Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com> wrote: > producing low pressure steam is not the point, but to produce high pressure > steam when E-Cats are scaled up and connected in serial and paraller for 1MW > plant. > I am pretty sure Rossi said the 1 MW reactor is for hot water. I have no idea what they need with so much hot water. You need that much in a large hotel, but not a factory.
> It is claimed by Defkalion that E-Cat is able to produce 414°C steam in > high pressure. > That is a different machine. However, it is slight drawback that E-Cat cannot yet go to any higher > temperatures and pressures than 414°C. > > But this is more than enough for steam aircrafts! > Really? I think higher temperatures would be recommended for steam powered aircraft. Steam turbo-prop airplanes for freight might work at that temperature. Regarding steam in general, Rossi's eCats have demonstrated low temperature steam at 1 atm. That is very useful. It is "process steam" used in various industrial applications with fabric, food processing and so on. I do get a sense that he likes to demonstrate them with steam rather than hot water because it shows that they can be used for high-temperature applications. For a long time, some people thought that cold fusion might not achieve high temperatures and it might only be useful for space heating. Especially Ni cold fusion. Rossi's demonstrations refute that. He has not demonstrated temperatures high enough to generate electricity, which would be 200°C and above. Achieving higher temperatures is "only a matter of engineering" as scientists say. It is a trivial problem compared to making an eCat in the first place. It is obvious that it can be done. Indeed, Defkalion says they have done it. I do not see any point to demonstrating higher temperatures with the rather simple, crude machines Rossi has demonstrated. It might be hazardous. With these machines 100°C at 1 atm proves the issue beyond any reasonable doubt, except to people who imagine that every physics and chemistry textbook published in the last 150 years is wrong, and the heat of vaporization of water is not 540 cal/g. - Jed
