Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Have you ever looked at the pictures and technical description of the 1 MW > ecat on this web site? It might save you some confusion. > Do you mean, with regard to the number of units? It says there are 4 units: The ECAT 1MW plant contains 4 ECAT modules of 250kW each mounted in a > shipping container. Warranty for functionality is two years with a > guaranteed COP of 6, and the plant has an expected life span of 20 years. The lawsuit says there are 52. If you look at those drawings, you see that each of the 4 banks is made up of several units ganged together. 13, I think. I am not sure that drawing is an accurate representation of the present configuration, but think it is generally right. Anyway, there are lots of small reactors with lots of surface area and pipes running between them. Even though they are ganged together, there are still lots of metal walls within each of the 4 units. The reactant nickel powder and electric heaters are in contact with the inner wall of each of those reactors, and not surrounded by much water (because the boxes are small), so great deal of heat will be conducted to the walls. This may be a more efficient heat transfer method than the early version of the reactor, which had several boxes on shelves. But I do not think the AFUE will be as good as it is with a modern, high-efficiency heater; 90% too 99%. See: http://energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers I am still guessing it is down around 80%. But I wouldn't know. Some people understand this much better than I do also estimated 70% to 80%. The fact that this is not a particularly efficient boiler is of no importance to the technology. This is just a prototype. A more efficient version could easily be designed. However, this does mean that a great deal of waste heat will be generated by the 52 units, and it will heat up the shipping container. - Jed
