FIRST FREE ENERGY DEVICE REACHES MARKET IN OCTOBER -- The Game Changer is Here

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi teslaalset,

I think you're miscalculating.  I understood that the electrical input is only required for initialising the that interaction.  In effect it's the catalyst.  But I'm open to correction.

Regards,
Rosemary

I made an interesting calculation to answer the following question:
Assuming that the ecat will replace the natural gas heating in my house, will a COP of 6 be sufficient to be attractive?

In my country natural gas costs 0.6 euro / M³, while electricity is 0,25 euro / KWh
Each M³ of gas produces roughly 10 KWh of energy.
Since the ecat requires electrical input (to keep the core at an high enough temperature), 10KW of heat will require 1.67 KW of electrical energy.

My overall natural gas consumption per year is on average 1000 M³, which produces 10.000 KWh in total / year and costs 600 euro.
Using an ecat, this means that for 10.000 KWh 1667 KWh of electricity is consumed @ a COP of 6.
This additional 1667 KWh will cost me 416.75 euro in total.
I save 600 euro on gas, so my actual saving per year is 183,25 euro, keeping the costs of a NiH cartridge out of the calculation.
So, my conclusion is that in my personal situation this can not be called 'free energy' in the sense of costs. I will make me independent from my gas supplier though.

So, in fact there are two COP's:
COP_energy= 6
COP_cost= 1.44
This means that the COP_energy needs to be much higher than 6, preferably self sustaining, to be really economical attractive for private households, at least in my country.
I am sure this is feasible, but it will require some more time and development.

Just seen Goat's post.  So.  It seems this is correct.  Which is yet more good news. 

Best as ever,
Rosie

[teslaalset]

@teslaalset

I'm sorry to inform you that your calculations are all wrong as far as the ecat using electricity.  The electricity used by the ecat is only to get the reaction going inside the reactor and after that it is SELF SUSTAINING without the use of electricity.

No offence but please go back and read all you can about the ecat before posting such calculations. 

Regards,
Paul

See http://ecat.com/energy-calculator

Also study http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Failure-of-Rossis-Energy-Catalyzer-Caught-on-Video.shtml , where Rossi calculates COP for continuous operation.

[Gwandau]

teslaalset,

I believe there is really no need to plug into the grid to drive the e-cat.

As I have understood, Andrea Rossi has managed to control the heat production in the catalyzer in a very simple way,
namely by repeatedly triggering the system into LENR mode, and letting it cool off in between. This way the nickel powder
will stay OK and keep the e-cat going into LENR mode.

I don't think there is a known method today to harness LENR in a literally continous mode. Neither Andrea Rossi or anybody else
know enough about the nuclear reactions working behind the LENR phenomenon. This has to wait until the nuclear physicists get access
to one of the e-cats.

So if the control units of the e-cats are repeatedly triggering the reactor into LENR mode in short heat pulses, then it should be no problem
to use a serially connected unit of two e-cats to run a steam powered generator that will keep a powerful battery system like those of an
industrial truck lift charged with enough KwH to be able to run the heating sequences of themselves and two additional e-cats.

The energy needed for the continous repeated triggering into LENR mode is only around 17 percent of the generated energy, so it seems to me
quite feasable to turn the e-cats into self sustain mode and get off the grid.

The only reasons Andrea Rossi is incorporating the existing electricity grid into the e-cats is because it combines an attractive price with
a reliable energy source to the control unit. If the control unit fail the nickel powder in the reactor self destruct and ruin the e-cat.

Two e-cats produce 20 KW which is more than enough to make a steam powered engine drive a 12 or 24 volt truck generator, charging a battery system
with enough power to keep four e-cats running.

(When we talk about a minimum of 600 degrees needed to create electricity, we are talking about a continous generation of 110 or 220 Volt AC for direct
domestic use. As you understand, this is not what I am talking about.)

I really can't see why this would not function, but I am open for any wellfounded objections to this idea.

The ball is rolling...


Gwandau

[Gwandau]

Dear Rosemary Ainslie and Chessnyt,

your positive energy really saturates this thread and makes it a pleasure to visit.

You both belong to those that have made the choice to call the glass of water for half full instead of half empty.
The difference may seem minor but is paramount when it comes to the delicate introduction of new grounds and paradigms.

I personally believe there is some value in the ideas of the British biochemist Robert Sheldrake, who has devoted his entire career
into the exploration of a new science he calls "Morpho-Genesis".

He has found through statistical research that any new innovation takes a certain time to gain momentum in its function.
For example, a never before done chemical experiment is performing very different results in the beginning, but the more times the experiment
is performed, and the more people that has witnessed it, the more stable the chemical reaction becomes.

This is totally opposing the conventional view of our universe being rock solid in its dependence on never changing scientific fundamental laws.
But maybe there is more than meets the eye, maybe our universe is not as physical as we think.

The glass of water is not yet full.

But half full is a lot.

Gwandau

[Doctor No]

First i have to admit that i've been always impressed through a complete lack of simple knowledge by any discussion, by any counterparts.
2-nd, "Teslaalset" is wrong with gas power and thus heat unit price from it.
The mentioned 10-11 kWh power is only potential energy of chemical bounds in gas.
The maximum You can draw from it 30% maximum is by the best conditions, in practice it lies between 2.3-2.7 kWh of heat.
So price for real unit (1 kWh) of heat from gas rises 3.3 to >4 times, trust me folks.
It is always easy to prove in home with cheap <50 cent experiment cost conditions.
3-rd, nobody needs to drive e-Cat 24/24 on 0.25 EUR electricity, but 10/24 run only.
As stated "LancaIV" here: http://overunity.com/10213/drj200-100-cnf-reactor-for-home-use/80/ it costs 0.12 EUR (mit Mwst Herr Lanca?).
So it drops instantly 2x low.
In this summary You have difference cost 8:1 in favor of e-Cat.
Only what You need is, to use sufficient water tanks volume as by simple heaters or heat pumps.
4-th, by only 10/24 H e-Cat run it produces 100 kWh of heat (when dates true supposed are).
By new Euronorm Heat Norm 30 kWh/sqm/year in EU it means that by constant
(-)15 winter conditions 100 kWh is enough for >800 sqm/day to heat.
By old brick houses with no insulation (110-120 kWh/sqm yearly) it is for 200 sqm good.
5-th, for proper control of process the Rossi device needs under constant or with small short pauses to be driven only.
Otherwise it is not possible to have it propperly under control.
(I had first it on my mind as my first "nuclear" device >40 y. ago, but all family laughed this as bomb simply).
6-th, it is nothing of CNF, ordinary chemical reaction only.
I will be not teaching such simple definitions which should be known even for semi serious people only.