o bill the end user.
Fran
From: Mark Goldes [mailto:overton...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
This assumes Rossi has a nuclear reaction. There is reason to believe he might
not. Should that be pr
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> And by the way, it's expensive.
>>
>
> It is much cheaper than inadvertently irradiating hundreds of thousands of
> people.
>
What's wrong with ordinary radiation detectors? Or do you think animals
are used to verify that conventional nucl
-
From: Robert Leguillon
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily
be banned from personal use. We cannot legal
Mary Yugo wrote:
> They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been
>> performed with rats and other species.
>>
>
> What are you describing here? There is no need for animal experiments
> unless some sort of radiation is discovered to be emanating from the
> reactions
]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
Robert Leguillon wrote:
If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be
banned from personal use.
They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been
performed with rats and other species.
I doub
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Robert Leguillon wrote:
>
> If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could
>> easily be banned from personal use.
>>
>
> They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been
> performed with rats
]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
Robert Leguillon wrote:
If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could easily be
banned from personal use.
They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been
performed with rats and other species.
I doub
Robert Leguillon wrote:
If LENR reactions are sufficiently branded as "dangerous", they could
> easily be banned from personal use.
>
They might actually be dangerous. I do not think extensive tests have been
performed with rats and other species.
I doubt they are anywhere near as dangerous as
ate: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:05:25 -0500
From: francis.x.roa...@lmco.com
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Dave,
You are not alone in “wanting” true energy independence but I
am sure home brew reactors will only be allowed in rem
David Roberson wrote:
They key word you used is "meter". I think that it will be a big uphill
> run for us to finally become free of the energy producers.
>
I do not think this will be a problem. There is a significant amount of
unmetered energy already. Many people in the U.S. heat their house
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
> It seems to me that a perfectly legitimate business many fossil
> fuel industries ought to seriously consider would be to "retool"
> into something equivalent to an eCat (or whatever "eCats" evolve
> into) service provider. It would be no different than hav
start this ball rolling.
Fran
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 1:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
They key word you used is "meter". I think that it will be a big uphill run
for us to fina
ncis X
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 11:10 am
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
E-L,
I think Europe will precede the US but it will actually be
smaller, poorer nations that first scramble to certify and demonstrate the
worth of any residen
>From Francis
>Big oil has no way to plug all these
> little holes and is probably rethinking their future investment schemes to
> “join” rather than “beat” LENR and will probably find some way to purchase
> and meter this new resource.
It seems to me that a perfectly legitimate business
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Energy Liberator
wrote:
> I wonder how long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get
> certification for Europe and the rest of the World.
>
See, what I wonder is how long it will be before either Rossi or Defkalion
prove that they have submitted a
*“I design and build embedded micro systems. More like $10 for the
electronics ex the sensors.”*
* *
*The controller for a nuclear reactor(E-Cat) would require a high level of
redundancy in both its processing unit and its sensors arrays and actuators
to achieve a failsafe availability at least t
schemes to "join"
rather than "beat" LENR and will probably find some way to purchase and meter
this new resource.
Fran
From: Energy Liberator [mailto:energylibera...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:2
...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Alain Sepeda
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:06 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:20 kW home E-Cat LCOE
COP=6 is quite conservative, and based on problem of instability of the
"self-sustain" mode of e-cat,
OK, I thought he made
mention of a COP 50 somewhere that I missed. I wonder how
long after the US certification, it will be for Rossi to get
certification for Europe and the rest of the World.
On 04/01/12 13:41, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
COP 6
was for the
COP=6 is quite conservative, and based on problem of instability of the
"self-sustain" mode of e-cat, feared by Rossi in November...
Defkalion says that COP is not a good way to analyze performance. there is
a cost to start the reactor, to regulate a little, but COP can be great if
power is stable
COP 6 was for the original Fat Cat E-Cats as used in the 1 MW demo unit.
I suggest the 10 and 20 kW home units, to be delivered in Sept 2012,
will not be anything like the Fat Cats and they will run in self sustain
mode or very close to it. I estimated the control electronics and the
primary ci
Where did you get a COP of
50 from? I thought it was 6. Rossi said in his interview that the
running cost would be about 1/6th of a current conventional boiler
running cost.
On 04/01/12 07:52, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
Based
on the recently announced 20
I design and build embedded micro systems. More like $10 for the
electronics ex the sensors.
AG
On 1/4/2012 7:25 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
/A $1,500 total price of a E-Cat that includes a NI microprocessor
based controls system is hard to believe. I project that the control
system will be a maj
sorry, but the cost of a control system is mostly :
- captors and actioners
- R&D cost to be divided by volume
a processors able to apply a feedback every 1/10th second, cost less than
1$ and consume less than a quartz watch (see lowpower PIC12).
control system is a serious job, but it is class
*A $1,500 total price of a E-Cat that includes a NI microprocessor based
controls system is hard to believe. I project that the control system will
be a major cost component of the E-Cat. Even computerized appliances like
refrigerators sell for twice that. When I see that low price…when I can buy
a
Based on the recently announced 20 kW thermal home E-Cat costing $1,500
and assuming it draws 0.4 kW (400 Watts) from the mains (COP 50), here
is the LCOE and the individual item cost breakdowns.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/kLBSLYjhfkssP57d3w1J6dMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
26 matches
Mail list logo
