eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

Defkalion Clarifies: 5 MW Hyperion

January 2, 2012


Defkalion has picked up on the Wired UK statement regarding company plans to roll out a 1MW Hyperion at launch. They go further, claiming that the current geometry of the design will allow them to couple multiple units (similar in strategy to Andrea Rossi’s 1MW eCat) to produce an extremely versatile industrial system capable of varying its output from 5kW to over 5MW.

That is one bold statement. Assuming the claim holds up, the mention of geometry is interesting. Sure, it implies that each unit is of a physical dimension and energy density to allow the whole shebang to squeeze into the container but I think they may also be refering to the internal geometry of the kernel.

Defkalion’s public discourse fronts a pr and credibility battle as well as trying to thread its way through a current and future legal minefield. They differentiate their system from Rossi’s and at the same time bolster their legal footing by saying that the eCat had a control issue that prevented the inventor from holding up his end of the deal. According to them, the reaction occurred in a small area (meaning, I think, one or more powder hot spots) leading to that lack of control.

DGT say they solved the issue by layering wafers inside the core so as to spread the reaction more evenly. Thus control, in a very real sense, is governed by geometry.

This is at the heart of the LENR/cold fusion issue. Many people are surprised by the claim of prodigious energy production of the eCat when compared to previous research. Most research, however, pointed to the fact that once the reaction could be tamed, scaling up would become easier.

If Defkalion is right, then the internal geometry of the vessel as well as the geometry of the Ni particles plays an important part in the equation.

Obviously the reporter is trying to present the story balanced, even though there are some mistakes in it, like “…The first will be a one-megawatt device, the same scale as the one in Rossi’s demonstration in October”

The 45kW multi-reactor Hyperion’s geometry and functionality allow us to fit 115 rack mounted of such units within a 20ft typical cargo container, leaving enough space for the heat management systems and the external heat exchangers as well as the room needed for inspection/maintenance/recharge. That is a 5175 kW (thermal) unit scalable from 5kW to 5,175MW* for industrial applications, not a one-megawatt device.

The range of the MW Hyperion products will appear in the Greek market first, following the 45kW Hyperion licence and entry in the market within 2012.

I note frustration in many quarters about reporting on Defkalion and AR statements when they are absent proof. I think it is important to talk about the key declarations as they appear so that we can better understand the claims; to slot them together to see how they fit in the bigger picture. It helps educate us in a natural progressive way so that, on the day, when (and if) proof is given, we are armed with a large knowledge base that will help us make quick and sensible decisions.

[With thanks to Arian]


Defkalion puts the layering comment above down to Internet speculation. I thought I read the claim recently but can’t find the reference and so now doubt my sanity. Thus, please treat the wafer assumption with caution. There is no doubt that they claim to have a vigorous reaction and better control than AR. Short of fairy dust (a better catalyst?) core geometry seems a plausible method to prevent uneven reaction areas but that is as far as that speculation can safely go. Mea Culpa.

Posted by on January 2, 2012. Filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

26 Responses to Defkalion Clarifies: 5 MW Hyperion

  1. Dale G. Basgall

    January 2, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Reply to admin statements,regarding geometry of kernal; ” I think they may also be refering to the internal geometry of the kernel.” and also ” Thus control, in a very real sense, is governed by geometry.”

    Comment; you are most likely right admin, they will find that internal chamber geometry enhances the reactions to a more efficient reaction and that the magnetic fluctuations from the rf generator is the control or stabalization mechanism. They are still missing the secret geometry though.

    That’s why the theory or should I say the factual and most efficient method to be found will include a very specific geometry for the inside of the reaction chamber along with the geometry of final assembly position regarding the reactors and their assembled configeration. The sarg theory is really the most accurate geometry to model as to what really exists.

    It also appears Defkalion should have named their projected product hyperion Copy-cat, it seems clear they are doing exactly what a mainland company would do after seeing the potential dollar signs in a product and after seeing what the inventor Rossi had.

    it was simply Rossi’s lack of clear documentation in the patenting process that got him into this position. It also seems that if an inventor applies for a patent and pays the money for the attorneys he anticipates a patent protection so why would an inventor leave out some important details to make the invention work?

    One answer is that at the time the patent was filed the inventor did not have all the answers and just banked on getting a patent while hopefully coming up with a solution by the time it is issued. So both parties are banking on time as their asset’s to success.

    • Peter Roe

      January 2, 2012 at 1:01 pm

      Rossi’s patent applies only to Italy at the moment I think. The legislation for pan-European patents is being enacted but as far as I am aware it’s not in force yet, so a Greek company would presumably not be inhibited by it – at least not yet. DGT may even have quietly applied for their own Greek patents. In any case, all they have to do is change things enough so that nothing substantial in Rossi’s existing patent applies to ‘Hyperion’ units.

      From what Rossi has been saying recently, he and his business partner National Instruments(?) now have a greatly simplified and therefore cheaper system that ‘kill’ all the competitors. So success in the race (when it gets started – sigh!) will presumably be down to costs, delivery lead time, service network, guarantees and the other things you would look for when buying a gas boiler.

      • Al Potenza

        January 2, 2012 at 5:47 pm

        Hi Peter. NI has a current news release which mentions Rossi’s Leonardo Corp. However, it seems as if they are a customer of NI’s rather than a partner. Here is the mention:

        “Additionally, the Leonardo Corporation has intentions to incorporate NI tools in its control system.”

        • Wolf

          January 2, 2012 at 5:58 pm

          I find it quite interesting that a large and well respected company like NI puts Leonardo Corporation inside the same text block which also refers to CERN. This of course doesn’t proof anything but I think that NI wouldn’t do this if they weren’t sure about Leonardo / Rossi.

        • Peter Roe

          January 2, 2012 at 6:22 pm

          Hi Al. It’s difficult to be certain of the relationship between NI and Rossi (other than the published development deal for control systems) but their field of expertise would make them a very good partner from Rossi’s pov. I don’t think they would be averse to having a substantial stake in the ‘new fire’, either, as well as the opportunity to sell a few million sets of controls, which would probably amount to more than their current total sales by a large factor.

          My guess (completely unsubstantiated) is that they are the ‘mysterious customer’ and bought a boxfull of boxes to use as development tools, once they were satisfied there was something there to develop. Such a partnership would make a lot more sense than one with the US military, a organisation that might be rather less likely to be entering the white goods market!

          • Pekka Janhunen

            January 3, 2012 at 10:23 am

            Probably the customer is not NI:

            Andrea Rossi, January 3rd, 2012 at 4:43 AM
            Dear Pietro F.:
            No, the Customer, National Instruments and us are still working on the re-engineering of all the control systems. The partnership with National Instruments is revolutionizing and tremendously improving our plants, and this work is also useful for the domestic E-Cats, which will have the same control system. We are really learning.

          • Peter Roe

            January 3, 2012 at 11:50 am

            Pekka, the reply you copy above is actually highly ambiguous in meaning. It could be read as meaning either that there are three parties, or that NI is the customer! The second paragraph seems to indicate only two parties, which might signify the second meaning was intended. This one is still an open question I think!

          • Pekka Janhunen

            January 3, 2012 at 1:05 pm

            Peter: Thanks for noting, I see it now. I read it only one way first.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            January 3, 2012 at 5:34 pm

            Peter: But now Rossi removed the ambiguity:

            Andrea Rossi January 3rd, 2012 at 12:20 PM
            Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
            No, we are still working on it with the Customer and with National Instruments to upgrade the control systems and to make it fit for the specific task it has to go to do. As I said, a magnificence is growing up, while we are making stronger the E-Cat technology and engineering.

  2. daniel maris

    January 2, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    There is a difference between Defkalion and Rossi. Rossi has given demonstrations which have been videoed and verified by attendees. He also has the backing of the senior scientist, Focardi and the connection with National Instruments.

    Contrast that with Defkalion who have shown us some still pics. They don’t have photos of offices or factory sites although they claim these are in existence.

    Defkalion might come good, but there doesn’t seem much point in looking into what they are offering until they come up with something much more concrete.

    • CM Edwards

      January 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm

      I agree. These are design parameters, not measured outputs, and are therefore equally valid whether they reflect fundamental geometric contraints or they were just pulled off the top of someone’s head. At this point, 5 MW is just one new number among many.

      Reviewing the previous year’s news on this topic, I find that the claimed rates of development met my expectations for a new technology being brought forward without the benefit of large corporate resources. I am not bothered in the slightest by various unfounded opinions on how fast it should have happened. Since it’s never happened before, one guess is as good as another. “It’s not happening fast enough! It can’t be true!” (often followed by whining) has not made a convincing argument against the existence of a new technology.

      However, the claimed current state of development has reached a point such that Leonardo or Defkalion should now be able to step forward and begin showing their product. Rossi claims to have a notified body with an industrial certification for one or more countries, and he claims to be selling e-cats. Defkalion swears up and down that they’re not far behind, with a Greek national certification. Both companies have markets that they can legally sell to, today.

      So, where’s the product?

      • Bob

        January 2, 2012 at 4:38 pm

        Good question.

        You would think that at least one of Rossis “customers” would not be afraid of letting their name be known.

        Do you think all 14 are shaking in their boots, worring that the world will find out that they are stupid enough to take a chance on a world changing tech?

        I wish they would just get on with it. All this BS is a pain and I want my E-Cat!

        • Pekka Janhunen

          January 2, 2012 at 4:57 pm

          I have understood that he has two customers, one (definitely secret) buys 13, the other (possibly open) buys one

          • Al Potenza

            January 2, 2012 at 5:17 pm

            And then, Rossi will have to do something about the contract with the University of Bologna which, if not enabled, expires soon. Will they get an ecat?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            January 2, 2012 at 5:29 pm

            There was some “Little Bird” on Dec 23 here with the following message: “From what I know testing is scheduled January 10-12th on a 10kW system in Bologna”.

          • Bob

            January 2, 2012 at 6:40 pm

            If you have $26M to plonk down on these things, why in the world do you need to be afraid? If you believe that much, wouldn’t you want people to know?

  3. Bob

    January 2, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    Pekka, if they sell me one I would be glad to test it on my house for them! 🙂

  4. admin

    January 2, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    Post has been updated.


  5. Pekka Janhunen

    January 2, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    Concerning reactor geometry and such, we don’t know if the nickel powder is suspended by a mechanical attachment onto some auxiliary surfaces, if it floats in the hydrogen gas (which is somehow stirred?) or if it is suspended in some liquid such as molten potassium. In the latter case the liquid should dissolve hydrogen and carry it to the nickel particles.

    Potassium melting point is 63 C. In Focardi emphasises that the catalyst kicks in near 60 C. No other element except K has its melting point near 60 C.

    • arian

      January 2, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      Dr.Randell mills also named Potassium Carbonate
      as Ionic Catalytic in NI-H reaction.

    • Peter Roe

      January 3, 2012 at 1:23 pm

      The potential problem with geometrical solutions to localised heating might be heat transfer. For example, if the Ni was sintered to fixed ceramic wafers or similar within the reactor core, heat transfer to the reactor outer capsule would be problematic, as would heating ‘inner’ wafers (other than by induction, as below).

      Liquid potassium sounds feasible, but my guess would be that a low frequency (e.g., mains – 50/60 Hz) alternating em field might now be used to keep the ferromagnetic Ni particles in agitated suspension within the core. This would allow maximum hydrogen access to the particles and would also facilitate transfer of heat evenly to the reactor walls.

      If this is the case then initial heating and possible continued excitation when self sustaining, could be via RF frequencies superimposed on the same field, or possibly supplied from a separate purpose-wound coil.

  6. Christopher Calder

    January 2, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Defkalion says wafer idea is “Internet speculation.”

    Dear Christopher_Calder

    About the kernel geometry: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=599

    About kW range Hyperion’s sizing/geometry, please check the spec sheet, page3 and page18. About rack-mounted casing type (for MW arrays), page 16.

    As for the wafers etc this is “Internet speculation”, as usual.


    Defkalion GT

  7. Brad Arnold

    January 2, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Interesting, Defkalion appears to have a highly scalable design based upon proprietary technology. This (assuming Defkalion can be believed, which seems to me to be very likely) shows what will happen when other corporations get a whiff of Rossi’s LENR technology, and spend tons of money on R&D.

    Now, it seems close when both Defkalion and Leonardo factories are going to be producing working LENR generators like sausages. Talk about building a better mousetrap – customers are going to be beating a path to both company’s doors. The size of the market both are serving is almost limitless (i.e. the compete transition to a LENR energy system).

    “Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

  8. Married 2 my Yugo

    January 3, 2012 at 6:38 am

    In this interview dated 12.29.2011 Rossi claims to be ‘in negotiation with home depot’ for the distribution of the ecat. This seems to map back to comments he made a recently about exciting developments that will make the ecat closer in terms of distribution point than we could ever imagine.

    Of course saying ‘negotiations’ doesnt mean very much, but it is a very bold claim.
    I dont suppose we can ever verify it. Perhaps it is in the same tone as the relationship with NI, except ‘if you have a certified marketable product’.

    He also made an apparently new claim that he, and members of his team are using ecats in their homes already.

  9. arian

    January 3, 2012 at 11:13 am

    rossi interview on Ca$h Flow radio show

    “We have already started the sales of the industrial plants of 1MW, but now focusing on the household, we have to resolve the issue of certifications, and we are working on those, and we are organizing the production.

    The target price will be between $1000-$1500 US for an E-Cat with a power between 10-20 kilowatts. Such an E-Cat is able to give the thermal energy and air conditioning for an average family house.

    With this price, in a few months the E-Cat is paid back, and the expected life of an E-Cat is around 30 years.”

    Mr. Rossi responded to a question about home units saying distribution to the public of household units is expected to begin “in autumn of 2012” adding that “We are in talks with Home Depot for the diffusion”.

  10. James

    January 3, 2012 at 5:33 pm
    Here is a link to the real deal.