Rossi Blog Reader
This website tracks recent postings to Andrea Rossi's
Journal of Nuclear Physics,
sorting the entries with priority to Rossi's answers, which appear under each question.
• Need more context? We also have Rossi's entire blog on a single page.
• You can also keep an eye on Defkalion's latest postings to their forums.
• Website comments to the Webmaster (who has no contact or connection with Rossi).
• Email to Andrea Rossi - Journal Of Nuclear Physics
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I have seen conflicting postings, could you please clarify.
Question 1: For the Cat & Mouse design, and for a nominal thermal output of 10 kW from the reactor, what is the nominal power rating on the Activator to control that 10 kW Reactor? 1kW or 10kW?
Question 2: Would operating the Activator faster (less time between usage) and a slightly higher percentage of the time result in a decrease in the temperature deviations of the Reactor?
Question 3: Perhaps synchronize two Activator + Reactor units (as was referenced in another posting) to have a continuous input and output?
Dear Andrea, you can find at the link below a photo and a brief summary (in Italian) about the talk given yesterday by Christos Stremmenos (former professor at the Dept. of Physical Chemistry, University of Bologna) at the meeting of Lions Clubs on Energy Saving held in Bologna, Italy: http://www.prometeon.it/news.php Have a good Sunday, Aldo
Dear Dr. Rossi and Kevin Evans,
With the three Cat/mouse system setup running alternatively, at 1KWh 100% input, you would get 10KWh(Ecat1)+ 10KWh(Ecat2)+10KWh(Ecat3)+1KWh, assuming you can control/sense the ECats temperatures and never let them go below SSM as one of the three mouses will kick in and wake it up.
TO ALL THE READERS OF THIS JOURNAL:
PLEASE FIND HERE THE LINK OF THE INTERESTING CONFERENCE MADE YESTERDAY BY PROF.
CHRISTOS STREMMENOS AT THE LIONS CLUB OF BOLOGNA
http://www.ordingbo.it/eventi2013/maggio-agosto/CONVEGNO_LIONS_18_MAGGIO_2013-definitivo.pdf
Dear Eng.Rossi,
Is the Cat/Mouse timing completely controllable? Could I say setup three cat/mouse systems and off-set them so that the when the mouse of one stops – the mouse of another starts. Would these off-set timings remain intact over time or would they drift out because the mouse/cat switch on cannot be exactly controlled to a precise time in this way. I ask this because with three units I would be paying for Just 1KWh 100% of the time but would (if controllable) be yielding a minimum of 10KWh+1KWh all the time (with some time overlaps yielding 20KWh. This configuration could be useful for selling power back to the grid to reclaim back the original 1Kwh cost.
Regards,
Kevin
Dear Kevin Evans,
We are working on what you are saying, and it could be profitable, being the Mouse self sufficient to pay for itself entirely, but, as you correctly say, there are issues for what concerns the controllability. Not impossible, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
I hope that you’re well.
As a non-engineer, I would find it very helpful if you might explain some of the more mundane aspects of how heat would be collected/utilized from the E-cat. The 1MW plant looks to be a giant box with a bunch of units inside. I assume that each of the units is emitting heat. How exactly is the heat extracted? How would you use it to provide industrial heat?
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions
Brian
Dear Brian:
The heat goes in a heat goes into a heat exchanger and produces steam, hot water, hot diathermic oil, hot air: practically, you can exchange heat with classic heat exchange engineering from the modules in operation.
We are also working to use steam and diathermic oil to get a further conversion in electric power.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Correct my previous mail. I mistype my e-mail address.
Claudio Rossi
Dear Andrea, I read Mr Vandewalle’s opinion on the market actual rules and your doubtful reply to him. I think you’d better follow his suggestion, even if you do not believe in his pessimistic (?) overview. Peoples often pays for his optimism, caution is never too much.
A frienly hug.
Claudio Rossi
Dr Rossi,
1. Have you finally found a way to supply additional heat to specific regions of the E-Cat, after these last few years of trying?
2. Are the heat spots that we recognize in the various photos of the E-Cat, caused by the same phenomenon that you were trying to eliminate from the E-Cat over the last few years?
3. Do these heat spots damage the physical integrity of the E-Cat?
4. Will all the production models of the E-Cat, including the domestic, come equipped with the activator?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Joe:
1- yes
2- yes
3- yes
4- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
you are becoming a legend.
Maybe this is the “andrearossimania”‘s beginning.
Peace and love .
gio
Dear Koen,
some years ago,I saw a star trek film.In this,cpt Picard took on board of enterprise a girl from the 21°century (they gone in the past).She asked “how much does this starship costs?”and Picard answered that in his time money will not exist.She asked for what do you work in your time.He answered we work to make better ourselves and the humankind.
Today money rules the world because it is a power instrument too.
I think that we are going to a future time in which money will not exist,and the evolution is ruled by the technology.
This technology is a pillar of our evolution and I think it will have success because it will get money to the people.
Regards G G
Wladimir,
In my last comment, I wanted to know why 2He4 spins at all, since the intrinsic spins of its deuterons cancel. (In QRT, all the nucleons orbit about 2He4 because 2He4 carries them in its fluxes as it spins on its central axis.)
All the best,
Joe
Dear Andrea,
My apologies if this comment is too strictly formulated. But I cannot resist.
Do you want to own the phenomenon or concept of nano-Ni-H LENR ?
Are you still convinced that the market will bring this invention to mankind ?
I am not.
I believe that the concept “market” does not work on a level when there are no viable alternatives. Not in matters of bloom or doom, the actual situation of our world. A stable-through-the-centuries market is a place where people sell and buy groceries or fruits from their everydays work. Other so-called markets are often waste and debt creating bubbles, organised or structured crime and lies.
The people who support you, do think about other matters, on higher dimensions than their return on investments.
The markets we know are all about money. Money is mono-dimensional. Unable to provide insights, feedback and drives for all the needs of the world. Money is as a length meter. With some effort and education, it can measure surface or volume. It cannot measure temperature, density, love, time, age, sense, smell, fear, experience, youth, taste, environment, climate and other life-supporting or essential values. But we expect money to regulate everything in our lives. A lot of genius thinkers, managers and politicians are boiling the brains in their heads about constructions, laws, regulations to find a solution based on a mono-dimensional money system to rule all the universe. It is impossible, but maybe we are too far gone and we cannot afford – reputation, you know – to admit that we are wrong.
If we consider the lack of succes of your competitors. And the tiny COP’s, Watts instead of kiloWatts, that experimenters get out of their experiments. This could mean that it is simply impossible to use something else than nanostructured Nickel, Hydrogen and a resistance. Name one material on earth that is not a resistance. I cannot. Name something lighter than hydrogen: nothing. The rest: you say it. You invented it.
You did not file a separate patent application for the Hot Cat, nor the Gas-Cat, as far as I know. The basics are covered by the initial patent. Now you have mouse and cat. Someone mentioned: “cheese”.
This may sound as a most unfriendly comment. It is not. Absolutely not. I care and I do not lie. I NEVER lie, and I am afraid that this (or “your” if you really want to own it) technology will come too late. For me, you are far above our popular and known leaders of the world. Although… some of them may be trustworthy.
The Son of the carpenter, years ago, told us to seed.
You know what that is ? The harvest of last year, thrown with force into the earth, with no guarantee. Just faith.
But we need the harvest to feed our children.
Kind Regards,
Koen
PS: It is your website, and I do not care about moderation. I have thick skin. It would even be fun. BUT… if you delete with no comment, I’ll will not read JONP for one month. Happy Pentecost.
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
I respect your opinion.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in May 16th, 2013 at 12:39 AM
Wladimir,
What makes 2He4 spin on its central axis? (2He4 has no intrinsic spin.)
RESPONSE:
I did not understand your question.
Perhaps you want to know what put 2He4 in the center of nuclei.
The answer is easy: as 2He4 induces the two fluxes n(o)-up and n(o)-down, one at the right and the other at the left, the 2He4 occupies the center of nuclei.
And therefore the central z-axis crosses the center of the 2He4
regards
wlad
Dear Steven N. Karels.
in a comment You wrote to ing. Rossi:
Presenting a 100 kW input to the User 35% of the time seems to me to be a real concern, if I were the User.
What would you want, all completely free?
Current COP still not enough?
Regards
To the readers, please read:
Nixter
May 15, 10:25P
This is why I believe Dr. Rossi will produce energy
for the World that will:
1.Produce zero Radioactive waste.
Radioactive waste from Nuke Plants must be buried for 250,000 years to allow it to decay.
2.Produce zero emissions, including zero CO2
CO2 level has already reached a dangerous 400ppm, and is increasing every year.
3.The icing on the cake is this energy
will be produced at a lower cost.
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
USA
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The Cat & Mouse is an interesting concept but I am distressed by the apparently huge input load when the Activator is ON. On an example 100 kW thermal output system, after start-up, is the load of the Activator (to the user) always at 100kW or is it significantly lower?
Presenting a 100 kW input to the User 35% of the time seems to me to be a real concern, if I were the User.
Dear Andrea,
You have mentioned a number of times that efficient electricity production with hot cat plants is a current priority for your team.
Realistically, what do you estimate the cost of electricity production to be with the technology you have developed?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Dear Frank Acland:
Realistically, very low, but before giving numberw I prefer to do the thing.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1. Have you run the Cat & Mouse configuration for multiple hours? If so, how many hours?
2. Have you run the Cat & Mouse configuration at temperatures higher than 350 degree Celsius? If so, what temperatures?
3. At 350 degrees Celsius, what stability level (temperature deviation) do you see?
Dear Steven N. Karels:
1- we have a module working 24 hours per day that has to complete a 180 days test
2- yes, up to 1 000 Celsius
3- +/- 5%
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Are you planning on testing more than one activator per E-Cat, either in series or in parallel?
All the best,
Joe
Dear Joe:
No, I think we have found a perfect equilibrium, so far. See the Renato Estri matrix in this blog ( 2 days ago).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I think it has been a while since you have commented on theory of process inside E-cat.
My question:
1) Do you feel that you have deep understanding of theory of the process and
2) has that understanding changed OR just become more clear since last 8 to 10 months.
Br,
Argon
Dear argon:
1- yes
2- changed in part
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
What makes 2He4 spin on its central axis? (2He4 has no intrinsic spin.)
All the best,
Joe
Dr. Rossi,
I present some thoughts, not really a question for you.
After the independent report is released, and accepted by a large percentage of the population, your next challenge will be to make certain that you have the capacity to produce what you have planned. You will do well at this I hope.
All the people on our Earth should be hoping for your success, if you succeed, every person and their descendants will succeed with you.
It is widely known that you have no interest in proving the validity of your E-Cats to skeptics and doubters, I understand and agree with you on this, however, your supporters and potential future customers will also benefit from the independent report that provides evidence that you are in fact making functional devices producing energy derived from LENR processes. These detractors are inconsequential and not worth considering in this regard. When the evidence becomes public, think how much good will and joy this will produce for your many supporters and do not consider so much the effect that this will have on the malignant and entrenched detractors. Our happiness for you and your invention will far outshine the doubters and deniers embarrassment at being publicly proven wrong, and besides that, who will be thinking of them, when a new and exciting form of affordable energy has been born?
When the E-Cat information goes world wide, the greatest good and benefit will go to those who have been backing you and defending you, not the ill motivated doubters hoping to delay and derail your efforts. Many large well funded entities are aware of your claims and they quietly wait for confirmation before committing to further action regarding this new LENR science. You are the originator, the inventor and owner of the E-Cat, you are the only one who has it for sale, the world will beat a path to your door, and I hope that you can capitalise on your position. I think we will see a world wide reaction as this new technology emerges into the open.
Industrial and Governmental-Military interests will try to reproduce, learn (or steal?) the inner secrets of your invention. Those who tried to stop you by denouncing your E-Cat will probably be among the first to try to produce similar technologies based on your design. Normally you would be able to protect your IP and reap the fruit of your invention, but this new energy source is so revolutionary and profound that normal conventions and protections cannot be relied upon. The money spent on the Apollo moon project will pale compared to what the planetary energy monopolies will spend to get or copy your technology. Your best defence in this situation is to maintain a lead in your technology, keeping a step ahead of the imitators and copiers, then as now, you will be the leader in the field, and you will be the best source of the original “Rossi LENR” technology.
Best Regards,
Nixter
Dear Nixter:
Thank you for your insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
All you need is a patent.
All the rest need patience.
My family, my friends and myself have all great expectations, and we support you with our heart and soul.
Kind regards,
Koen
Dear Koen Vandewalle:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Rossi
about the mouse: is it fixed inside the cat ?
Warm regard
gio
Dear gio:
No, it is not.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in May 14th, 2013 at 8:11 PM in Stability of Light Nuclei
Wladimir,
Are the following events in the right order as per QRT:
A particle’s
1) intrinsic spin
induces
2) gravitational fluxes n(o),
which induce
3) an electric and magnetic field,
which induces
4) an intrinsic magnetic moment.
.
RESPONSE:
basically yes, for micro-phenomena.
In macro-phenomena the flux n(o) is induced by the orbits of electrons in the atoms.
This is shown in the page 181 of my book QRT.
Fig. 2.1 shows a loadstone.
The sequence of Fig. 2.2, 2.3, 2,4, 2,5, 3.3, 3,4 , 3,5 , 3.8, 3.11 show how the macro-electromagnetic fields are created.
The orbits of the outer electrons of the iron atoms get allignment, and such alignment induces fluxes n(o) in the same direction.
The flux n(o) induces motion of the electric particles e(+) and e(-) of the ether, which spins (aligned along the flux n(o) ) captures magnetic particles m(+) and m(-), so yielding macroscopic magnetic fields (the poles S and N of the loadstone).
regards
WLAD
Joe wrote in May 14th, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Wladimir,
Are the following events in the right order as per QRT:
A particle’s
1) intrinsic spin
induces
2) gravitational fluxes n(o),
which induce
3) an electric and magnetic field,
which induces
4) an intrinsic magnetic moment.
RESPONSE:
basically yes, for micro-phenomena.
In macro-phenomena the flux n(o) is induced by the orbits of electrons in the atoms.
This is shown in the page 181 of my book QRT.
Fig. 2.1 shows a loadstone.
The sequence of Fig. 2.2, 2.3, 2,4, 2,5, 3.3, 3,4 , 3,5 , 3.8, 3.11 show how the macro-electromagnetic fields are created.
The orbits of the outer electrons of the iron atoms get allignment, and such alignment induces fluxes n(o) in the same direction.
The flux n(o) induces motion of the electric particles e(+) and e(-) of the ether, which spins (aligned along the flux n(o) ) captures magnetic particles m(+) and m(-), so yielding macroscopic magnetic fields (the poles S and N of the loadstone).
regards
WLAD
To Ing Benedetto Schiavone
To Make it simple :
The average output of the 10kwh E-cat is 10kw per hour, considering the on time plus the off time.
During the on time (1/3 of the time, let’s say 10 minutes on 30 minutes), the temperature of the E-cat does not decrease to zero centigrades, but few degrees.
Similarly, during the off time (65% of the cycle, let’s say 20 minutes on 30 minutes), the temperature does not rise of hundreds degrees. Of course there is a fluctuation, but in the order of tens of degrees. Therefore the E-cat COP has to be calculated on the average of 10Kwh/h. Then you have to add The COP of the activator. But the only electric energy used by the device (Activator + 10 kw E-Cat)is that of the activator.
Eng Rossi delete the comment if useless
Thank you for your good work
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
For now I cannot add further information about the Hot Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Do you turn off the activator when the reactor starts to respond to its stimulus?
Or does the control system have a way of “turning on” the reactor after it turns off the activator?
Paul
Dear Paul:
1- yes
2- also
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi, this is a question that got spammed a couple days ago – it doesn’t rehash the activator info, I don’t think you’ve already answered it. When you were using a resistance heater to modulate the ecat reaction, it didn’t seem like you could maintain the reactor in ssm as you can now. This makes me think that the activator contributes something to the process beyond heat. My question is simply, does the activator add anything to the process other than heat? I won’t ask anything more detailed!
Dear Ron:
Confidential,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
Are the following events in the right order as per QRT:
A particle’s
1) intrinsic spin
induces
2) gravitational fluxes n(o),
which induce
3) an electric and magnetic field,
which induces
4) an intrinsic magnetic moment.
All the best,
Joe
Dear Joe:
I cannot enter information about the theoretical issues.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I believe you have recently tried stressed the importance of the “Gas cat”. If I am correct why is that?
Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere.
Sincerely,
Andrew
Dear Andrew Gemmell:
I do not understand exactly what you mean.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Renato Estri:
Perfect. You got exactly the core of the issue.
Thank you. To the readers: please read carefully this comment of Dr Estri: it explains exactly in a short matrix the COP issue.
Warm regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In a previous posting, you verified that SSM can last up to 2 hours and the start-up time from a cold start was up to 4 hours. Is this still correct even with the new Activator – Reactor (Mouse and Cat) architecture?
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I try to give a contribute to the debated COP matter about the
Tiger-Activator new configuration.
Should this table resume in numbers the correct interpretation
of your answers ?
% Time / COP / Energy In / Energy Out
65% / 200 / Zero / 100KWh
35% / =1 / 100kWh / 100kWh
Thank you very much in advance
renatoestri
Dear Andrea Rossi, Your response to Frank Ackland May 12th is although direct is in complex terminology. Why not make it easy to understand because you are dealing with a difficult subject – keep it simple, Quote “when the mouse is turned on?. A mouse to to me has four legs and a tail. I know you don’t want to give certain information away but I am sure there is another answer than describing a mouse. I do not have clue as to what you are referring too. What I am guessing is that the E-cat produces an amount of heat energy that is surplus and able to be stored so as to be used to re-activat and maintain the process. Is this correct?. I think this subject should be kept technical, do not stray into grey areas using reference to cat and mouse otherwise you could lose readers. Maybe and I am guessing, you have so much credibility you are enjoying the cat and mouse scenario. As you are no doubt aware language is becoming none specific (using slang) This slant is I believe being used deliberately to hinder the communication of information. Anyway I am convinced you will win through with your technology and I do enjoy reading the recent posts especially ‘Electrical Catalyst’ as it comes as a necessary respite with regards a challenging subject. Best regards Eric Ashworth.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In an earlier comment relating to the Tiger prototype, you said the volume of a 100 kW module is 0.2 m^3 (cubic meters). This was much smaller than I anticipated. (Previously, a 1 MW system was about 3.0 m^3.)
1) Is each 100 kW module made up of smaller 10 kW or 1 kW Cat and Mouse modules? For example, is it made up of ten 10 kW modules or one hundred 1 kW modules? Or is it a single 100 kW system? And is the total number of activator/Mice equal the total number of Cats? Or are there more mice than Cats due to their smaller size?
2) Since a 10 kW Cat module (or set of 1 kW modules) is also accompanied by a mouse activator (or set of activators), does each 10 kW module (or set of 1-kW modules) have its own mouse or a set of mice? Or does a 100 kW module have a population of one-hundred 1-kW activators/(mice), ten, larger, 10 kW activators? Or, a giant 100 kW mouse? ( EEK !! )
3) Since activator ‘mice’ make their own heat contribution, as do the cats, if total mouse power rating is equal to total cat power rating, is the total heat output of a module made up of 35% of the mouse power and 65% of the cat power? That is the easiest to understand. (Unless it is wrong.)
4) If a given module (e.g. 100 kW) is made up of ten 10 kW, five 20 kW etc. or some other set of submodules, is it possible for all the heat contribution to come simultaneously from only the mice or from only the cats? Is that something to worry about?
Best regards,
Joseph Fine
PS My best wishes to the 13-year old girl who understands this.
Dear Andre Rossi
Is the fuel charge designed to be depleted at the end of 6 months, or have you experimented with charges that last quite a bit longer by design. And I am confused about whether or not the original nickel material is depleted over time, Is the incoming hydrogen supplying the majority of the mass to be converted into energy? with only occasional fusion conversion of the nickel? If it is the hydrogen Providing the primary mass, in the future would you be able to run charges for possibly years at a time?
Dear Todd Burkett:
We will maintain the cycle of 6 months for our fuel, so far. The material does not get depleted, but we prefer this cycle to control all the operation of the plant.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi
I hope that you are well. I was wondering if you could tell us a little more about the short-to-medium terms goals of your work and what you’ll be working on for the next 6 months to a year.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question
Brian
Dear Brian:
We are manufacturing our plants in the USA and I am mainly helping in this the US Partner. This will be my job in the next 6 months, together with the development of the Hot Cats.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
The CFO and President of NRG Energy sends a comment to the world through the Wall Street Journal as follows:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324103504578376441015222064.html
Mr. Crane:
When the natural-gas industry grows up, it’s going to realize that they don’t need the power industry’s transmission and distribution system. They have a better distribution system—the gas pipeline into your house. All the natural-gas industry needs is a gizmo in the basement of your house to convert your natural gas into electricity. I have no doubt that within the next 12 to 24 months there’s going to be a technological breakthrough.
From Wikipedia: ( NRG sells heat, active in cogeneration)
Wholesale generationAfter the GenOn merger, NRG has 47,000 MW of total generation capacity, enough to power approximately 40 million homes. [2] Its nearly 100 power plants are located in 18 states in the Northeast, Chicago area, Gulf Coast, Southwest, Nevada, and California. [2] Generation facilities include mostly fossil fuel power plants powered by natural gas, oil, and coal; plus four wind farms (in Texas) and six solar farms (in California, Arizona, and New Mexico). [9] NRG also has a 44% ownership stake in the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station and a 37.5% stake in a coal power plant in Gladstone, Queensland, Australia. [9] Some facilities use cogeneration and the company also owns 28MW of solar distributed generation.
Warm regards,
Tom Conover
Joe wrote in May 13th, 2013 at 3:16 AM in Stability of Light Nuclei
Wladimir,
1. If the Least Action Principle does not apply to excited nuclei, how do you determine the placement and orientation of nucleons along n(o)?
RESPONSE:
Joe,
I dont know all the laws that connect the flux n(o).
It needs investigations, based on experiments.
I only know that, when energy is supplied for a non excited nucleus, it can change its status as follows:
1- by changing the spin of a nucleon regarding the flux n(o), as happens in the case of excited 6C12.
2- by changing the position of the nucleons, as happens when 5B10 is excited (see Fig. 25 page 35).
.
2. Do not spin and magnetic moment always share the same sign, since it is the spin that generates the magnetic moment? Why is the magnetic moment of D-2 not positive in Fig.4? Why does the flux invert the magnetic moment from positive to negative? And how does it do this while maintaining the exact same value for the magnetic moment (0.857)?
RESPONSE:
No, Joe,
spin and magnetic moment always share the same sign in CLASSICAL Nuclear Physics.
Faraday had discovered the laws of electromagnetism for the macros-phenomena.
In QRT I had discovered the laws of electromagnetism for the micro-phenomena, and I had discovered that the electromagnetic phenomena depends on the flux n(o).
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in May 13th, 2013 at 3:16 AM
Wladimir,
1. If the Least Action Principle does not apply to excited nuclei, how do you determine the placement and orientation of nucleons along n(o)?
RESPONSE:
Joe,
I dont know all the laws that connect the flux n(o).
It needs investigations, based on experiments.
I only know that, when energy is supplied for a non excited nucleus, it can change its status as follows:
1- by changing the spin of a nucleon regarding the flux n(o), as happens in the case of excited 6C12.
2- by changing the position of the nucleons, as happens when 5B10 is excited (see Fig. 25 page 35.
.
2. Do not spin and magnetic moment always share the same sign, since it is the spin that generates the magnetic moment? Why is the magnetic moment of D-2 not positive in Fig.4? Why does the flux invert the magnetic moment from positive to negative? And how does it do this while maintaining the exact same value for the magnetic moment (0.857)?
RESPONSE:
No, Joe,
spin and magnetic moment always share the same sign in CLASSICAL Nuclear Physics.
Faraday had discovered the laws of electromagnetism for the macros-phenomena.
In QRT I had discovered the laws of electromagnetism for the micro-phenomena, and I had discovered that the electromagnetic phenomena depends on the flux n(o).
regards
wlad
Dear Dr. Rossi
Thank you for your effort in keeping alive the comunicatikn with your readers. In practice I understand that the system overall consumes gas or grid power for the 35% of the time but that energy is returned in any case to the costumer. And in that time the system has a cop of about 1. In other words the real gain is in the 65% of the time with a large production of energy without consume. Is it correct.
Dear Stefano:
Yes, you got it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hopefully the JONP will be a historical timeline for LENR. Many of the readers will probably agree that you have amazing energy to answer all our questions, and supply updates on the technology and forthcoming events. Perhaps once the validation has been completed and the your technology has been successfully peer reviewed, you will have even less time to provide updates as you will be busy with ramping up production via your partner companies, and dealing with the media inquiries and requests for interviews by all the leading broadcasters.
So here is one more important question for the historical timeline. This is a “what if” question, and I feel that it is important for interpreting the evolution of LENR from the lab to commercial production. If Fleischmann and Pons had submitted their work for peer review, and the results were not reproducible, it is possible that Cold Fusion could have remained purely a theoretical science. So perhaps their failure inspired people like yourself to continue with the research, and find a way of successfully turning the theoretical concept into a real world commercial product.
Anyway we all wish you luck with the next phase of your journey.
Dear Piers D:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I think one issue of confusion is the issue of what being “on” and “off” means for the activator and the cat. Some think that you mean when the activator is on the cat is off and producing zero thermal power. My understanding is that the activator turns on when the cat is producing too much heat (the nuclear reactions becoming too intense). During this period, the cat may be off, but being off does not mean it is not producing power in the form of heat via nuclear reactions. It just means that it is being stabilized via the resistance element of the activator, and, most likely, the radio frequency stimulation to the cat has been shut off. The cat is producing power during this time, but is simply revving down so to speak, like taking your pedal off the accelerator to slow down a speeding car to a more appropriate speed. So, can you confirm that this is the proper interpretation of what the cat being “off” means?
Thank you.
Hank
Dear Hank Mills:
Obviously I cannot answer you, but let me confirm one thing: I meant exactly what I wrote.
Reading with the necessary attention and without any bias what I wrote, the description of the operation of the apparatus with Activator and E-Cat is very simple. I made what I wrote read by a 13 years old middle school girl, and she understood perfectly. So should do anybody. One thing: remember that the Activator anyway gives to the Customer the heat he needs with a COP 1.02 when it is turned on, and this heat produced by the activator is totally paid by the very Activator, whose heat is not lost, is entirely utilized by the Customer. Therefore the energy produced by the E-Cat has no input energy to pay for, because the energy that activates the cat, after activating he cat, goes to the Customer who anyway had to pay for it to use it. As a consequence of this fact, the E-Cat energy output is not gravated from any energy consume.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi and readers.
Please Google:
CO2 PASSES 400PPM
Read the dangerous situation we are in, and getting worse
every day.
Dr. Rossi can help to save us !
Robert Curto
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
USA
Dear Dott Rossi,
when a reactor is running in SSM,could be possible use a part of the heat produced,with a modulator of injection, to keep stable the reactor?
But,it would be too much easy so it seems to me a stupid idea…here is 1:00 AM…
Good night G G
Dear Giovanni Guerrini:
The reactor is already driven stable by the Activator, what you suggest is redundant.
Thank you for the attention,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Mr Rossi,
The intersting number is the combined COP of the actuator and the E-cat over a full cycle.
You say the input to the actuator is 900 Wh/h during 35% of the cycle that is 900×0,35 =315 Wh/h as a cycle average. During the same time the output from the actuator is 910 Wh/h that is 318.5 Wh/h as a cycle average.
The output from the E-cat is 1000 Wh/h during 65% of the cycle, which gives a cycle average of 650 Wh/h.
The total output divided by the input is then (318.5 + 650)/ 315 = 3.07
On the single stage E-Cat the COP was around 6 but with the actuator the COP during a cycle is only 3.
Did you sacrifice COP for stability and higher temperature in order to get a better electric COP when a turbine is involved?
Best Regards,
Karl-Henrik Malmqvist
Dear Karl-Henrik Malmqvist:
Please read carefully what I wrote,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
these are new questions” IMO.
1)The mouse / cat system is in closed loop? in the sense that the mouse is back-fed by (part of) the energy produced by the cat?
2)If not, you’ll work on this in the future?
Thanks
Giuliano.
Dear giuliano Bettini:
1- no
2- I do not know
War,m regards,
A.R.
This activator+ecat concept is driving people a little crazy. Perhaps a tiny bit more info will help. Is the activator always rated at 1 kW? In other words, can you drive a 10 or 100 kW ecat with a 1 kW activator? Obviously an activator with a COP of >1 will be a much more efficient and economical source of heat than a resistance heater, but if the activator draws a lot of power, the economics of it isn’t clear.
Sorry to take any more of your time on this, but this is so obvious to you but not to your readers, so some of us aren’t able to appreciate the scale of this new development, which is a shame. – Ron
Dear Ron:
Sorry, but I have nothing to add to what I have already written
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear ing. Rossi,
just two short questions,
1) How many MJ of energy this new E-Cat produces in total along a period of 100 hours of continuos working?
2) How many MJ of input energy from grid (electricty, gas or whatever) consumed in total by the system during the same working period of 100 hours?
Thanks.
Best Regards
Dear Franco:
Please read what I have already explained,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear daniel De Caluwe’:
1- please read what I have already explained
2- see 1
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
1. Refering to your recent answer to Dr. Joseph Fine, and the fact that the Activator has a lower energy-production (about 1/10th of the Tiger in the example you gave in your answer to Joseph Fine) than the main part (Tiger) itself, do you agree that 1 system/E-cat (= 1 Tiger + 1 Activator) alone produces 35% of the time (when only the Activator is active) a lower heat output (in your example 1/10th) than the other 65% of the time (when the main part (Tiger) of the E-cat is active)? So, the thermal energy production of 1 element (= 1 Tiger + 1 Activator) fluctuates?
2. And to make the (thermal) energy production of a bigger system (with many individual E-cats (many Tigers and as many Activators, with each Tiger his own seperate Activator)) constant, and not fluctuating (between 1/10th when the Activator is active and 1 when the Tiger is active), do you solve that problem via the control system, making the different Activators work at different times, so that you get a smooth and constant (thermal) power output?
Kind Regards,
Dear Andrea Rossi and Dr. Joseph Fine,
I to swoon at the thought of the possibilities of the Activator – Reactor eCat coupled with direct thermal-to-electric conversion.
In order to have a constant power output, would not an energy storage device (such as a battery) be needed to power the Activator when it is on, coupled with a battery charger using the thermal-to-electric converter as a source? Otherwise, would not the available electrical output power drop due to the Activator load?
If we use a point design of:
eCat output thermal power = 10 kW
Thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency = 30%
Assume Activator power load of 1 kW
then the available electric output would be changing between 2 and 3kW depending whether the Activator was on.
With a 35% activator duty cycle, the battery charger would need to be about 400W and would decrease the electric output from 3 kW to about 2.6 kW on the average. Thoughts?
Dear Dott Rossi,
I understand that now is not important how much energy gives the economy of the system,because it is a prototype that is teaching to you the best way to drive the E-cat in SSM.
So,if I have understood well,all our (readers)computation are useless.
Regards G G
Gent.mo Ing Rossi,
ha perfettamente ragione, non può perdere tempo prezioso per ripetere le stesse cose.
Le scrivo giusto perchè dall’esempio fatto ieri, si ottiene un COP del sistema pari a circa tre….e della cosa siamo tutti un po’ spiazzati
Activator: “.. consumes abour 900 Wh/h and produces about 910 Wh/h of heat”
E-CAT: ” …works for about the 65% of the operational time, producing about 1 kWh/h without consuming any Wh/h from the grid”
in queste ipotesi ad esempio in 100 ore si ha
INPUT: 35h*900 Wh/h=31,5 KW
OUTPUT: 35h*910Wh/h + 65h* 1000 Wh/h=96,85 KW
COP=96,85/31,5=3,074
Cordiali saluti
Ing Benedetto Schiavone
To the Readers:
I am receiving many comments that continue to make the same questions regarding the system Activator-Ecat. Honestly, I have already explained I think very well what I can say about this issue for all I can explain, so I just invite to read what I have written in these last 7 days about it. I will not answer to questions equal to the ones I have already answered to for lack of time: in this period we are under strong pressure and I have the time only to answer to new questions.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
Does every Cat need its own mouse? Or can a squeak of a mouse awaken several cats?
If so, does it need to squeak louder, or just as loud as with one cat?
Best regards,
Andre Blum
Dear Andre Blum:
Every E-Cat has an Activator.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir,
1. If the Least Action Principle does not apply to excited nuclei, how do you determine the placement and orientation of nucleons along n(o)?
2. Do not spin and magnetic moment always share the same sign, since it is the spin that generates the magnetic moment? Why is the magnetic moment of D-2 not positive in Fig.4? Why does the flux invert the magnetic moment from positive to negative? And how does it do this while maintaining the exact same value for the magnetic moment (0.857)?
All the best,
Joe
Andrea — With atmospheric CO2 levels now reaching 400 ppm, your 100 – 200 COP hot-cats are urgently needed World wide.
You indicated that your basic hot-cat activator operates at 1kW when it is turned on 35% of the cycle. When the 1kW activator is turned off and the hot-cat is turned on for the remaining 65% of the cycle how much energy does that hot-cat produce? Does the 1 kW activator trigger a 100 kW hot-cat?
Dear John,
You are right, this technology can help to resolve the CO2 issue. As for how the system activator-Ecat works I already have answered to your questions: please go through the many, many, many answers I already gave regarding this issue. I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Please don’t go too far: just, for now, let’s limit to what I wrote about the Activator/E-Cat cycle. Please read carefully what I wrote. More than that is not possible to get, so far. Our basic module is made by an apparatus in which we have 2 components: an activator, which consumes abour 900 Wh/h and produces about 910 Wh/h of heat. This heat activates the E-Cat and then goes to the utilization by the Customer, so that its cost is paid back by itself. This activator stays in function for the 35% of the operational time of the syspem of the apparatus. The E-Cat, activated by the heat of the Activator, works for about the 65% of the operational time, producing about 1 kWh/h without consuming any Wh/h from the grid. Combining these modules we can make E-Cats of 1 kW , 10 kW, 100 kW, 1 MW , respectively, of power.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Please help me make sure I understand you correctly.
You say that the denominator is zero. Does this mean that there is no external energy coming into the mouse and cat setup? In other words, is the new configuration self-looping — the cat providing all the energy that the mouse needs?
Thank you very much,
Frank Acland
Dear Frank Acland:
while the E-Cat is turned on, no other source of energy comes to the system. When the Mouse is turned on, the E-Cat is turned off and in this phase the Activator draws energy from the heat source. When the E-Cat is turned on ( about 65% of the operational time) the denominator is zero, no energy comes from any source to heat the Activator and the E-Cat, while the E-Cat is turned off ( about 35% of the operational time) the activator draws energy from the heat source, but at the same time produces for the Customer an amount of heat that is equal or more than the energy consumed, so that irt is pays the energy that consumes by itself.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
To the readers of JONP.
As previously mentioned, this is a follow-up to my part three information for consideration. Quark make-up as a structure with no fixed definite size. I believe that it is this none conformity of a fixed size that allows quarks to provide the material world with its phenomenons and phenomena. As previously mentioned quarks are composites of three aethers and three quarks form the structure of the atomic units. And like wise as quarks are formed by environmental radials so too are the atomic units. The two major dimensions are always diametrical and circumferential with regards any structure. The make-up with regards atomic units is different to that of quarks. Quarks contain no gravity as they simply occupy space. the units that quarks construct do contain gravity because quarks are independent units and unlike the quark, the atomic unit has a diametrical dimension that is composed of two radials not one. This configuration creates a space in the centre of the unit (on its diametrical dimension) and puts one quark in each position, top radial, bottom radial and circumference. To visualize an atomic unit draw a vertical and horizontal line to form a cross. Now draw a B. The horizontal divides the top and bottom of the B. The vertical represents the two radials of the B. which is the units diametrical dimension and upon which the unit spins. The two radials are two gates, Therefore slope each radial so that when the unit spins its radials form the shape of an egg timer resembling two inverted funnels. In the top funnnel, this being the north pole region place a quark and mark it positive/neg or quark of volume dimension going into a dimension of size. In the other funnel place a quark and mark it negative/pos or quark of size dimension going into a dimension of volume. On the circumferential dimension of the B. put two quarks, one on the bottom of the B.going negative/neg and on the top B. put one going negative/pos. These two quarks represdent a time dimension of one quark. In the middle of the diametrical dimension mark this as the positive gravity zone (positive/pos binding force) and in the gap on the horizontal line exterior to the B. mark negative gravity zone (negative/neg). Because this B. formation of three quarks spins on its diametrical dimension the quarks travel on helical trajectories. The dynamics of the helical trajectory is related to gyroscopic behaviour that maintains unity of velocity with regards a discrepancy of distance between two planes of an-at-one-ment. The unit as previously explained has two poles. The south pole is an expanding zone with regards its structure (not absolute but a gateway towards) and likewise its north pole is a contracting zone (not absolute but a gateway towards). Thereby the quarks responding to the absolutes of the structure career around the circuit in response to these two gravity values. The quarks leading edge is its south pole that seeks the positive gravity value of a size dimension. The circumferential quark has to satisfy the two powers of the unit. These positional powers of the unit (one positive and one negative gravity) pulsate and provide the driving force or the energy content of the unit. Thereby, as the quark circumvents on the bottom B. its south pole is attracted to the positive gravity at the central position causing the quark to become more of a size dimension. The top quark on the radial approaching from the gate of the north pole with its leading edge of its south pole is also becoming a quark of size dimension causing an act of repulsion with that of the approaching quark from the bottom circumference of the B. This results in the circumferential quark to be repelled and attracted by consequential similar and dissimilar forces. The north pole of the circumferential quark is attracted to the negative gravity of the outer position on the horizontal thereby transforming it into a quark of volume dimension. Whereupon, it then detects the pull of the north gate on its south pole. What the quark does is satisfy position with regards a value of gravity by its ability to adjust or you could say its ability to transform its volume dimension into a dimension of size or visa versa to suite all situations. Each quark on its route within a unit goes through two major transitions, from size major to volume major and from volume major to size major but it requires three stages to circumvent the two dimensions. The extra stage being the oscillation required to get from one gate to the other on its circumferential dimension between two major forces of gravity on the horizontal. The three quarks within the unit are in a constant transitional mode and the unit made-up of three quarks pulsates at its outer negative zone of negative gravity in sync with each transition of the passing circumferential quark. This cavity of negative gravity is present in the make-up of every structure other than the quark. This material is given as a possible overview of a complex subject and presented in skeletal form but is offered as an alternative explanation that I think could be more easy to understand as an introductory approach that obviously can be expanded upon. Part five will deal with the interaction of the atomic units. Hoping this information provides some helpfull thought on this abstruce subject. Best regards Eric Ashworth.
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.
Joe wrote in May 12th, 2013 at 4:31 AM
Wladimir,
Nuclear scientists should always examine new alternative models because science is always progressing. This includes QRT. (It is odd that you condemn the possibility of a 5th force, since QRT introduces its own new force – REPULSIVE gravity.)
RESPONSE:
Joe,
there is a big difference between the proposal of mine on the repulsive gravity and the proposal of the nuclear theorists proposing the 5th force.
Look:
1- I had developed my theory along 20 years.
Step by step I was discovering the models and the laws that must rule their working.
Along the years I had faced many troubles, and had undertaken many efforts to eliminate the inconsistencies.
The proposal of the repulsive gravity had been a consequence of such effort of mine:
After long meditations, I finally had concluded that my nuclear model cannot work without a repulsive gravity.
So, that was a theoretical conclusion, required in order to get a coherent working of my nuclear model.
I even did not know that there are pear-shaped nuclei at that time.
2- Nowadays the theorists are thinking about a 5th force because their theories do not fit to the recent experimental findings.
For instance, the pear shape of high nuclei do not fit to what we expect from the classical principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
So, the theorists today are not thinking about the existence of a 5th force from the theoretical viewpoint,
They are thinking about to propose the 5th force from an ad hoc viewpoint, with the aim to ADAPT their nuclear theory to the results of experiments.
An ad hoc solution is not desirable.
Because even if they succeed to adapt the pear shape to the results of the experiments by keeping the fundamental principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, it is possible such sort of solution will hide the true cause of the existence of the pear-shaped nuclei.
In QRT the nuclei with pair number of complete hexagonal floors have elipsoidal shape (for example, the 92U238)
But nuclei with odd number of hexagonal floors have tendency to be pear-shaped.
And if the nucleus has odd number of hexagonal floors and also incomplete hexagonal floors, the tendency to be pear-shaped is greater.
regards
wlad
Joe wrote in May 12th, 2013 at 4:31 AM in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei
Wladimir,
Nuclear scientists should always examine new alternative models because science is always progressing. This includes QRT. (It is odd that you condemn the possibility of a 5th force, since QRT introduces its own new force – REPULSIVE gravity.)
RESPONSE:
Joe,
there is a big difference between the proposal of mine on the repulsive gravity and the proposal of the nuclear theorists proposing the 5th force.
Look:
1- I had developed my theory along 20 years.
Step by step I was discovering the models and the laws that must rule their working.
Along the years I had faced many troubles, and had undertaken many efforts to eliminate the inconsistencies.
The proposal of the repulsive gravity had been a consequence of such effort of mine:
After long meditations, I finally had concluded that my nuclear model cannot work without a repulsive gravity.
So, that was a theoretical conclusion, required in order to get a coherent working of my nuclear model.
I even did not know that there are pear-shaped nuclei at that time.
2- Nowadays the theorists are thinking about a 5th force because their theories do not fit to the recent experimental findings.
For instance, the pear shape of high nuclei do not fit to what we expect from the classical principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics.
So, the theorists today are not thinking about the existence of a 5th force from the theoretical viewpoint,
They are thinking about to propose the 5th force from an ad hoc viewpoint, with the aim to ADAPT their nuclear theory to the results of experiments.
An ad hoc solution is not desirable.
Because even if they succeed to adapt the pear shape to the results of the experiments by keeping the fundamental principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, it is possible such sort of solution will hide the true cause of the existence of the pear-shaped nuclei.
In QRT the nuclei with pair number of complete hexagonal floors have elipsoidal shape (for example, the 92U238)
But nuclei with odd number of hexagonal floors have tendency to be pear-shaped.
And if the nucleus has odd number of hexagonal floors and also incomplete hexagonal floors, the tendency to be pear-shaped is greater.
regards
wlad
Dear Andrea,
For some reason your reply did not post to the Rossi Blog Reader, I will try to re-post it now. Thank you again, and congratulations!!!
– re-posted with the reply from Andrea Rossi –
Tom Conover
May 12th, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Dear Andrea,
The actuator would pay for itself if the turbine mounted on the 350C Tiger accepted the thermal output of the actuator as a source of thermal energy that is used to create the steam to spin the turbine. That would make the actuator “cost” equal to zero, if the energy from the turbine is used to power the Tiger.
Do I read your words correctly now?
If so, may I be the first to congratulate you on achieving the dream of Tesla?
Sincerely,
Tom Conover
Andrea Rossi
May 12th, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Dear Tom Conover,
Yes, you got it, but the same is valid even without production of electric energy, because the heat made by the activator is usable too as such.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Joe wrote in May 12th, 2013 at 4:31 AM, in the paper Stability of Light Nuclei
Wladimir,
1. I had asked you what causes the sign of the spin of a nucleon to change abruptly and work against the Least Action Principle. You asked me where this occurs. I now answer that it occurs in Fig.26 (page 37) in the excited 6C12. Can you explain why one deuteron suddenly changes its spin?
RESPONSE:
Joe, the 6C12 is excited.
The Least Action Principle cannot be applied, since the 6C12 receives additional energy, which breaks the conditions existent for the application of the Least Action Principle.
The principle is not applicable for excited nuclei.
.
2. The deuteron D-2 in Fig.4 (page 6) seems contradictory. It has a positive spin, yet a negative magnetic moment. How is this understandable?
RESPONSE:
Joe, dont you see the difference between D-1 and D-2?
You have to pay attention to the direction of the flux n(o) crossing the both D-1 and D-2.
Look:
D-1: it has i=-1, and the flux n(o) enters through the pole “+” (blue) of D-1
D-2: it has i=+1, but the flux n(o) enters through the pole “-” (red) of D-2
regards
wlad
PS: sorry the delay, I didnt see your comment because of the publication of the new article Electrical Catalyst.
Joe wrote in May 12th, 2013 at 4:31 AM
Wladimir,
1. I had asked you what causes the sign of the spin of a nucleon to change abruptly and work against the Least Action Principle. You asked me where this occurs. I now answer that it occurs in Fig.26 (page 37) in the excited 6C12. Can you explain why one deuteron suddenly changes its spin?
RESPONSE:
Joe, the 6C12 is excited.
The Least Action Principle cannot be applied, since the 6C12 receives additional energy, which breaks the conditions existent for the application of the Least Action Principle.
The principle is not applicable for excited nuclei.
.
2. The deuteron D-2 in Fig.4 (page 6) seems contradictory. It has a positive spin, yet a negative magnetic moment. How is this understandable?
RESPONSE:
Joe, dont you see the difference between D-1 and D-2?
You have to pay attention to the direction of the flux n(o) crossing the both D-1 and D-2.
Look:
D-1: it has i=-1, and the flux n(o) enters through the pole “+” (blue) of D-1
D-2: it has i=+1, but the flux n(o) enters through the pole “-” (red) of D-2
regards
wlad
PS: sorry the delay, I didnt see your comment because of the publication of the new article Electrical Catalyst.
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.