The German BMW steam cycle for touring

BMW comes out with a force balanced no vibration steam cycle.

It has two long stroking steam cylinders acting as the spine of the frame, each one offset to the outside of the rear wheel with the pistons moving in exact opposite motions to one another with the connections to the rear wheel being 180 degrees out providing perfect rear wheel balance.

The resulting extra cylinder mass allows for the buttery smmoooth BMW bike feel on the road.


The sports model is dual acting cylinders, with double the torque.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 01/16/16 at 13:51:37:

Same folks who stop homes from being built over concerns about the habitat of a tree frog
This is called cognitive dissonance, where you know something is true but ignore said thing in your thinking
interesting that our society understands about survival of the fittest but then goes to such lengths to circumvent that very process, no?

This is getting a bit TTish, back on topic
I am really liking the Ecat Idea

Then I'll answer JOGs question: It will never be enough
for this type of (choose one or all) social, economic, environmental justice warrior to thrive and prosper there must be victims, and if there are not, they will create them, and convince them (and everyone else) they really are victims, so they have a support group to keep them in power

Ecat will eventually face the same sort of attacks, once it replaces conventional tech, and the justice warriors can find (or create, or fabricate) a chink in it'a armor to exploit

The point im making is
This technology would do a lot to address the issue of CO2.
The people who typically, IMO, believe in the whole
Manmade Global Warming
Thing are typically left wing AND the Really hard core ones are also atheists and believe in Evolution.

So, IF I am an atheist And believe in Evolution, WHY would I be concerned about a change in the environment? Especially since that same group is convinced we are overpopulated.
Let it change. Some will Evolve, some, die, the Earth will be less burdened and will heal and the survivors will have learned what not to do.

So, not BLAMING anyone, just pointing out how it seems odd that certain people Care, considering the things they say they believe.

Why would they bother to even pick a side. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter.

I sure don't understand how the job of sealing the rotor is in the block. I'm gonna need Pikka Chewers.

Alright! A mechanical Woman! I don't really understand it, but
It's Beautiful!

Seriously, I need one in my hands, to play with a while.
Hmm, hey! Wait a Minnit here, that may be true in more ways than one,,,

Terminology during the roll out is getting discussed now ..... what exactly do you claim for COP?

This is a fair question, and the folks associated with Rossi are responding to questions as they want to use terminology that is acceptable to the LENR community in general and use it in a way that is ACCEPTED, not bitched about all over the place.

ecatworld ECW Admin to Mats Lewan • a day ago
Regarding the COP -- I have no inside information, but I would expect the COP to vary a lot depending on whether the plant is in self sustain mode or not. I AR has said that when in ssm the COP the plant requires between 7 and 8 kW, while producing 1MW -- which would give a COP of 125-143, but he has also said the plant is not always in ssm.

He won't say how much power the plant consumes when not in COP, nor the length of ssm periods.

The important number is the overall COP number, taking into account the overall power in/power out for the extent of the test.


• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Mats Lewan to ecatworld • a day ago
Yes, but the point is, once you manage to control the reaction well, it should be possible to remain steadily in ssm, and eventually also provide needed input energy from the output. Thus infinite COP. Of course I refer to a maturing technology, after a great deal of R&D.


3  • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
ecatworld ECW Admin to Mats Lewan • a day ago
Technically, if the high ssm he reports is correct I would think so, yes. But Rossi has said that it will always need an external power source, for safety and regulatory reasons. But he did make an interesting reply to this question recently:

Sebastian
January 17th, 2016 at 2:19 PM
Dear Andrea,

If there were no regulations issues, do you personally believe that a domestic e-cat could be run off-the-grid in a safe manner?

Many thanks

Andrea Rossi
January 17th, 2016 at 2:20 PM
Sebastian:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R


In doing so, they let another little kitty out of the sack to run around by their feet again.

You do realize that in "start up" mode the plant draws the full power of the heat up resistor strips from the grid, right?   This is 250 kW with the reactor giving back four times that much heat as soon as it starts reacting.   This is a base COP of 4.

Then the existing plant begins self-sustain mode and COP shoots up to between 20-80 COP as it runs continuously.

At least one of the mixtures tested in one of the reactors STAYS in SSM from then on, and another one stays in SSM for weeks at a time and these numbers are getting talked about now as the generic COP claim for the test is getting talked out right now in public on line.

If all was perfect, and they sold only the best mixtures then when in ssm the COP the plant requires between 7 and 8 kW to run the controllers, while producing 1MW of output heat -- which would give a COP of 125-143, assuming controller agitation is required continuously and you don't have to do stop starts (using the heat up resistor strips).  

But Rossi has also said the plant is not always in ssm mode and if the application requires up down cycling all the time the resulting COP would go down to ~ COP of 20 to 80 ~.

Matts contends that in "constant on" industrial use applications, with them using all the known tricks that Rossi has right now, then the running COP is verging on infinite as start up energy costs are just that and if no cycling is needed you really do only do need to start the thing up but just once.   And that the electrical energy directly produced by the E-Cat X reactor format exceeds what the controllers themselves use by several factors of magnitude.   Factors, like in 2x to 3x.

Rossi says no, no, no -- the referee will state the COP of the test and that is the number they will use, knowing full well that they can do better over time.

Rossi also refuses to allow folks to say that the electricity generated during use should be used in the official reactor COP figures, as Matts is saying the amount generated is greater than what it takes to run the controllers.    

Rossi firmly believes that to avoid Fukuyama type screw ups, supplied outside grid power should be used to run all the controllers at all times, and battery / generator back up for grid power should be provided at all times.   He feels that safety and "regulatory certifications" require that outside power to be used to power the controllers.   He feels that if grid power goes down, the E-Cat units should shut down naturally and automatically.

Fukuyama was real, and your reactor should shut down instantly if grid power goes off line -- doing otherwise is dangerous stupid.

Rossi will take the conservative track and "exceed expectations" and "delight his customers" rather than do an Intel brown vapor job over anything.    

Rossi only talks conservatively about anything any more -- his critics have gotten surprised that everything he has said in the last year was both TRUE and actually pretty conservatively stated.

Them doubting Thomases are getting served a lot of plates of crow lately.




    ..... and yes, Thomas, there really IS a small automated assembly robotic line right outside the container that is used to make experimental sample wafers all johnny-on-the-spot.  And yes Thomas, Rossi really can have a thought and then test that thought inside the same 1 day time period.