Posted on 07/20/2011 7:32:01 AM PDT by Liberty1970
In a bit of a bombshell moment, an apparent casual answer to a question about a photo on evworld, we learn from Andrea Rossi that advances in safety and control may lead to the 1MW plant being run in self-sustain mode. While any such advance would be an exciting development, it does not speak to the relevant realities of safety certificates and testing by the appropriate authorities. Unless this has been going on for some time and it is only the release of information that is new.
Question and answer follow:
Dear Andrea Rossi, please have a look to the picture at the following link: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=2004 It is you, Stemmenos and Focardi conducing tests on the e-cat. The set-up looks quite different from what we have seen on previous tests pictures, i’m refering specifically to those 4 red devices on the left. There have been speculations on the internet that those devices may be e-cats in production form but i think they are just peristaltic pumps, am i right? Can i ask you what kind of test where you performing when the picture was taken? Thanks you in advance for you patience. Warm Regards, AC
Andrea Rossi July 19th, 2011 at 7:57 AM Dear Alessandro Casali: This photo has been taken during the stress test of a sery of E-Cats a couple of weeks ago, together with the Greek Scientist Christos Stremmenos. They are some of the E-Cats that will compound the 1 MW plant. In that phase the E-Cats were working making steam WITHOUT energy input. This is why you see us so focused (me and Stremmenos). The 1 MW plant, probably will work mostly without energy input, I suppose, because we are resolving the safety issues connected. The 4 red spots are pumps, the E-Cat clusters are hidden. The three characters in the photo are Prof. Sergio Focardi , Prof. Christos Stremmenos and me. Warm Regards, A.R.
***Also in the news at the same site:
Defkalion Green Technologies Interview July 19, 2011 | Author: admin
XanthiPress (a newspaper local to the region in Greece where Defkalion Green Technologies will run their first three factories) interviewed the President of the company, Alekos Xanthoulis
The reporter said that it was initially difficult to get Defkalion to talk but that since the company themselves gave an impressive view of how important the technology is and for the country, it was also important for them to answer questions from the people. This might give the impression that they were trying to hide something, hinting at a tone where locals begin to fear there may be danger in their backyard.
The report clearly states that Mr Xanthoulis said there will be a public demonstration of the first Hyperion product – producing 35KW per hour (sic) – in the end of September. Is this a press error or another sign that Defkalion is operating with a great deal of autonomy and running fast?
Mr Xanthoulis adds that they have 12 scientists working now and expect the factory to be operating in October (probably meaning that gearing up for manufacturing starts then rather than shipping products).
Eventually, 3 factories will work together producing Hyperions and a separate facility will perform R&D – the total employing between 300 to 350 staff.
A curious note is sounded that the patent will be sealed for 9 years. With links to Greek government officials you can imagine how this might be but I would be surprised if that would fly elsewhere. Published anywhere, this fact would become redundant. The whole point of a patent is to protect the inventor while publishing details to encourage further innovation
Already the rumours have started about the possible dangers. Mr Xanthoulis speaks about false reports that the factory is making nuclear bombs or about it being inherently dangerous. Those commenting on the newspaper’s site talk about massive dumping of nuclear waste while others say that science has not solved the fusion problem yet.
I expect this aspect will gain legs over the coming months and, if denial turns to acceptance, massive political manoeuvring of these underlying fears in an attempt to poison the well.
ETA – Andrea Rossi has just answered a question on his blog, confirming that the September demo of a 35KW Hyperion is likely an error. With this in mind, we must be wary of any particular ‘fact’ in the interview without also assuming that it is all wrong.
Here is AR’s response:
Dear Carlo: Probably there has been a misunderstanding, no 35 kW reactors will be demonstrated anywhere in public. In October will be put in operation our 1 MW plant. I continue to work on it 16 hours per day, and so far we are prefectly in time. Warm Regards, A.R.
I’m a lot more skeptical of the on-demand motive power your micro-sized (by necessity) steam engine than I am of the actual E-cat. There is only so much room under the hood of a car, particularly a small one. The E-cat units, the electricity generator and battery will use a lot of it. Leaving not so much for a boiler and pistions, your “pressure accumulator”, hydraulics, etc. But whatever, it’s fun to speculate.
> Why? A two or even three phase turbine wrings most of the heat and energy out. Open loop would be a problem such as steam engines had where they had to stop very often for “fuel”
1) The steam engine in this case would be optimized for power-to-weight ratio, reliability, and low cost. Thermal efficiency would probably be 30% or less. Therefore to get about 45hp of mechanical power you’d need to radiate about 75KW of thermal output. That’s quite a bit for a small car.
2) Yes, an open cycle steam engine would need frequent ‘refueling’ with clean water. It would probably have a range under 100 miles before it would need more water, even with a pretty large water tank. So? Water is cheap, and is available just about everywhere.
> Long-term, closed cycle would be the way to go. But if someone wants to sell a E-cat powered car next year - basically it would have to be open-cycle steam.
Alternatively, think of a sodium/sulfur battery electric car with a single 35Kw(t) E-cat battery warmer/self recharger, using a Stirling cycle for the generator.
That could be cost effective.
Agreed, except for the one thing about convenience. I am used to filling my SUV up and going 500 miles before I have to fuel up. Even Mrs. Mad’s small car has a 500 miles range on a tank of fuel. Out here in the West 100 mile range would be very painful outside of the city. Modern turbines give great power to weight ratio. That said I was recently on the USS Midway. In a tour of the engine room I got into a long discussion with one of the docents about the efficiency of their turbines (double turbine high and low on one circuit) surprisingly small units for 30,000hp.
From reading all your comments, it seems clear that an E-cat powered car would definitely be a “green” type of car: Small and rather low-powered. Those needing more muscle in their auto/truck could stick with petroleum powered vehicles. The great thing about E-cat powered car is not having to stop for fuel or for battery charging. I am assuming that once the steam engine system is filled w/ water or other fluid that it is a closed system that won’t often need additional fluids.
But I don’t really know, I am a highway engineer not an ME.
“LOL. There are thousands of “steam engineers” around the world, and the centuries of technology certainly hasn’t gone away. And the cure for all the above mentioned are easily done. At night, just keep the e-cat “ticking over” at a low level, just like truckers do when they stop for lunch. Fast acceleration energy stored in a “pressure accumulator” (see pneumatic and hydraulic drive car prototypes). Electric drive/energy storage NOT needed except for cold startup and running the radio and other accessories.”
There is a reason that the railroads gave up the fuel flexible steam engine and went to diesel.
That accumulator would act very similar to a bomb if ruptured. No 5 star crash rating for it.
Steam give excellent torque but is very heavy and doesn’t give great peak HP. It would be a lot like driving a train, 0-60 by noon.
“At least initially, E-cat units are not going to be so cheap. I read that Rossi is planning on pricing a 35Kw(thermal) E-cat at 5000 Euros = $7k”
True, but that pricing is probably based on what he thinks the market will bear, and the fact that initially he will have a monopoly. The little that has been disclosed regarding its construction suggests that the cost should be significantly lower in a normal market situation.
Electronic control of the "tickler" input heat doesn't depend on the original source of the electricity that's generating the heat.
Thermocouples, RTDs, and the control circuits they drive don't care if the original electrical power is coming from the grid, a battery bank, or even an array of solar panels. (If the input power must be AC, an inverter can convert the battery or solar panel DC output to AC. If the input power must be DC, electricity from the grid needs to be rectified to DC anyway.)
Sure. Diesel was cheaper and easier to handle. And the E-Cat even more so. Had zip to do with the practicality or non-practicality of steam.
"That accumulator would act very similar to a bomb if ruptured. No 5 star crash rating for it."
Any newly graduated mechanical engineer could design one that "is" "5 star crash rated". No new technology at all needed there.
"Steam give excellent torque but is very heavy and doesn’t give great peak HP. It would be a lot like driving a train, 0-60 by noon.
There is this metal called "aluminum", which takes care of the "very heavy". And as said previously, "peak" power would be supplied by an accumulator.
Of course that's all true, but remember that one of Rossi's target markets is industrial heating, so he is looking for an E-Cat that "can" be controlled based only on working fluid flow rate, which he has apparently succeded in doing.
And I think he'd like to come up with more and larger E-Cats that exhibit similar characteristics.
“Any newly graduated mechanical engineer could design one that “is” “5 star crash rated”. No new technology at all needed there.”
“There is this metal called “aluminum”, which takes care of the “very heavy”. And as said previously, “peak” power would be supplied by an accumulator.”
Really?
How much do you think that 5 star accumulator is going to weigh? You are going to need to either make it very small but that is going to require extraordinary pressure and materials to match or large but then you have the problem that wall tension is based on both pressure and area and you will still need very thick heavy walls.
Where is this acculator and the insulation to keep it hot going to sit?
As far as using aluminium, it would make more sense to spin turbines and use the power to reduce aluminum and run cars on mechanically rechargable aluminium batteries.
LOL. You're obviously not familiar with the new research and engineering in ultra-high pressure composite tanks, good to 20,000 psi, and weigh virtually nothing. Think "carbon fibers" or some of the new VERY high tensile strength polymers.
"Where is this acculator and the insulation to keep it hot going to sit?"
Probably right next to the E-Cat. Saves on insulation.
"As far as using aluminium, it would make more sense to spin turbines and use the power to reduce aluminum and run cars on mechanically rechargable aluminium batteries."
Not really. Remember, the topic we're addressing here is what can be built QUICKLY that doesn't require lots of additional technology. Ultimately, a steam/hybrid electric "does", I think, make the most sense. But that will take longer to get out of development.
“LOL. You’re obviously not familiar with the new research and engineering in ultra-high pressure composite tanks, good to 20,000 psi, and weigh virtually nothing. Think “carbon fibers” or some of the new VERY high tensile strength polymers.”
Great material, Very high tensile strength, very good at keeping pressure it, not nearly as good at keeping things out, you will need a different material for your 5 star crash rating. Go down to a welding shop and look at what the tanks are made out of.
Spinning a turbine to make electricity and running on electricity is doable and they already make a DOT approved accumulator, it’s called a battery. If you don’t mind spinning the turbine all the time and have a big battery, you wouldn’t need to make more than a couple kW to have a vehicle that would meet average driving needs.
Couple cheap E-CAT electricity with a graphene power pack and gas stations will be a novelty.
Plug the SUV in, go inside for a cup of joe, and hit the road again. Flip off OPEC just for the fun of it.
http://green.blorge.com/2011/07/new-batteries-made-from-graphene-and-water-recharge-fast/
Would put Al Gore and the carbon dioxide Nazis out of business for good measure.
Tanks in welding shops are metal because it is cheaper. But if you actually look at some of the more updated tankage for storage and transport of gases, they are bi-layer, with a much thinner metal inner liner (composites have a higher permeation loss rate than metal) and a composite outer shell. If you've ever watched an "Air Products" (or similar specialty gas delivery vendor) truck deliver gases, they take FAR more abuse than a tank on the interior of a vehicle is ever likely to. And many of those are now composite.
"Spinning a turbine to make electricity and running on electricity is doable and they already make a DOT approved accumulator, it’s called a battery. If you don’t mind spinning the turbine all the time and have a big battery, you wouldn’t need to make more than a couple kW to have a vehicle that would meet average driving needs.
Re-read the last sentence in my comment.
“If you’ve ever watched an “Air Products” (or similar specialty gas delivery vendor) truck deliver gases,”
OK, you were the one making fun of me because I’m not an engineer, but come on, now you are talking about refrigerated gas containers, completely different from high pressure tank construction.
Why would it have to be a compact car?
Chug-a-chug-a Chug-a-chug-a whoo whoo whoo! "Can I blow the whistle dad?"
I remember talking to some old-technology ship turbine operator who spoke of bubbling the expended turbine gases through the condensed liquid in a sealed system, thus causing rapid (almost violent) condensation, and not just a low pressure side, but an actual negative pressure on the low side of the turbine.
The condensed liquid was then pumped back into the "boiler" for reheating.
Of course in a closed system, other coolants/refrigerants/propellants would likely be superior to water.
>> For a compact car, they probably would be too big.
> Why would it have to be a compact car?
> Chug-a-chug-a Chug-a-chug-a whoo whoo whoo! “Can I blow the whistle dad?”
It wouldn’t HAVE to be a compact car. But if you consider a $7000 e-cat which only delivers ~15hp, unless you are going for the > $60,000 car market, you’re looking at limiting your car to about 60hp.
If the design is a hybrid, with an oversize ultracapacitor to give you good 0-60 accelleration, 60hp could probably be enough.
It isn’t enough to produce a car that has near-zero fuel costs, if the car costs more than an equivalent gas-powered car and 150,000 miles of fuel.
No. Compressed hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, and pretty much every other high pressure gas can be had in such composite cylinders as well as metal. They also use'em for scuba tanks, which contain similar pressures. Where did you come up with this idea of "refrigerated gas containers"?
I don't know the full extent to which composite has replaced metals, but I've seen plenty of such tanks in cylinder storage racks, and they weren't for refrigerated gases (though composite cylinders can also be used for those).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.