too exuberant, three stages of multiplication by a factor of > 20, instead of 30, is already 20^3 = 8000. That is, even if a single 1st > stage kW Mouse can only drive 20-100 kW ‘Cats’, three such stages, using a > single 1 kW input (gas or electric), ultimately might produce 8000*100 kW or > 800 MW of heat. > > And if you can produce 800 MW of heat, or even much less, why do you need a 1 > kW input? (Other than for start-ups.) > > 0) Is that the basic concept of what you are trying to accomplish? > > 1) When a 100 kW HotCat or Tiger-Cat is not in the self-sustained mode (SSM), > what mode or state is it in? In other words, how much thermal power is > produced during the 35% of time the 100 kW Cat is not in SSM? Does it have an > electrical input to bring it back under control? Or do you simply remove its > input Hydrogen (Idrogen) supply? > > Multi-stage regards, > > Joseph Fine > > PS I apologize for this comment, as I may be engaging in irrational > exuberance. > > Andrea Rossi > May 12th, 2013 at 5:03 PM > Dear Dr Joseph Fine: > 1- The Activator provides heat to the Customer when it is turned ON, while it > also activates the E-Cat. When it is turned off his production is very low. > 2- yes > 3- I would say: since the Activator pays for itself, being its COP ~1.02 , > the E-Cat has a COP difficult to evaluate: we say 100-200, but, as a matter > of fact, at the denominator there is zero. > 4- this depends on the model of the apparatus. In the basic Hot Cat it is > about 1 kW > 5- no > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > Steven N. Karels > May 12th, 2013 at 5:47 AM > Dear Andrea Rossi, > > Many thanks for the continued information and clarifications of the Activator > and Reactor. A very interesting implementation. Also, thanks to Pekka > Janhunen for the closed form solution to average COP. A few additional > questions: > > a. In the Activator – Reactor system, essentially you have a Reactor without > electrical heaters but it receives its control heat from the Activator. So at > thermal steady-state operation, the Reactor is in SSM 65% of the time and in > the other 35%, heat is being applied by the Activator? Is this essentially > correct? > > b. Conceptually, if you were to construct a 1MW industrial device using 10 of > the 100 kW Tiger units, would you be limited in output power control to 10%? > > c. If the 100 kW Reactor just begins its SSM operation mode and the user > demand significantly decreases, can the 100 kW unit be immediately throttled > back or must one wait for the cessation of SSM before an output reduction > occurs? > > d. In the 100kW design, is the Activator an internal part of the Reactor body > or an external unit (for example, it wraps around the Reactor)? > > e. What are the dimensions of the 100 kW unit? – I would like to run a heat > transfer analysis, please. > > Andrea Rossi > May 12th, 2013 at 8:04 AM > Dear Steven N. Karels: > a- when the activator is on the E-Cat is off, when the E-Cat is on the > Activator is off. When the Activator is turned off the temperature rises, > becauce the E-Cat is activated, when the Activator is turned on the > temperature lowers, because the E-Cat goes off. If we consider > 100 hours of operation, for about 35 hours the Activator is on and the E-Cat > is off, while for about 65 hours the E-Cat is on and the Activator is off. We > reached a good stability for this reason: the Activator gives to the E-Cat > enough energy to give good performance, but not enough to escape from > control, like a Mouse which make a Cat nervous, but not too much; then, the > Activator stops, the CaT goes on, until he returns to sleep; at this point > the Mouse- activator is turned on, but the temperature goes down because the > E-Cat is off; at this point the Cat becomes again nervous, and immediately > the Mouse- activator is turned off, while again the temperature raises, and > so on. The invention of this cycle, regulated by a complex software, allows > to reach high temperatures in good stability. The important thing is that > also the Activator has a charge, so that it reaches a COP more than 1, paying > for itself: for this reason the energy that the Activator consumed is paid > for by itself and does not affect the COP of the E-Cat. You know how I > invented this system? I was in North Carolina and observed in a garden of the > hotel a sleeping cat: a squirrel passed fast close to the cat, and the cat > made some move to reach the squirrell, but the squirrel disappeared and the > cat returned to sleep…that’t learning from Nature! > b- No > c- So far we are making R&D on the 100 kW Tigers, I can’t answer > d- see 3 > e- see 3 > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > Italo R. > May 11th, 2013 at 11:16 PM > Dear Dr. Rossi, may I ask something about the last stunning development? > 1 – How long in minutes is the cycle: mouse (35% of total) + cat (65% of > total)? > 2 – During the first 35% when the cat is off (no ssm also), the heat produced > by the whole apparatus is tending to zero? > > Andrea Rossi > May 12th, 2013 at 12:39 AM > Dear Italo R.: > 1- the cycle depends, is regulated by a central control system > 2- no, when the Activator is on ( and the Cat off) all the energy consumed by > the Activator is given as a heat production with a COP slightly superior to 1 > ( 1.02): for this reason the energy consumed from the Activator has not to be > accouinted for as a consume of the E-Cat: all the energy consumed by the > activator is recovered and used by the Customer. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > Steven N. Karels > March 24th, 2013 at 7:02 PM > Dear Andrea Rossi, > > Regarding the independent third-party testing, you stated “But my Cats are > good, I’m sure they are working well” > > Questions: > > 1. How many eCats did you provide to the third party testers? > 2. Were they nominal 10kW output power reactors? > 3. What flavor of eCats (Thermal, Hot or Gas-fired) were provided? > > Andrea Rossi > March 25th, 2013 at 8:03 AM > Dear Steven N. Karels, > The new technology of the Hot Cats has revolutioned the system we had used > before. Please wait the publication, afterward we will talk of this issue. > Basically, we have no more a reactor or a cluster of reactors, but each > reactor is coupled with an activator: let’s make this model: the activator is > the Mouse, which makes the Cat run. The Mouse has his own COP which is more > than 1, the Cat is a surprise. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > Dan C. > June 5th, 2015 at 7:57 PM > Dear Andrea > > In a previous post, I said I hope they don’t send the 8-ball instead of a > Crystal Ball. > > In case your not aware of it, I thought I would clarify. It is a novelty > fortune telling device of childhood days. The correct name is Magic 8-Ball. > It is merely a play on the Crystal Ball. Both just as reliable. > Here is a wiki link. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball > > This link provides the 20 answers in a standard 8-Ball. There were many > variations of the 8-ball, some not suitable for children. > > Note: A pinball was much more entertaining. > > Regards, > Dan C. > > Andrea Rossi > June 5th, 2015 at 9:20 PM > Dan C.: > The concert model is proper: wherein many instruments can make a harmony that > is not just the sum of single sounds: resonances can generate virtual > entities whose energy is higher than the sum of the energy of the singles. > The Mouse has a driving license, of course! > Next time you bake a cake I send him to make the pick up. > Speaking seriously: thank you for your insight. > Warm Regards > A.R. > > BroKeeper > April 30th, 2015 at 7:38 PM > Dear Andrea Rossi, > You responded to Curiosone: “I can say that the 1 MW E-Cat ( ” She” ) is > stable and in ssm mode.” This seems to imply the 1MW plant, as a single unit, > ran in self-sustain mode, not just an individual reactor. > > If this is the case then one of two scenarios could be explained. Either you > have now been able to synchronize control of all the reactors as one, or the > SSM of each reactor is long enough for all 100 reactors to be more often than > not in SSM at once. In this case a major breakthrough has been achieved with > a significant ratio of output to input far beyond COP 20. Could you enlighten > us to which case this may be if not another? > > With much respect, BroKeeper > > Andrea Rossi > May 1st, 2015 at 7:48 AM > BroKeeper: > The ssm is enhanced by the fact that with the control system directing > multiple reactors we can obtain a synergy between them using some of the > reactors to drive others, where the driving ones ( mouse operation) are less > than the cat ones. This way the ssm phases are substantially more that the > driving ones. This synergy, obviously, is possible only with big plants ( so > far). > I cannot give the numbers, as correctly Steven N Karels anticipated and, > also, after consulting Orsobubu, I have to add that what we have now is not > the final result, things can worsen substantially in time and the final > results could be either positive or negative ( this last phrase could be > substituted by F-Something). > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > Steven N. Karels > December 29th, 2013 at 6:34 AM > Dear Andrea Rossi, > > You had previously posted about small (1kW), regular (10kW) and large (100kW) > eCat modules being considered. Can you discuss anything on these variants? > > 1. Have the small and large eCat modules been built? > 2. Have they been tested? > 3. Do they have the same performance characteristics as the 10kW nominal > units? > > As an engineer, I recognize the necessity of testing equipment beyond their > specified operating limits. I am surprised that temperatures beyond the > melting point of Nickel were observed. > > How do you reconcile the 2,000C temperature observed with the melting point > limitation of Nickel (1,455C)? > > There have been some LENR theories that suggest Tungsten could be used in > place of Nickel. Tungsten has a higher melting point (3,422C). Perhaps a > Tungsten-based eCat module could be implementated for special applications > (e.g., space travel)? > > Andrea Rossi > December 29th, 2013 at 8:20 AM > Steven N Karels: > 1- yes > 2- yes > 3- moreless yes > About the temperature: during the destructive tests the temperature raises > for some second well above the melting point of Ni. This is why the “Mouse” > cannot excite over a certain limit the E-Cat to maintain well stabilized > operation. > Warm Regards, > A.R. > > > > IMHO, the common denominator across these LENR systems is the production of > nanoparticles. In the Rossi type system, there is a supercritical gas > environment that is produced by the release of hydrogen gas. Nanoparticles > are produced when the temperature and the gas pressure is reduced. > > What is a supercritical gas > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBRdBrnIlTQ > > Nanoparticles are produced when the gas leaves the supercritical state. This > is caused when the temperature and/or pressure (T/P) is reduced. It is like a > bottle of soda...bubbles of gas are formed when the top of the soda is > removed. > > Here is an example of how nanoparticles are created when supercritical > gas/liquid changes due to T/P decrease. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zurHSq4CB4 > > By the way, this is how water nanoparticles are produced in cavitation when > water nanoparticles are formed. These water nanoparticles produce SPPs in > cavitation. > > As the gas cools and the pressure drops, nanoparticles are produced. The wire > heater produces heat and the temperature is increased. The reactor must > continually produce nanoparticles through the cycling of pressure and > temperature to replace nanoparticle losses due to the destructive nature of > the reaction and limited lifetimes of SPPs. > > Rossi said: > "when the activator is on the E-Cat is off, when the E-Cat is on the > Activator is off. When the Activator is turned off the temperature rises, > because the E-Cat is activated, when the Activator is turned on the > temperature lowers, because the E-Cat goes off. " > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave-- > > The number 16 may come from the Artists rendition of a reactor. I could find > no specific Rossi statement regarding the picture included in the E-Cat World > item identified by Axil as the basis for his comment. Axil’s interpretations > of what he reads and sees in various items can make use of a lot of > imagination. The device pictured in the item referenced is way to small to > be a practical 250Kw reactor in my estimation. > > Bob Cook > > From: David Roberson > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 11:46 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement > > I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors. The question is whether > or not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices. Where did you see anything > about a special type of driver device among the other 15? Did Rossi state > this or is it entirely your assumption? > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement > > Roland Bob • 17 hours ago > Hi Bob, > Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about > this till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and > mockups were published. > > From: > Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make Power > Plants of Any Size > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger? I do not recall any > reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement > > It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is > composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors is a powered > activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The > activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say > that the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that > becomes mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining > threshold. At low temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these > reactors are comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat > up, the alumina shell becomes electrically conductive. At high temperatures, > the alumina becomes magnetically transparent and this allows the ENP to leave > the activator an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes the LENR reaction. > > http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif > > Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature. > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic > experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside > of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water > on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its > transparency. > Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained > transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed > from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such > radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. > Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with > other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were > not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting > with the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte > containing 50% of heavy water. > > That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass reactor > shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling > water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, > after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts > to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic > effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible > within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are > produced through the action of neutral Erzions. > The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic > Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to > the magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR > reaction that keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water > bubbles. The ENPs become energetically self sufficient in the water of the > cooling pool where the ENPs remain viable for hours. > If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron > plate placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode > would prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the > ENPs blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated. > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > In my opinion, the fundamental nature of the Rossi effect is based on > magnetism. The catalytic particle that produces the reaction is magnetic in > nature. This particle is produced by heat pumping and EMF stimulation. The > nature of this Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP)is reflected by the behaviour of > the E-Cat itself and reflect how the E-Cat operates. > > The ENP can exist at low energy pumping where the energy coming into the > particle is equal to the energy leaving the particle. This is similar to the > way Rossi keeps his reactor under control. Too much external energy pumping > will result in the E-Cat going critical. > > The same process of over pumping happens with the ENP. Overpumping brings it > to the stage where it becomes self-sufficient requiring no additional EMF > input. The energized ENP can get EMF from the environment around it not > requiring external heat or EMF simulation to be applied. > > The same is true for the E-Cat. When the E-Cat is subcritical, it requires > heat and EMF stimulation to be applied. But when it is "over stimulated" it > begins to meltdown since it has become independent from externally applied > stimulation. > > The ENP can live as long as it can catalyze energy production from the > material around it. The ENP can live for days on its own as it brings in > energy from the environment to sustain its internal LENR reaction processes. > > Magnetic confinement increases efficiency of the reaction. Such confinement > saves the externally applied energy that produced the ENP from being wasted. > > The ENP can leave the reactor if the material that makes up the reactor > enclosure is transparent to the optical and magnetic nature of the ENP. This > might be why electrolytic cells have difficulty in sustaining powerful LENR > reactions. In this case, the ENPs escape the glass beaker reactor enclosure > and all the input energy that was pumped into the ENP is wasted to the > environment. outside the electrolytic cell. > > If the cell is made of material that can contain the ENP both optically and > magnetically, the reactor will be efficent. Alumina is antiferromagnetic and > will confine magnetic particles thy to escape the reactor shell. Another > method of ENP confinement that Rossi might use is a solenoidal confinement > coil that keeps the ENPs away from the reactor walls in the center axis of > the reactor. > > > > > >
