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.<< Previous Post -- -- Next post >>