Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Liberty1970; Normandy
*Ping*

This is apparently a new report on the latest trial of the Rossi/Focardi E-Cat device, or rather, a new model of it.

The device is quite small, as shown in photos in the downloadable report. I estimate you'd need ~100 kWh for a passenger vehicle, whereas this device supposedly ran at 25 kWh for over 5 hours. At that level it would be simple to package these into an engine compartment and have a vehicle that only needs refueling every 6 months or so, at minimal cost. To say nothing of the potential for replacing power plants with home power units. ('Free' electricity for everyone, apart from the unit itself and an occasional nickel recharge.)

Does anyone have information on the expected sale price/product cost of the E-Cat? Obviously, if this is real, the inventors can charge an arm and a leg for it. I'm just curious whether there is something about the device that involves exorbitant cost that would hold down application. It is so small that I expect costs will be low once the design is refined and economies of scale are achieved.

And as usual, I'm interested in any hard evidence or reasonable explanation debunking the E-cat. But not irrelevant circumstantial claims or vague speculation. If the E-cat is a fraud, someone needs to explain how they are doing it.

2 posted on 04/07/2011 7:05:17 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Liberty, not License. Freedom, not Slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Liberty1970
Some random thoughts:

If they had concocted a fraud, I would expect them to keep using the same fraudulent device, not start making copies and refining the fraudulent device. This latest demo apparently involved a newer, smaller model, consistent with the idea that they have a new invention that is rapidly being refined.

They now say they will need 300 units instead of 100 for the demonstration 1 MW reactor. This strikes me as a sign of authenticity - that the earlier, rosier prediction is being replaced by a more reserved estimate based on issues that are cropping up as they get further along in implementation. If they simply had a fraud, why change the numbers?

3 posted on 04/07/2011 7:10:00 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Liberty, not License. Freedom, not Slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Liberty1970
whereas this device supposedly ran at 25 kWh for over 5 hours.

One quibble: kWh is a unit of energy, ie the energy from a kW of power over a period of an hour. I think you meant kW if you're talking about power.

I've been saying for a while that I want to see this device spitting out orders of magnitude more output energy than input electrical energy, under supervised conditions, in somebody else's lab, over a period of at least a week (and preferably a month), with the lab being under the control of somebody of stature and complete independence, before I start getting really excited.

As far as using this for vehicles, its output is currently hot water (later to be steam). I could see this running a revamped steam locomotive, maybe a large tractor-trailer, but it would involve a lot of engineering before it would be viable for a small vehicle.

8 posted on 04/07/2011 7:25:24 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Liberty1970

With addition of batteries for bursts of power, 50 kilowatts should be adequate for a car. That’s about 70 HP all the time, a standard engine is made to run continously at about 1/4 of peak HP. Assuming a decent battery pack, 50 kw power source should perform about the same as a good sized v-6 engine.


13 posted on 04/07/2011 9:49:44 AM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson