From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 10:03:38 AM
They can make plenty of money from a COP=6 thermal system, even with an
electric drive.
Reported elsewhere, but just for the record here. The new patent describes an
18-reactor hotcat system [600], generating
Interesting posts on e-cat world lately. It's a good point. If coal is
so cheap, than a cop of 3:1 for electricity - thermal isn't going to cut
it.
They're are going to need to be able to power the cat by coal itself or gas
and get a 3:1 thermal - thermal ratio.
It is interesting to note that Rossi's lower temperature eCat arrays appear
to go into service for heating.
If you look at his hotCats, they are being configured as industrial furnace
heating elements. Operating at 1000C, these furnace heating elements
being replaced are mostly electrical with a
For sure, but it isn't interesting to take electrical and do a 3:1 COP on
it. what's interesting is to take coal or gas and do a 3:1 COP on it.
But I think if Rossi can do that, than I think he should be pretty close to
just using an eCat for it.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Bob Higgins
Of course the COP=3 argument may not apply when a well designed ECAT is put
into service. My simulations suggest that the geometry of the device can be
adjusted to achieve a higher COP if required. We need to realize that the
testing done by the scientists was not conducted in a manner that
David, Rossi is agreeing on JONP that they need to use gas as well. My
question is though if they can use gas, why not use a self-feedback system.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:41 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Of course the COP=3 argument may not apply when a well designed ECAT is
From: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:49:08 AM
David, Rossi is agreeing on JONP that they need to use gas as well. My
question is though if they can use gas, why not use a self-feedback system.
Might be that the adjustment of temperature needs
A COP of 3 is not accurate according to the specifications supplied by Rossi.
It is important not to assume that the lower limitation is firmly established
since thermal feedback can generally be used to increase that number
significantly. The main problem is to keep the device from going
Even at a COP of 6 gas heating would be better than electric when overall
system cost is considered. This is because gas is so cheap these days.
Can you show where Rossi has declared that his delivered COP is guaranteed to
be less than 6? I have never seen any reference to a number less than
Did you see the piccy of Rossi testing those three single phase
reactors? Think about that.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
For sure, but it isn't interesting to take electrical and do a 3:1 COP on
it. what's interesting is to take coal or gas
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you see the piccy of Rossi testing those three single phase
reactors? Think about that.
Three can self-sustain. I said earlier that we would see no more
tests by Rossi. I retract that statement. We'll see one more,
Yesterday (probably already posted)
Bob
November 4th, 2014 at 1:20 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi
1. Do you know what is the maximum temperature an operating e-cat can produce?
2. Have you achieved that temperature in an e-cat operation?
3. Are there any other e-cat applications you are presently
I am wondering about one situation that has not been mentioned as far as I
recall. If you place several of the ECAT type devices within a high
temperature furnace then the surrounding temperature within the oven will be
applied to the ECAT directly. Now that should be enough temperature to
I think the point you are missing is that these heat treatment plants
(smelting, glass, etc) are already using electric furnace elements with a
COP=1. They are not using coal fired elements. The electricity to drive
these furnace elements is largely coming from coal. So if Rossi develops a
Ah, ok, thanks. Yes I was missing that
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think the point you are missing is that these heat treatment plants
(smelting, glass, etc) are already using electric furnace elements with a
COP=1. They are not using coal
I have always believed from the very begining that the Ni/H reactor should
have been based on a liquid metal heat pipe concept. The heat pipe concept
is required to keep the reaction zone inside the E-Cat free of combustion
gases that might come from using natural gas as a external heat source.
Neri B.
November 5th, 2014 at 1:27 PM
Dear Andrea,
in TPR 1 we saw 3 tests: in the first the reactor melted, in the others two
tests the COP was 5.6 and 2.9.
Recently you stated that someone has experienced the cat could become a tiger.
Can you please tell us which is the highest COP you ever
17 matches
Mail list logo
