WILL THE E-CAT FOR HOUSEHOLDS BE PROHIBITED BY WAY OF A SIMPLE CERTIFICATION TRICK? (Still: Argus eyes on the E-Cat) Kees Deckers September 2012 A short article on the website "E-Cat World", with the title: "Certifiers Won’t Allow E-Cats to Run on E-Cat Power" (internet reference (03-  09-12): http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/certifiers-wont-allow-e-cats-to-run-on-e-cat-power/) tells about a decision in the security  certification of the E-Cat and the Hot E-Cat. Both devices are based on L.E.N.R. (Low Energy Nucleair Reactions). A form of energy  production, which is cleaner, safer and in principle cheaper than the current forms of energy production, because more energy is produced  than that is necessary to generate this energy. That is to say, a lot more heat is produced by the reaction process in the E-Cat, than is  possible according to mainstream physics.  A problem with the current E-Cats is that they do not remain working stable. To solve this, heat (energy) must be added to the E-Cat  reactor regularly. "Rossi sometimes refers to this heat application as the ‘drive’. We have heard that so far the drive can be in the form of  an electrical resistor, or natural gas."  From the reactions and comments on the website "E-Cat World" with regard to above mentioned article, and with some thought, there  straightaway seem to be two obvious solutions to keep the reaction process going stable, which in principle are gratis, next to the expensive  solution of staying dependent on the electricity and  natural gas grid. But both are not allowed by the certificate providers, because of safety  reasons. E-Cats ad infinitum  The first solution is making use of one E-Cat to power another E-Cat. But this is according to me a not really thought through solution, in  which in fact E-Cats would be linked ad infinitum to other E-Cats, to keep them all functioning. Because if one E-Cat has an unstable way of  functioning, than every other E-Cat has this as well. And then every E-Cat, which has to make another E-Cat work stable, itself also needs  an E-Cat to be able to work stable itself. Or... you could make the first E-Cat working stable with heat delivered by a second E-Cat and you  could make that second E-Cat working stable with heat delivered by the first E-Cat. But still with the same problem.  Thinking a bit further, this leads to the second solution. There is no second E-Cat necessary to supply the first one with enough heat  (energy) to keep the reaction process stable. The E-Cat itself produces much more heat (energy) than is put in. A part of the output heat  could be used as input heat to keep the reaction process going stable. In fact, with that the E-Cat device tends to a device, which produces  a self-sustaining process, also known as a perpetuum mobile device. It is not, because over time the fuel in the reactor of the E-Cat is used  up. But Rossi says in answer to the question if these solutions are possible: "... is not possible because the drive is a safety system and a safety  system cannot depend from the Ecat itself. This is an issue emerged during the safety certification process." And on a follow-up question, if  electricity produced by an E-Cat can be used to supply the E-Cat itself of power, if the electricity first has been stored temporarily in a  battery: “No, they want the drive completely independent.” As we have seen the drive is "an electrical resistor, or natural gas." However,  this is hearsay. Wether this is actually true, is still unclear. Especially natural gas as a drive sounds rather cryptic.  I myself am someone, who puts safety first. But both answers of Rossi are absolutely not logical. And this makes me wonder, what the real  reasons behind this decision of the safety certifiers are, to disqualify the E-Cat itself as an energy supplier for the E-Cat. What has this, in  any way whatsoever, to do with the independence of the drive?  Runaway loop Besides the fuel in the reactor itself, which needs to be replenished at most each six months, also needs other fuel (energy) to be added  regularly from outside, to keep the reaction process stable. And the drive is the safety system, that has to regulate this.  One commentator on the article states that the E-Cat can not be its own energy supplier, because that would mean that there is a "closed  loop", which could lead to a "runaway loop", where the process would run completely out of hand, like the hot nuclear reactions at  Chernobyl and Fukushima. But is that so? Both another commentator and the writer of the article state that a "fuse", the drive must secure  that this does not happen: "We have heard that so far the drive can be in the form of an electrical resistor, or natural gas." We should  rather ask ourselves how the safety of the output heat can be secured. Furthermore, in this argumentation is forgotten, that the E-Cat in  first instance produces energy to be used by all kinds of energy consuming devices, from stoves and boilers to hopefully refrigerators,  lighting elements and computers. A large part of the energy generated is thus used up for other applications then stabilising and continuing  the reactor process of the E-Cat itself. So there rather will be a heat (energy) shortage for the use as input and stabilisation energy for the  E-Cat itself. Another commentator, Stefan Flueler from Zürich, rightly states the following: "That Rossi statement is very nebulous. A properly designed  system would have a mechanism to switch from external power to self-powered as soon as possible, and back to external power, if for  some reason reactor output would fall below the minimum required input to sustain the reaction. And a thermostat would continuously  monitor the reactor temperature and switch off external power as well as self-powering in case of overheating of the reactor, until it has  cooled down to a temperature inside design limits." His reasoning takes into account too little input due too little output from the reactor of  the E-Cat. A large part of the output energy is used to make all kinds of devices work. The disconnecting of devices and the connecting of  devices changes the usage of the total amount of the by the E-Cat produced energy regularly. Therefore the input energy can not be  constantly based on the own produced output energy. It will happen that "the minimum required input" can not be reached, because too  much of the output energy is consumed by all kinds of other devices. In that case energy, power from an external source is needed. Or...  energy of the E-Cat, stored during periods when the other devices use little or no energy.  That next to the E-Cat there should be an external power source, in case of sometimes keeping the process going or in case of starting the  reactor anew, after for instance fuel replenishment, is logical. This has been known from the outset. But that energy acquired with the E-Cat  may not be used for this, is not logical. Is this now completely prohibited by the safety certifiers? How do we have to interpret Rossi's  answers? E-Cat energy buffer Let's look at two figures: The first figure shows the energy flows, if the E-Cat would supply energy itself directly, to keep the own reaction process going in its reactor.  The drive of the E-Cat regulates the energy input to keep the reaction process stable. The problem in this energy flow process is, that the  part of the energy output necessary as energy input to keep the reaction process going has to be regulated directly by the drive. This may  prove to be so complex, that there indeed may be problems with safety aspects.  In the second figure an energy buffer has been placed between the energy output of the E-Cat and the energy input of the E-Cat. This  buffer regulates automatically how much energy can be buffered or stored and when and how much can be buffered again after use of this  energy as input for the E-Cat. With that the so-called drive is completely independent of the output energy produced by the E-Cat itself and  so of the E-Cat iself. Meaning that the drive is as independent of the energy supplied by this energy buffer as it is independent of the energy  supplied by a so-called external energy supplier, like the electricity or gas company. Let's be clear, there also, energy is buffered or stored  until it is needed. So, in fact, the energy buffer and the external energy supplier in the second figure are exchangeable. Therefore the  argument, that the E-Cat can not use energy, from what it produces itself in excess, is complete nonsense.  With that the energy flow figure will look like this:  Why would it be more dangerous to get energy input from the E-Cat itself, by way of an energy buffer, than from the electricity or natural  gas grid? It sounds dubious, that it is safer to let the E-Cat reactor process function on these last two expensive and polluting energy  suppliers, than on the costsaving and many times more clean E-Cat. The remark: “No, they want the drive completely independent” is  logical and justified. But the drive, the safety system can never be completely independent. The drive, whatever it is exactly, is always  dependent on external energy, whether this is electricity, natural gas, solar panel energy or E-Cat energy via E-Cat-buffer system. The  safety of always ensuring a sufficient supply of energy can be achieved by a system, in which if one source of input fails to deliver, it  automatically switches to a second source of input. But even in that case, the E-Cat should in first instance be able to use as much of its  own stored energy as possible, which could lead to huge savings. And only in second instance, in case this possibility fails, should be able to  fall back temporarily on the electricity or natural gas grid.  Certification trick to make E-Cats for households impossible?  What difference does it make if energy comes from a gas company or an electricity company or of a temporary energy buffer, which stores  excess energy of the E-Cat until it is needed? What is the reason for this remarkable decision by the certifiers? Is Rossi's answer unclear and  incomplete? May temporarily buffered energy of an E-Cat indeed be used? Or may in no case energy of one E-Cat be used to keep another  E-Cat functioning? In the latter case one answer could be, that they try to stop Household E-Cats by way of a bureaucratic trick. With regard  to the idea of using the energy of one E-Cat to keep another E-Cat functioning, Rossi's answer is: "... is not possible because the drive is a  safety system and a safety system cannot depend from the Ecat itself. This is an issue emerged during the safety certification process."  The driver of the E-Cat may not be dependent of the E-Cat itself. Or as the title of the article states: "Certifiers Won’t Allow E-Cats to Run  on E-Cat Power". Let's think a bit further.  Suppose the electricity company, where I am customer, operates on a number of MegaWatt E-Cat power stations. And I want to buy my own  Household E-Cat. Am I still allowed this as a small consumer? Because my Household E-Cat is not allowed to use its own energy, but also no  energy of the electricity company, because that delivers energy from another E-Cat. And the drive of my E-Cat is not allowed to be  dependent on another E-Cat, because of safety reasons. Let us reverse the situation. I buy a Household E-Cat and I want to deliver the excess of energy produced by my E-cat to an electricity  company. This is not allowed, when this company itself uses E-Cat technology, from the reasoning that one E-Cat is not allowed to control  the other. Worse even, I can not even use my own Household E-Cat, as long as I can not get energy from at least one external energy  source, to start the process and to keep it going stable. This external energy may not come from a company, which functions on E-Cats.  Other possibilities for my Household E-Cat then could be energy sources, like solar panels, windmills or yet again the expensive, polluting  electricity and gas companies and, even worse, nuclear companies.  In short, with my argus eyes on the E-Cat developments, may I still expect that someday there will be E-Cats for domestic use? Or is this all  thought through too far by me and will energy from a faraway E-Cat MegaWatt station or from an own E-Cat energy buffer be allowed by  the certifiers?  Perpetuum mobile versus Capitalism  The E-Cat possesses the possibility to make all kinds of devices function and still produce enough output energy to keep itself running for  extended periods of time. This tends towards a perpetuum mobile-like device. It looks like it from the article: "Certifiers Won’t Allow E-Cats  to Run on E-Cat Power", that the certifiers deliberately try to prevent precisely this tendency towards a perpetuum mobile-like system under  the guise of independent safety. Why? Not because there really are other safety issues than if energy is supplied by the electricity and  natural gas grid, but because it has to prevent that another system is overthrown. Namely the economic system based on capitalism. Or in  other words, a perpetuum mobile-like energy system must be prevented, to keep the energy-devouring, economic system of capitalism  going. In the past, because of this, people, like Tesla, Schauberger and Reich, and their ideas about energy saving and alternative energy  sources and devices were simply stopped or they disappeared. Is it possible, that now these people are neutralised by so-called laws and  regulations, which again only benefits the few?  Up