Rossi: E-Cat SKL More Suited to Resistive than Inductive Loads

It has been interesting over the last few days to see the back and forth on the Journal of Nuclear Physics between Andrea Rossi and various readers who are trying to understand what kind of generator the E-Cat SKL is.

Andrea Rossi is very reluctant to provide a detailed description of the E-C SKL, and the kind of power that it generates but from comments he has made over the last while there are some things that he has revealed.

1. That it works best when the load is resistive — such as heaters or lamps.

2. That it is problematic when working with electric motors.

3. That it can be used to charge batteries.

I think many followers of the E-Cat have been assuming that if the E-C SKL can generate electricity then it should be simple to use it for any purpose that electricity is currently used. But apparently it is not so simple, and it’s not clear why.

Perhaps one clue can be found in this Q&A from the JONP yesterday:

Svein H. Vormedal
February 24, 2021 at 3:17 PM
Dear Andrea
What are the voltage of each E-Cat SKL, cell or unit?
Regards
Svein H. Vormedal

Andrea Rossi
February 24, 2021 at 4:19 PM
Svein H. Vormedal:
Putting modules in series the Voltage sums up, but other are the problems raised by inductive loads and we are resolving problems.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Inductive loads include electric motors, transformers and coils. I don’t have a great deal of knowledge about electronics, but I am aware that resistive loads are simpler than inductive loads, and it appears that is more suitable for use with the E-C SKL.

Here is a description of the difference from Sciencing.com

“The outlets on your wall channel alternating current, or AC, which means that the flow of the current is reversed periodically. This reversal can be graphed as a wave and both the voltage and the current have a specific wave. The type of load depends on how the wave for the voltage and the wave for the current line up. In resistive loads, such as light bulbs, the voltage and current waves match, or the two are in phase. As you might guess from the name, resistive loads only resist the current and are the simplest type of load. In inductive loads, such as an electric motor, the voltage wave is ahead of the current wave. The difference between the two waves creates a secondary voltage that moves in opposition to the voltage from your energy source, known as inductance. Because of this property, inductive loads tend to experience power surges when they are turned on and off, a phenomenon not seen with resistive loads.”

To my mind, if the E-C SKL can charge a battery, then using batteries in conjunction with it, could make things simpler as the batteries can provide electricity in a form that can be used by most devices. But this would add more complexity and a lot more expense to any system which might defeat the purpose of using the E-Cat in the first place.

My guess is that Rossi will be trying to find ways to deal with the issue in the least complex way possible.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Q&As Regarding E-Cat SKL Launch

I would imagine that most readers here are like me and are interested in learning about the product launch and presentation of the E-Cat SKL, which Andrea Rossi has said would take place at some point in 2010. I had a chance to correspond with him recently and asked a few questions regarding the topic. There’s not a great deal of news here, but I think it provides the latest information on the topic, and helps us with our expectations:

Q: How is the SKL Progressing

A: Very well.

Q: Do you think the presentation will take place in the first half of this year?

A: I can promise only within 2021.

Q: So do you think you will be ready to launch production this year?

A: Yes.

Q: Will the presentation and production happen at the same time?

A: Yes, presentation first.

Q: Do you plan to launch with the single SKL product first, or the multi-SKL plant, or both?

A: Still to be decided, maybe both.

So he is still promising a presentation this year but things are still rather vague in terms of what will will be demonstrated, what product will be launched and exactly when it will all happen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Update from Aureon Energy

Thanks to Gerard McEk for posting the following update from Aureon Ltd. At the moment I am not sure what the source is for this text. It looks like it could be a communication to current and/or potential investors.

February 11, 2021
To our Aureon Community,
Aureon Energy Ltd, has made tremendous progress with the SAFIRE project, despite the continuing challenges that 2020 has brought.

First, I want to thank you all for sharing our vision and supporting us with your personal investment. We have raised over $2MM with the SAFE investment opportunity, almost 10 times our original goal of 250K. This has allowed us to do more tests and experiments with the SAFIRE reactor with exciting results.

In our latest experiments, we found transmutation occurring not only on the anode but all through the sample. Furthermore, the manganese that is being made in the atmosphere has been discovered to be depositing onto the cathode! Keep in mind, there is no manganese in SAFIRE. This shows the predictions by the Wal Thornhill – EU are correct in that transmutation occurs in the Sun’s atmosphere.

We also produced a new video in September that illustrates more effectively the vision of Aureon for energy and remediation of nuclear waste. This also allows investors a virtual SAFIRE reactor behind the scenes tour without having to travel.

Since the updated video was released, we have had several exciting meetings with private equity investors that have reached out to us regarding our ‘A’ round of financing. We confirmed a tremendous amount of capital available and flowing into the market of clean-tech like SAFIRE, and Aureon is at the ‘tip of the spear’.

As you know, there are three areas of development Aureon energy has initially identified nuclear remediation, electrical energy generation, and material transmutation. The positive feedback we received from these meetings helped us prioritize our initial efforts into remediation, and increase the amount of capital we can raise.

We have increased our ‘A’ round from $20MM to $50MM to build a hot nuclear waste remediation reactor prototype. The additional capital will allow us to compress the project from 5 years to 36 months. Creating the remediation reactor first will also yield the designs, costs, and outputs for an energy and material transmutation reactor.

We are not doing any further work in the SAFIRE lab right now. All our efforts are focused on building out the project plan, budget, and private placement memorandum. Investors are keenly anticipating this opportunity!

Where all of this has brought us is that we need to close the SAFE March 31st 2021 and wrap up all the paperwork and legal no later than April 30.

If you want to invest more you can and there is no limit, but you will need to download the latest SAFE document for the correct date. Also, if you have already invested there is no need to fill out the qualification as an accredited investor.

Things are moving quickly now and we will be giving you updates quarterly so expect another update in April.

With best and warm regards,

Montgomery Childs
President
Aureon Energy Ltd

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

The Coming Revolution in Energy Technology (Leonard Weinstein)

The following article has been submitted by Leonard Weinstein.

 

The Coming Revolution in Energy Technology
Leonard Weinstein, ScD
Feb. 11, 2021

 

Introduction:

The advent of the industrial revolution resulted in an age of greatly increased prosperity to the portions of the world that took full advantage of it. The prosperity of a country and its citizens became almost directly proportional to the average energy use per person. The primary source of this energy was combustion of fossil fuels.

In recent years widespread use of fossil fuels has caused a significant increase in CO2 to accumulate in the Earth’s atmosphere and that this increase likely is causing some increase in surface temperature. Whether the increase in temperature is significant, and even whether the change in recent time is mainly due to burning fossil fuel, or due mainly to natural causes, or a mix of both is being disputed by many scientists. Whatever the truth of the issue is, while the remaining levels of fossil fuel could supply energy for many decades to several centuries, in the fairly near future it will start to become less easily available, so it would be desirable to phase away from fossil fuels and switch to other sources of energy that would be more consistently available over long times, and that could even allow significant growth in power available.

Efforts have been made to come up with cleaner and more permanent alternate sources of energy to replace fossil fuels. When nuclear energy was developed, it appeared to hold the promise of replacing much of the need for fossil fuels. Several major accidents at nuclear power plants and the difficulty of eliminating the nuclear waste made this approach less acceptable. Safer fission power plants have been designed, but the stigma of fission energy and the waste disposal issue still inhibit this approach. Fusion power concepts are under development but have made limited progress and do not look promising for the near future. Solar cells and wind turbines have greatly improved over time and are fairly cost competitive in some cases, but the problems of dispatchability and the need for large land areas and the limited number of ideal locations are major limitations which make them less attractive.

Several new energy producing technologies have been under development in recent times that hold the promise to satisfy future needs economically, safely, and with no pollution or CO2 generation. These are the basis for the present paper. The three leading versions of these technologies are:

1. Leonardo corporation’s Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat), and in particular the E-Cat SKL which produces about 5kW of electrical energy, is approaching being ready for the market. The concepts and working models are the work of Andrea Rossi and his team.

2. Brilliant Light Power’s Suncell modules presently produce 100kW to 350kW of thermal energy, but versions to 900kW thermal energy per cell are under development. These modules would require about 10% of the output power level as input electrical power in expected commercial models. The high temperature output can be converted to electrical power using micro turbogenerators (typically with about 30% conversion efficiency). A version of Suncell for direct electrical energy generation using MHD is also under development but is not discussed here. The present versions are best suited for large scale heating, including industrial processes. The inventor of this concept is Randell Mills who also developed a new version of modern physics (General Unified Theory of Classical Physics, or GUT-CP) to explain how it works. This new version better explains many of the presently unsolved issues in current versions of physics.

3. Aureon’s SAFIRE is a plasma reactor that claims to produce excess energy for heat production and can remediate nuclear waste. There is no data on quantitative power levels or engineered designs for commercial use yet, but they seem to be on track for a useful product. The Aureon SAFIRE project was founded by Montgomery Childs.

In addition to the new non-polluting energy sources, there has been continual improvements in rechargeable battery technology. Longer lasting, less expensive and more compact batteries, mainly using versions of Lithium-Ion battery technology, but also some others, are continually being developed. Batteries likely will not reach a point where non-dispatchable energy sources like solar cells and wind turbines can become competitive (using batteries for buffers). They are useful as surge buffers for the new types of power production that are dispatchable, where the required battery is not too large.

The following sections make some cost assumptions for the E-Cat and Suncell systems (as examples) and on useful power levels and battery use to show how the new systems can economically replace the need for fossil fuels for energy production, and in fact make systems far more useful than presently available technology.

Cost Assumptions for E-Cat, Suncell, micro turbogenerator, and Battery:

The costs in all of the following cases are based in part on the many comments by the developers, and adjusted by the expectations of the present author as to what is realistic. It includes the initial equipment cost to the user, and includes estimates for shipping, setup, and operation costs. The E-Cat and Suncell are assumed to last 20 years, including rehab or replacement of parts periodically.
The initial cost of the E-Cat SKL is expected to be about $1/W capability, and a 5kW (present version) would initially cost $5,000 but a control unit would add about $2,000 more. The control unit could control up to 100 parallel E-Cat modules, so only one would be needed for parallel ganged higher power units. The E-Cat might also need a re-fuel or re-work which might add $0.50/W, or $2,500 over the 20 years.

The initial cost (retail) of the thermal output Suncell might be $1/W including operational cost and periodic maintenance over 20 years. A micro turbogenerator would run about $2.50 per W output of electrical power.

Batteries are assumed to cost about $150/kWh capacity, including power converters and electronic controls, and should last about 1,500 full charge/discharge cycles. Efficiency is not included in this simplistic analysis.

E-Cat:
A 5kW E-Cat SKL and controller as described would cost $7,000 up front, and $9,500 at 20 years. If used continually, it would have to last 175,200 hours. This is a lot, but the maintenance should allow this. At maximum power the entire time, the electrical energy generated would be 876,000kWh, and would cost about$0.011/kWh. However, the typical use would be at less than rated output if different loads are needed and would also be off part of the time. If the system is only used a small fraction of the time, say 20%, the cost per kWh over 20 years would increase to $0.055 per kWh used. However, the module might still be available for additional use after 20 years. One question that has needs to be answered: if the load varies so that an average of less than 5kW is used when on, does this extend the life of the module.

The following three examples show how a relatively small E-Cat SKL system combined with batteries is a desirable combination for many uses.

Automobile with 5kW E-Cat SKL and 40kWh battery:
An automobile with a 5kW E-Cat and 40kWh battery for power is purchased and driven an average of 15,000 miles per year (average 41 mile/day). The average mixed travel speed is 24 mph including stops for lights and also being in slow traffic. This means you are driving about 625 hours per year. Normal suburban or city driving, and short trips require about 0.33kWh per mile. This requires an average power level of 8kW when driving. However, it requires much higher surges of power for acceleration, and somewhat higher for climbing steep grades. Highway speeds (average 50 mph) require about 15kW average power and uses about 0.3kWh/mile. In order to accelerate to street speed in a reasonable time, surge power levels >100kW are required and this acceleration is what determines the engine horsepower required for internal combustion engines (ICE) as well as electric motor drives.
The battery is used to achieve >100kW for acceleration and is only used a few seconds at a time at this high level. The energy needed for a typical automobile to go from 0 to 50 mph is the order of 1 kWh, so does not draw down the battery much. The battery alone would allow ~120 miles range at all speeds, but at low speeds the E-Cat is supplying over half of the power, so the range is more than doubled. At higher speeds, the range is ~1/3 greater than from the battery alone. This would be more than enough for all one-way trips less than about 160 miles. If longer trips are made frequently, a larger battery or a 10kW E-Cat or both can be used. Use of recharge stations during breaks would allow less total battery for very long trips. The choice of 5kW or 10kW E-Cat and amount of battery would be selected depending on expected use, and cost. The E-Cat would recharge the battery overnight, so no external hookup is needed for this purpose.

The 5kW E-Cat and 40kWh battery would cost <$15,000 over the life of an automobile due to the E-Cat being used only a small fraction of its life and requiring little servicing. I assume the added purchase cost of an automobile with E-Cat and 40kWh battery would be about $8,000 more than a car with ICE. I also assume the ICE car gets 25 miles/gallon in mixed driving. The ICE car would need 600 gallons of gasoline per year. If gasoline were $2.50/gallon, the fuel cost is $1,500/year. In 10 years, gas would be $15,000, already $7,000 more than the E-Cat + battery + car vs ICE + car + gasoline total cost. Longer use at this level of use or higher milage use would make the spread even more. Even though the battery likely would have to be changed at 10 years, the E-Cat is actually good for much longer use or could be used for other purposes, so the saving is even more if the E-Cat is salvaged after use. The best news is that you are independent from gasoline stations and power lines and are never stranded due to being out of gasoline. Home with 10kW E-Cat SKL and 20kWh battery: Typical homes in the US use an average of 2kW power in the spring and fall, and close to 4kW for peak summer with A/C and peak winter with heater. Peak average use over any one week may even push 6kW. Use of appliances while the A/C or heater are running can require >12kW for several minutes at a time. A good mix to satisfy this requirement is a 10kW E-Cat SKL and 20kWh buffer battery.

The E-Cat and battery would cost $23,000 over 20 years if 2 sets of batteries are used over this period. For comparison, present electric plus fuel bills run about $3,000/year, so 20 years would cost $60,000. You would save $37,000 over 20 years, or $1,850 a year with the new version, but you would have to use a heat pump for cooling and heating. You would also be independent from the electric company and gas company. There would be no lost capability due to downed power lines or brown-outs due to power company dispatch issues. There would not even be power lines attached to the home.

Stand-alone 5kW electrical power source:
If a 5kW E-Cat SKL is mounted in a box with a control panel using the E-Cat control unit and includes a small battery pack (e.g., 0.5kWh), power converters, and outlets, the entire unit could be made compact and easily portable. Price of such a unit should be about $8,000. This unit could be the basis of independent living off the grid. The unit would replace a large gasoline generator but be capable of continuous power out and be much smaller and lighter. The unit could then be brought inside and used along with a large battery to power all home requirements.

Suncell:
The Suncell obtains its energy from the conversion of normal hydrogen to a modified form called hydrinos using a low voltage electric arc and a catalyst gas along with a hydrogen source such as water vapor. The net amount of energy obtained from one gallon of water when the hydrogen is converted to hydrinos is comparable to burning 100 gallons of gasoline.

A 250kW Suncell would cost about $250,000 over 20 years. A 75kW micro turbogenerator would cost about $187,500. The total cost would be $437,500. The supply gases for conversion would just be water vapor and trace other gases which would have negligible cost.

The following four examples show some of the configurations and results possible with the Suncell combined with either a turbogenerator or E-Cat for thermal and electric power production and added buffer batteries when needed.

Co-generation example for heating and excess electrical power:
The following describes a Suncell that requires 25kW of electrical power input and produces 250kW of high temperature dry steam. The steam is directed to a micro turbogenerator that converts the high pressure and high temperature steam to 75kW of electricity. The 175kW of lower pressure and lower temperature steam output from the turbogenerator is now available to heat a fair-sized building or be used as process heat where modest temperatures are required. 25kW of the electrical output is used as input for the Suncell. In addition, there is available 50kW of electric power for other uses. If just the usable excess electric power is considered, the generated energy is 8.76E6kWh over 20 years of continuous use. The cost for equivalent line power for 50kW for 20 years at a typical price of $0.10/kWh would be $876,000. However, there is also available 175kW of thermal energy, which over 20 years produces 3.06E7kWh. Gas heat runs about $0.03/kWh, so the thermal energy would be worth $919,000 if gas heated. Combining the two, the equivalent power cost would be $1.8 million. The Suncell combined with the turbogenerator produce the combined forms of energy for $437,500. This does not require external electrical or gas hookups and costs less than 1/4 as much as conventional thermal power.

Combination of E-Cat SKL and Suncell:
If 15 of 5kW E-Cat SKL’s were used in parallel to both power the Suncell and give 50kW of available electrical power rather than using the micro turbogenerator, their price over 20 years would be $114,500, significantly less than the cost using the turbogenerator for this component. The output would have 250kW of thermal energy which also could be available at much higher pressure and temperature than the previous version.
If only the thermal energy were desired, the number of E-Cat SKL’s could be cut to 5, at a cost of only $39,500, further lowering total cost. The thermal output could also be at high pressure and high temperature.

Ship with multiple Suncells and large steam turbogenerator:
A ship massing 200,000 tons and cruising at about 25 knots needs about 15MW propulsion power (20,000HP). A power system is proposed that would use 90 of 750kW thermal Suncells to produce 67.5MW of thermal power. A steam turbogenerator about 33% efficient would use the thermal output to generate 22.5MW of electrical power. 6.75MW would be fed back to drive the Suncells. The remaining 15.75MW would power the electric propulsion engines and supply power for the ship. The cost for the Suncells at $1/W would be $67.5M. The large turbogenerator would be less costly per Watt than for small ones, and is assumed here to be $1/W, so it would cost $22.5M. The total for both would be $90M.
This sized ship running on fossil fuel would use about 250 Tons of fuel per day at full speed. Fuel prices run about $0.50/ kg, so this would cost $125,000 per day. If the ship runs 180 days per year, then in 20 years the fuel cost would be $450M.
The use of the Suncell and a turbogenerator would thus be about 1/5 the cost of a fossil fuel driven propulsion system and would run for years without the need for fueling. This saving does not even take into account the saving from not having to purchase the ICE system.

Large passenger train with multiple Suncells, large steam turbine generator, and large battery:
A large passenger train, which is assumed to be running about 1/2 of the time, masses 10,000 tons and runs about 110 mph (50 m/s). The train needs an average of less than 3MW of electric power to drive electric motors when running on flat land and at full speed. When accelerating in a reasonable time or going up a steep slope it needs significantly more power for fairly short times, with the greatest need during acceleration from stop. A 10MW electric motor drive is selected for the drive. Power is supplied by 15MW of thermal power from 20 750kW Suncells supplying a steam turbogenerator generating 5MW of electrical power. A bank of batteries with 3MWh capacity supplies the extra power for the 10MW motor during acceleration and for extra power for steep slopes. The Suncells require 1.5MW of electrical power input and this gives 3.5MW of net electrical power for propulsion, and to charge the batteries. This brings the train up to full speed in about 10 minutes. The batteries would recharge between periods of acceleration or travel up steep slopes.
The cost for this power system using $1/W for the Suncells, and $1/W for the turbogenerator totals $20M. Batteries would cost $450k and would have to be changed about every 2 years. The total cost for 20 years would be $24.5M. If a diesel engine driven generator system rated at 10MW (13,333HP) output were used instead of the proposed system, the fuel cost alone would be about $20,000 per full day of travel. Over the 20 years, this would come to $72M.
The use of the Suncell, turbogenerator, and batteries would be about 1/3 the cost of fuel driven systems for the conditions shown. The range would be unlimited with no fuel stops. This saving does not even take into account not having to purchase the diesel generation system.

Final Comments:
The above examples described how the E-Cat SKL and Suncell, in combination with other components, could be configured to supply as much power as needed for civilization and at the same time do it at lower cost than present technology. If the estimated costs are near correct, then the best choice for electrical power generation is E-Cat SKL’s and the best choice for a large thermal power source is the Suncell. The use of buffer batteries, especially with the E-Cats allows more practical systems where peak power is much larger than average power use.

The final costs and capabilities of the described systems and systems not covered will eventually come out and all of the above numbers may be way off, but the estimates used give a rough idea of the possibilities of promising new energy producing technology.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi: “Getting Inspiration from Nikola Tesla” for E-Cat SKL Demo

Recently Andrea Rossi was asked if he had decided yet in which quarter of 2021 he planned to hold his presentation of the E-Cat SKL. He answered “Prudentially I’d say the forth quarter.”

I asked him if they had decided on testing protocols to be used in the presentation. He replied:

Andrea Rossi
February 9, 2021 at 4:08 PM
Frank Acland:
It is a work in the making. I am getting inspiration from Nikola Tesla.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

When I asked how Tesla was inspiring him, he responded with just one word: “Dreams”.

It seems that Rossi is maybe thinking about how Tesla’s alternating current (AC) system was used by Westinghouse to illuminate the World’s Fair in Chicago in 1893. This was a significant event for the time that opened the public’s eyes to the practical advantages that electricity could provide the world. Most of us take quite for granted nowadays that electricity can be generated and transmitted long distances to provide us with so many advantages of modern civilization, yet in 1893 this was something new that must have been quite marvelous to the attendees of this event. Here is a brief video of what went on.

I don’t know what Rossi might be planning, but I think if the E-Cat SKL works well, there should be possibilities for putting on an impressive demonstration in a way that could get the world thinking about the potential for this technological breakthrough.

Maybe readers here could come up with some ideas that Rossi and his team might consider.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Video: Brilliant Light Power Washington DC Presentation

Randell Mills, CEO of Brilliant Light Power introduces the company’s SunCell technology at a presentation made yesterday (February 4, 2021) in Washington DC.

From the video description

“Brilliant Light Power produces 100,000W of continuous steam power at the Homer building in Washington DC. This is the historical first of commercial scale Hydrino power contributing to heating of an office building in the Nation’s Capital.”

Towards the end of the video, Mills turns the time over to Mark Nansteel who provides some information about the performance of the SunCell based on calorimetry tests he has carried out. He states he has carried out multiple tests with the SunCell, measuring electrical energy input into the system, and the thermal energy released into the water bath.

From his concluding remarks:

“In summary [for a five minute test], you put in 8000 kJ of electrical energy to run the process, and you get back 25,000 kJ of thermal energy. 25,000 minus 8,000 is 17,000 kJ difference so that’s the energy of the plasma reaction.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

POWERPASTE: The Hydrogen Technology for Small Vehicles (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Press Release)

The following is a press release from The Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, a German applied research organization based in Munich, originally published here: https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2021/february-2021/hydrogen-powered-drives-for-e-scooters.html

Energy storage for small vehicles
Hydrogen-powered drives for e-scooters
Research News / February 01, 2021

Hydrogen is regarded by many as the future of propulsion technology. The first hydrogen-powered cars are already in action on German roads. In the case of e-scooters, however, installation of a high-pressure tank to store the hydrogen is impractical. An alternative here is POWERPASTE. This provides a safe way of storing hydrogen in a chemical form that is easy to transport and replenish without the need for an expensive network of filling stations. This new paste is based on magnesium hydride and was developed by a research team at the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials IFAM in Dresden.

Gasoline and diesel engines, which are powered by fossil fuels, will soon be sidelined by climate change. Instead, new propulsion systems will be required. One fuel with a big potential is hydrogen. Hydrogen vehicles are equipped with a reinforced tank that is fueled at a pressure of 700 bar. This tank feeds a fuel cell, which converts the hydrogen into electricity. This in turn drives an electric motor to propels the vehicle. In the case of passenger cars, this technology is well advanced, with several hundred hydrogen-powered automobiles already in operation on German roads. At the same time, the network of hydrogen stations in Germany is projected to grow from 100 to 400 over the next three years. Yet hydrogen is not currently an option for small vehicles such as electric scooters and motorcycles, since the pressure surge during refilling would be too great. Does this effectively shut out such vehicles from hydrogen technology?

POWERPASTE: the hydrogen technology for small vehicles

Not at all! Researchers from the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Technology and Advanced Materials IFAM in Dresden have now come up with a hydrogen-based fuel that is ideal for small vehicles: POWERPASTE, which is based on solid magnesium hydride. “POWERPASTE stores hydrogen in a chemical form at room temperature and atmospheric pressure to be then released on demand,” explains Dr. Marcus Vogt, research associate at Fraunhofer IFAM. And given that POWERPASTE only begins to decompose at temperatures of around 250 °C, it remains safe even when an e-scooter stands in the baking sun for hours. Moreover, refueling is extremely simple. Instead of heading to the filling station, riders merely have to replace an empty cartridge with a new one and then refill a tank with mains water. This can be done either at home or underway.

The starting material of POWERPASTE is magnesium, one of the most abundant elements and, therefore, an easily available raw material. Magnesium powder is combined with hydrogen to form magnesium hydride in a process conducted at 350 °C and five to six times atmospheric pressure. An ester and a metal salt are then added in order to form the finished product. Onboard the vehicle, the POWERPASTE is released from a cartridge by means of a plunger. When water is added from an onboard tank, the ensuing reaction generates hydrogen gas in a quantity dynamically adjusted to the actual requirements of the fuel cell. In fact, only half of the hydrogen originates from the POWERPASTE; the rest comes from the added water. “POWERPASTE thus has a huge energy storage density,” says Vogt. “It is substantially higher than that of a 700 bar high-pressure tank. And compared to batteries, it has ten times the energy storage density.” This means that POWERPASTE offers a range comparable to – or even greater than – gasoline. And it also provides a higher range than compressed hydrogen at a pressure of 700 bar.

Suitable for e-scooters – and other applications as well

With its huge energy storage density, POWERPASTE is also an interesting option for cars, delivery vehicles and range extenders in battery-powered electric vehicles. Similarly, it could also significantly extend the flight time of large drones, which would thereby be able to fly for several hours rather than a mere 20 minutes. This would be especially useful for survey work, such as the inspection of forestry or power lines. In another kind of application, campers might also use POWERPASTE in a fuel cell to generate electricity to power a coffeemaker or toaster.

POWERPASTE helps overcome lack of infrastructure

In addition to providing a high operating range, POWERPASTE has another point in its favor. Unlike gaseous hydrogen, it does not require a costly infrastructure. This makes it ideal for areas lacking such an infrastructure. In places where there are no hydrogen stations, regular filling stations could therefore sell POWERPASTE in cartridges or canisters instead. The paste is fluid and pumpable. It can therefore be supplied by a standard filling line, using relatively inexpensive equipment. Initially, filling stations could supply smaller quantities of POWERPASTE – from a metal drum, for example – and then expand in line with demand. This would require capital expenditure of several tens of thousands of euros. By way of comparison, a filling station to pump hydrogen at high pressure currently costs between one and two million euros for each fuel pump. POWERPASTE is also cheap to transport, since no costly high-pressure tanks are involved nor the use of extremely cold liquid hydrogen.

Pilot center planned for 2021

Fraunhofer IFAM is currently building a production plant for POWERPASTE at the Fraunhofer Project Center for Energy Storage and Systems ZESS. Scheduled to go into operation in 2021, this new facility will be able to produce up to four tons of POWERPASTE a year – not only for e-scooters.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

NASA Team Reports Neutron Production From Co-deposition Electrochemical Cells

Thanks to Bob Greener for posting about the following:

A team from the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio has published the following article

Title: “Electrolytic co-deposition neutron production measured by bubble detectors”

Journal: Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 19 January 2021

Authors: Phillip J. Smith*, Robert C. Hendricks, Bruce M. Steinetz

Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1572665721000503

Highlights of the article:

• Bubble detector neutron dosimeters measured electrochemical cell neutron activity

• Case control: PdCl2/LiCl/D20 cells were compared with CuCl2/LiCl/D20 control cells

• Experimental cells exhibited neutron activity greater than controls: 99% confidence

• Highest neutron-generating experimental cells produced dendritic cathode deposits

• Neutron activity cannot be explained by chemical reactions, only nuclear processes

The full text of the article has been posted on LENR Forum here:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/15801-electrolytic-co-deposition-neutron-production-measured-by-bubble-detectors-pdf/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged