Multiplying E-Cat Power for Maximum COP

When thinking of an electricity generating E-Cat with a COP of 6, it doesn’t take long to start wondering about whether one E-Cat can power another. If part of the electricity produced by an E-Cat can be used to provide the drive that another E-Cat requires to operate, with low cost nickel and hydrogen fuel you could be looking at extremely cheap energy on a very large scale provided by an interconnected system of E-Cats.

A poster here, Francisco das Chagas made the point here yesterday very clearly:

Remember: if the output is ELECTRICITY, there is NOTHING in the world that can prevent using the output of one device as input to the other two devices.

You may use a battery, an inversor, or any other thing between the two devices, but in the end, the ELECTRICITY produced by the first device SURELY can be used to power the second device. Nothing in the world can prevent it.

If one E-Cat produces 400 kilowatts of electrical energy, it can EASILY be the power source for TWO E-Cats, since two E-cats only need 332 kilowatts of input power.

One E-Cat can power two E-Cats.

Two E-Cats can power four E-Cats.

Four E-Cats can power eight E-Cats.

Eight E-Cats can power sixteen E-Cats

Get it? You can easily build a “chain of E-cats”, with just ONE E-Cat, with an input of 166 kilowatts, being the ultimate power source for 16 E-Cats, producing a grand total of 6400 kilowatts (400 x 16).

It’s the “miracle of the multiplication of energy”. Or call it any other name you want.

On the same topic, Hank Mills submitted the following:

More Than One Way to Loop an E-Cat

The E-Cat is the world’s first practical and robust cold fusion technology, and the revelation that the technology can now produce high temperature steam at 600C in a stable manner will allow for efficient production of electricity, which makes it possible for E-Cats to become completely closed looped.

What does being closed looped mean? It means that some of the output power of an E-Cat would be used to provide the input power. Due to the guaranteed minimum COP of an E-Cat being 6 — six units of energy out for every unit of energy in — one sixth of the output will need to be used to closed loop an E-Cat.

It should be mentioned that closed looping is a bit different than self sustaining. E-Cats already self sustain in that they can operate for periods of time with almost no input power. However, an E-Cat can only stay in this mode for a period of time until the electrical resistors have to be turned back on to stabilize the reactor core. If the resistors are not turned back on the reactor core can run away, melt the nickel powder, and make all nuclear reactions stop. In closed looping mode a portion of the output of an E-Cat producing electricity is used to provide the input power.

Closed looping an E-Cat would require an efficient way of converting the output (heat) to electricity. Thankfully, there are multiple efficient options when 600C steam is available. With this temperature of steam 40% or higher efficiencies are possible using steam turbines. In a closed loop E-Cat, a portion of this electrical output would be fed back into the system to provide the input for the radio frequency generators, sensors, and resistors. With 40% efficiency there should be more than enough electrical power produced to close the loop and produce power for the grid. But there are many possible ways to engineer the closed looping. This is where things can get quite interesting.

One possiblility is to have a system in which a plant composed of multiple E-Cat modules generates electricity and a portion of it is fed back into itself. Another possibility is to have two or more E-Cat plants where the output of each plant is fed into the input of other plants. Which setup is simpler is probably an issue of engineering. Efficiency is another issue — one setup might be more efficient than the other.

Of course in the not too distant future I think the self sustaining periods of these plants will be increased. This will make the whole closed looping issue super simple. Instead of a COP of 6 (which is already very high) it could end up being 10, 20, or even 100.

Andrea Rossi has stated he would like to build a large power plant utilizing a large number of one megawatt units which would all be connected to each other. The output of one plant would be feeding into the input of other plants. The COP of the entire plant would be infinite, because all the input power would be coming from the plant itself — no external power source would be needed.

Closed looping is where things get really exciting, and it could be about to happen for the E-Cat.

• Casey

Multiplying E-Cat Power

• Pingback: Looping E-cats ecatguide.com()

• jonnykzj

Actually why make it that complicated. One can either have a large turbine to generate electricity with and allow each of the e-cats to be connected to it. Hence starting the first with 5kw thermal and say could only generate 1.1 kw from that turbine of which it uses the 1kw for itself. Now it is self powered and there would still be 100 watts extra. You can start all available e-cats in this way from an external source and once done they all will produce extra electricity(100 watt per e-cat) from the same turbine generator. Another way is to have a separate turbine generator for every e-cat. THUS the electric COP only needs to be greater than 1 for an infinite COP to be achieved. In my example the thermal-electric conversion efficiency of the device is 2%.
With the COP being 6 and a 40% electric conversion efficiency we have an electric COP of 2.4, thus the efficiency of the device to produce electricity would be (2.4-1)/6*100 = ~23%

• edog

Did Roosi’s very important news happen?

• jacob

john, are you one of the elite?

• jacob

Oh,John just took his post and disappeared

Alain,good information on http://www.cyclonepower.com

This engine design allows the E-cat to be integrated on the top part of the engine ,the steam cooling condenser on the bottom recirculates the water then to the top and it appears we could have
ourselves a new concept,just wonder if some one should let Cyclonepower know about the possibility of using cold fusion heat to get steam

as the are already having designed engines for cars and trucks and smaller versions the can run electrical generators for home and portable power units for heat and electricity ,suitable for constuction to both heat and provide electricity.

units used in cars could could have a small generator to run the heat resister for the reactor

smaller unit could be incorporated in electric cars to recharge batteries on the go ,and when
you get home ,you plug in your house ,for heat and electrical power.

• jacob

oh did you know , the possible future car and Truck engine ,LENR-Cyclone-Engine (LCE)engine does not need a transmission and no start motor. That thing is high torque,and better find some tires that don’t
smoke!LOL

• Nekto

E-cat is generating heat, the heat is converting to electricity. The electricity is used as an input to another E-cat, where mainly used to heat up the resistor load of the reactor. To me it sounds stupidly. Why we need to generate electricity to feed (actually – to heat) the reactor core of another E-cat? Why the second E-cat can not be designed to consume the heat directly?

• artefact

it’s probably not the heat alone but frequency or something like that.

• Nekto

Ok. But heat, needed for reactor core, can be transferred directly. May be the heat is lion share of consumed power, not frequency etc.

• daniel maris

Yes, but isn’t the heat being produced diffuse (hitting the walls of the vessel) whereas the electrical heating is precisely located? I am not a technical person but that seems to me likely. It’s not that easy to concentrate heat is it?

• Nekto

Hmm. Another way – to use the heat pump to concentrate the heat energy. Heat pump will consume some electricity, but it will be much more efficient, than original design.

• daniel maris

That’s encouraging, if true. Let’s hope the SRI link up proves real as they seem a very reputable company with a good history.

• Sanjeev

This is some real news.

http://brillouinenergy.blogspot.com

We have closed our first round of funding this month, and are now completing negotiations to collaborate with SRI -www.sri.com – on our 3rd
generation boiler design. Stay tuned as we will be redesigning an updated wet boiler system as creating a new dry boiler model.

• GreenWin

Glad to hear they are getting some funding and working with Mike McKubre at SRI. Their theory is troublesome. They show us how they load a lattice and then compress it with their proprietary Q Wave. The compression wave causes a number of subsequent reactions which result eventually in a beta decay and energy release.

Trouble is, plenty of similar experiments get heat and transmutation without a special “Q” Wave. How, e.g. does Celani see a nickel rod radiate energetic particles long after removal from the cell? How does Pintarelli see a cell operate at 300C for months with no input?

Brillouin seems to have made progress in reaction control. But the Q Wave theory does not explain the variety of observational data.

• GreenWin

David Nagel CEO of NUCAT Energy LLC and a Research Professor in the School of Engineering and Applied Science of The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. recently published a valuable overview of LENR’s “Potential Advantages…”

We strongly suggest our friends at the Gates Foundation take a hard look at the impact of low cost, clean, pathogen-free water on global disease:

Production of Clean Water

“Humans need water on a frequent basis to sustain life. Roughly one billion people on earth do not have good drinking water now. The possibility of being able to produce drinkable water from dirty rivers and the seas by using the heat from LENR would be momentous.

It could turn out to be one of the main drivers for exporting LENR generators into what are called “third world” countries. Favorable pricing of LENR generators for such countries could conceivably contribute significantly to world peace. The situation might be similar to the current sales of medicines for AIDS to poor countries at reduced prices. Rich countries will not soon give poor countries a large fraction of their wealth. However, they could provide some of the energy needed for development and local wealth production at discounted prices, while still making money from manufacturing LENR energy generators. This is a historic opportunity.”

Global Medical Impacts

“The availability of water free of pathogens and parasites to a very large number of people should lead to dramatic reductions of the incidence of many diseases. The savings of lives, human suffering and costs of medical assistance, where it is available, might greatly outweigh the costs of buying and using LENR generators. The better availability of electricity would improve both the diagnostic and therapeutic sides of clinical medicine.”

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NagelIE103.pdf

• GreenWin

Sorry to be off-topic here – but the technical detail in COP pales in the face of humanitarian reasons for progress. Ed, remove if this is too egregious of policy.

I’m having trouble understanding: suppose an E-Cat produced dry steam that could power a conventional turbine in a coal-fired power plant with an inefficiency of 50%. One third of that electricity generated could be used to power the E-Cat, with the remaining two thirds available for “free.” In other words, an infinate COP.

• Burt

Yes, that’s what we can hope for in principle for a SYSTEM, but for a single E-CAT the COP is 6. So the figure 6 will hopefully be an uninteresting, academic figure.

• Robert Mockan

From what Rossi has said COP=6 appears to be an average for the E-Cat. The electric power (thermal equivalent)input varies over time, and any variation from precisely COP=6 implies the thermal power from the E-Cat LENR reaction core must be exceeding 6 at least some of the time, by definition of average. From experiment reports published over the years about the nickel and hydrogen system we know that temperature and pressure gradients, hydrogen diffusion through the lattice, hydrogen spillover effects, system fugacity, and other variables are all relevant. I suspect hydrinos can play a role in LENR processes, so their formation in the reactor and diffusion in lattice reaction zones would also be relevant. As are plasmons, phonons, and other quasi-particles.
I do not believe Rossi has the knowledge base or understands enough about what he is doing to say with certainty that COP=6 is the limit. Indeed even his consultants (be it Focardi, or any of the other names mentioned in the field associated with Rossi, directly or indirectly) do not burn intellectually bright in all these areas.
So I would VERY surprised if COP=6 is anything other than an engineering issue.

• georgehants

Amazing how closely the modern scientific establishment and the church mirror each other.
Except that modern scientist seem to just except the teachings rather than dissent.
—-
The ‘Catholic Encyclopedia’ refers to the fate of more than fifty per cent of dissenting bishops at the first Vatican Council I (1869-70) who opposed the decision of Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) to declare himself ‘infallible’. Members of the ‘recalcitrant group were confined in special quarters to reconsider their irreverent decision. Many left the State, never to return’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Pecci Ed., ii, 328). In other words, some escaped incarceration by getting out of Vatican City.

• GreenWin

George, you draw the accurate parallels between Catholic Church and State. In the fanciful case of cold fusion the corrupt high priests (Huizenga, Parker, Ballinger) who declared it “fraud” back in 1989 are being venerated – given a State (NASA’s Bushnell & Zawodny) pardon for their malfeasance. But the science does not lie. There is clear and voluminous evidence LENR incorporates fusion.

The ploy is to let the Church off the hook for its arrogant, corrupt destruction of Pons and Fleischmann’s work. Won’t happen. Actions have consequences.

• dragon

The betrayal from Scientists didn’t started with 1989 Cold Fusion events. It can be traced even before, in the 50′-60′, when they chose Uranium against Thorium to fuel the nuclear fission plants, and poisoned our planet for the past 60 years.

• No-one ever payed for that, and nor will those who continue to push for new nuclear build, and cover up the disastrous damage to people and the environment that is flowing from Fukushima.

• Robert Mockan

Yes. The nuclear story has taken a sad turn. Reminds me of the Challenger space shuttle explosion in 1986 that practically shut down the US manned space program for many years. Hopefully the more inherently safe next generation nuclear plants will be built next time, and not near major tectonic fault planes. What else could one expect at Fuk-U-shima? Idiot builders.

• jacob

cold fusion works quite well
free energy has been around forever
and can be harnessed freely
Mr Tesla knew this ,as he wanted to provide
free electricity to planet earth with the wardencliff project,but he ran out of money,
J.P.Morgan stopped his project by withdrawing
his supportwhen he found out the electricity
could not be metered .
If Mr. Tesla would have forknown his fate,he would have done things different.

The church has science has brought judgement to itself, you reap what you sow ,and what goes around comes around ,and unfortunatly is has almost come full circle for them.

Just to bad they fooled us on many things ,and deprived us of knowledge and the truth, the bible
very holy to many also has been purged of the whole truth ,example , genesis 6 and 7 are missing
out of 40 gospels only 4 made it in the bible and
the books of healing are missing and kept at the Vatican,and so much more,but I will not judge them ,but we have to forgive them ,in order to
mature ourselves.

• GreenWin

It is fascinating that this incident of opposition and rejection of Papal dogma – is mostly hidden from historical account. The hearsay encyclopedia Wikipedia has scrubbed all mention of the confinement of opposing Bishops – too embarrassing for the Church. But here is the declaration of the Irish Bishops:

“The Catholics of Ireland not only do not believe, but they declare upon oath … that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible, and that they do not hold themselves ‘bound to obey any order in its own nature immoral’, though the Pope or any ecclesiastical power should issue or direct such an order; but, on the contrary, that it would be sinful in them to pay any respect or obedience thereto.”

At least in plucky old Ireland there remained a stout few prepared to disobey immoral orders. May we all have a touch o’ these good men.

• georgehants

If I could explain that I feel that the Cold Fusion debacle shows up the terrible destructive situation in science that Rossi et al have once again highlighted.
I hope Admin and everybody understands that we all have a responsibility to put right this damaging, to science and mankind, situation.
This means using comparative subjects that may seem off topic but are just examples to see that the Cold Fusion story is not unique.
I use the one that makes most “scientists” go into a state of uncontrollable apoplexy at the mere mention of a subject that they have been brainwashed, to abuse and debunk on hearing the word —- UFO —–.
Until scientists stand up and look at the Evidence from source and not censored and distorted as from the establishment or Wiki-rubbish, then the following of DOGMA will continue, to obstruct many life effecting subjects that at present are denied and abused by the preaching directorial establishment.
Gentlemen and Ladies put aside your fear, go on the Internet and research UFO’s, discard the obvious weak evidence and read strong EVIDENCE from high ranking politicians, government reports from open counties such as France, military leaders etc.who have spoken out for the sake of TRUTH.

• georgehants

Could I just add that I make no claims as to what is being observed only that the Evidence for something as with Cold Fusion is beyond fair doubt.
When there is Evidence, science in all cases is incompetent if it does not act openly, unbiasedly and professionally.

• Burt

Old news I think –
The following is from August:

Burt
August 21st, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Dear Mr Rossi,
Is a thermal output ratio of 6:1 still a valid estimate (there have been different ratios discussed).
Assuming a 6:1 ratio, could one e-cat drive 6 other e-cats (thermal) which drives 36 e-cats (thermal) which are then used for production of electricity?
Best Regards
Burt
Andrea Rossi
August 21st, 2011 at 3:13 AM

Dear Burt:
The idea is very good, so far it is not possible, for reasons I will explain when it will be possible, but the idea is very good.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Guru

Not so easy.

What is this meaning when Rossi say: 50% of time is selfsustain and CoP is in average 6.

This is: half of time duration is 1/3 of e-cat output consummed i.e. all produced electricity is consummed during this period.

And Rossi need electricity to powering e-cats, not waste heat from another e-cats.

• georgehants

For the past 16 months Rossi has been releasing some details of his E-cat, it must be noted that whatever those details concern, be it the temperature that water turns into steam, what steam is, how a kettle works, what is Cop etc. etc. it leads to unending discussion and debate about what these things are or mean.
If an alien, or even a simple soul of the public where reading these blogs they may be left thinking, what the hell does science know.
If they have not in the last few centuries been able to agree and understand these most basic of facts then what hope is there for the future.

• Filip

One cannot compare the excess energy with the ‘drive'(meaning the electricity one needs to run an Ecat)for the reactor, even if it generates electricity as excess energy(connected to a generator). Simply because one has to compare it with the fuel, in this case Ni and H. So in the best case one has a very efficiant engine running on Ni and H, which one has to re-fuel from time to time.
So the COP can never be higher than 1.
The best way is to generate heat(100°C) with a machine(NOT an Ecat)running on electricity(simulating the exact outcome excess heat as an Ecat) and compare it with an Ecat. The difference of the energy imput while having the same excess energy can be used as a measuring parameter.

• Filip

So there has to be an international standard waterboiler, whom one can use as the parameter to measure the efficiancy of a device like an Ecat.

• GreenWin

Here’s a little overview of the present status of U.S. LENR according to Nick Benton’s Sleepy Hollow weekly – Falls Church News Press:

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Edisonian Approach
By Tom Whipple

The most interesting aspect of Bushnell’s post on NASA’s web site is that it has received almost no attention outside of a small band following LENR developments.

Well, yeah. Because the subject has been classified press blackout (FCNPress is not a real paper) since December 2011. Expected in fascist government.

• GreenWin
• chris robinson

Regardless of all these infinite energy calculation from closed loops etc.
There appears to be a huge dichotomy between what Defkalion and others in the LENR field have stated and Rossi new position on the maximum COP

I assumed when Defkallion stated they had COP 20 to 30 this meant stable output at somewhere between these estimates .
Now Rossi appears to ne inferring that a stable COP of above 6 is impossible
A business strategy perhaps to undermine Defkalion and Brillioun attempts to the get big investment dollars undone flowing into their coffers
Anyway it will be interesting to hear what this new COP limitation theory is in the next few days. I have no doubts that other competitors will totally disagree with his hypothesis

• While it’s possible that Rossi may produce an ‘upgraded’ theory of operation for the e-cat, it seems more likely (given his engineering background) that the limitation may be based on operational data.

If he has pragmatically noted that reaction rates have a stable plateau with instability, runaway or termination at each end then this would probably be the basis for the limits of operation he suggests.

What is not clear, however the limits have been established, is where in the cycle of operation the ‘COP’ of 6 is measured or whether it is an overall average, in which case it must be greater (perhaps much greater) at some points. Hopefully some of these questions will be addressed in Rossi’s forthcoming speech to the nation (that’s us I guess – no-one else seems to be listening).

• Ronald Wyckoff

I think people are forgetting one thing, the exhaust waste of the steam turbine is degraded steam or hot water. So a 4KW rated turbine at 40% efficiancy would produce 4000W of electricity of which 1700W on average would feed and control the E-Cat cell, and the 0-4KW (2.3KW Ave.) of electricity would be backed up by the Electric Grid and supply the house and electric Car. The other 6KW of waste heat from the Turbine would back up your water heater and home heater. The 6 month Fuel cycle would net 10Mega Watt HouRs of electricity worth about 1000\$ in AZ. and over 2000\$ in Ca. plus savings of gasoline for your electric car. The output waste heat would be equivalent to 26MWhr. I don’t know how much that would save in hot water and home heating costs.

By the way, the first Generation of E-Cats would not be usefull in the Auto-Airplane-Train-Truck world. Auto’s need at least 1-200KW of electricity to run a current design Car which would require a 400KW E-Cat system which of course would be much too big. Airliners would need well over 100MW to take off. The average Locomotive is over 3000Hp or 10 or so of Rossi’s 1MW plants.

• Tom

I’m wondering if it might be more efficient to run a car from the steam rather than electricity. I understand there would be problems with having the right amount of pressure exactly when you want it among other problems, but could it be possible?

• jacob

tom,steamcars were built in the 1920’s and were using heating oil to produce steam pressure ,to push pistons ,similar to gas engines.

• Tom, as jacob says, steam cars were made in the 1920’s (and into the early thirties) by companies such as Stanley, Doble and White. These were in fact more powerful, smoother and more economical than the petrol cars of the day. However they were more expensive, took time to start (although this was only a matter of 3 or 4 minutes in flash boiler models) and got through a great deal of water.

I think the technical problems could be quite easily overcome with modern materials and engine designs, but it would be essential to use an on board condensation apparatus to recycle the water, with waste heat being ejected vertically as hot air. Overall heat ejection should be comparable with an equivalent ICU vehicle.

Given these considerations, steam car propulsion should be entirely feasible if AR’s claims are accurate, and if the reactor output could throttled back in some way for idling/traffic jams.

• ‘ICE vehicle’

• Tom

I realize it’s not as simple as connecting an ecat to an original steam car. Although I’d be thrilled to see that happen. But would this be more efficient and maybe more powerful than an electric engine setup?

• I’m not sure if you mean existing battery-electric propulsion, or steam driven electric transmission. If the latter, then definitely yes. Thermal efficiency of the steam engine would be comparable (c30%) but you would not be carrying the weight of a generator and electric motor(s). Transmission would be simple, with just a reverse gear and a differential required.

• If the former, small steam engines can generate torque comparable to vehicle electric motors and the steam boiler/engine and full water tank would probably weigh about half as much as a typical battery pack. Given the losses in power transmission and then in the battery charging cycle, direct utilisation of steam for propulsion would probably be 3 or 4 times as efficient overall.

• no need to have a water tank for modern steam vehicle. they work in closed loop. the hardest problem is to cool down the fluid with radiator. It is easier for oto/diesel because they exhaust hot gaz.

• Tom

Thanks very much for the informative reply. Very smart people on this site. I was referring to a steam driven electric transmission, I think. I can’t wait to see this technology diversify and the unforeseeable places it will take us.

• Ron

See Cyclone Power (CYPW) for a steam engine that will drive a car. This could be directly heated by a Rossi E-Cat if the start up time is quick enough for use. No electric drive or transmission needed.

• Ronald Wyckoff

Lear was the last person to try and make a practical steam car back in the 80’s I think. He gave up when he realized that the only space he had for the condensing radiators was in the doors. One side impact accident would steam fry the occupants. Nice Thought!

Peter,
I would dispute your asertion that steam power would be 3 to 4 times more efficient than an Electric system. Why do you think when Diesels were engineered into Locomotives that they went the Deisel/Electric direction instead of directly connecting the Diesel to the wheels through a transmission. Same reason hybrid Cars are overall almost twice as effiecient than regular cars. Electro magnetism beats the Carnot Cycle by huge amounts. And Electricity us far more versatile, alowing for re-generation, and with computer control allowing for transmissions with four or five moving parts, infinite varialbility, and great durability. My Prius after 9 years has 250,ooo miles on it and I have drained and filled the oil in the transmission one time.

• Ronald, I was referring to the specific case of a steam direct-drive vehicle vs. a battery car powered from the grid. In the latter case the initial conversion of heat to electrical power will be pretty much the same, but in the case of the battery car losses in power transmission and battery inefficiency have to be added, as well as the energy cost of carrying a 1,000 lb battery and a couple of electric motors around, as opposed to a compact steam engine, flash boiler and drive train.

A quick ‘envelope’ estimate indicates about 50% overall energy losses between power generation and the car’s wheels, so I concede that a factor of 3/4 is incorrect. The actual figure would be nearer to 2.

• jacob

Ronald,some one commented in the last tread ,to basically use one E-Cat to provide heat in the form of molten metal/ molten salt to other E-Cats instead of using electricity to cause the heat required for the reaction,

my question is would it then be feasible to run trains and planes in your estimation?

• Lloyd

They could always go back to steam engines to power cars.

• jerry
• Red_Baron

There is not the center of power? Very intriguing.

• This is all abut theoretical evolving
possibilities.

The bottom line is an available product that yields clean energy and a cost saving over
fossil fuel. This is achieved by delivering a
very low cost pollution free source of heat.

This 600C heat for a particular type efficiency of a turbine might be an upgrade for a close relationship with a particular customer.

This is good and desirable.

This is not absolutely necessary as there are other options available for the purchaser.

This appears to me to be about one of the endless
myriad of desired configurations to adapt the product. To put this in context we had propeller airplanes before we waited to build jumbo jets.

We needed the engine before the Wright brothers
but the engine manufacturer did not wait to
design airplanes.

• Cathelin

If one produces an incomplete or wrong definition, one can logically derive any useless calculation results, e.g. in the present article, a so-called “COP” between 1 and the infinite.
“ex falso quodlibet”

• Filip

A machine that can run in self sustaining mode is a machine with COP. The fuel is not the electricity you put back in, but the Ni and the H. The question is how much energy can you get out of a gram of each? It’s like a car, as soon the fuel is gone it stops running in self sustaining mode unless you re- fuel(in this case the gas is the Ni and H) it’s like a high tec car running on very little gas. So the COP is never higher than 1, but very clos to 1.
Lets say a car is 0,2 COP, well than an Ecat is possibly 9,9 COP.

• Filip

Sorry, 0,99 COP

• Cathelin

Agree, but you probably wished to type 0.99 for the Ecat “COP”…
There is a lot of confusion in all these comments as everyone seem to have its own definition of “COP”. An efficiency ratio can never be higher than 1, as it is the ratio between usable (electrical) energy produced and the total of energy burnt including unknown energy, in this case Ni-H burnt. A car engine has a very low efficiency as a lot of energy (heat) is lost and, because the main source of energy (petrol) is well known, its efficiency was calculated correctly is about 0.2-0.3, depending on
If you consider the mass of energy burnt, very low for Ni-H and nuclear fission, another clear mathematical definition of “COP” is required to make calculations and comparisons, otherwise it could be anything between 1 and the infinite: from a wrong statement one can deduce anything…

• Cathelin

Oops!
…its efficiency was calculated correctly and is about 0.2-0.3, depending on car engine models.

• Petrol

The core issue with COP is can you get more ELECTRICAL energy out than you put in. Heat pumps can give us e-cat like COP figures but we can’t use them to produce any useful electrical energy.

Carnot effeciency (higher temperatures) is what really matters. Without it whatever cascade of e-cats you can cobble together are never going to help you break even as they each will require more energy than they can produce…although see below:

“However, an E-Cat can only stay in this mode for a period of time until the electrical resistors have to be turned back on to stabilize the reactor core. If the resistors are not turned back on the reactor core can run away, melt the nickel powder, and make all nuclear reactions stop”

I’m having trouble parsing this statement in a way that makes sense. To keep the reactor from overheating you have to heat it??? Why couldn’t you port hot stuff around the reactor as needed operating pumps to move conductive fluids has got to be cheaper than resistive heating… Is COP just an engineering problem?

• jacob

a company in Germany and Japan developed pop
dispensers that are so efficient the run themselves,
powered by a orbit motor put in place of the relieve valve ,where the pressure drops and the refridgeration pipe turns suddenly cold,the German model even had a plug on it to power something else

• Petrol, your central question – how can you limit a thermal runaway by applying more heat – has been addressed with varying degrees on ingenuity by many people. However this idea seems to based on little more than Rossi’s hints, and we did not see any evidence in the various demos of any tendency towards overheating.

It seems quite likely to me that this is simply a ‘red herring’ designed to send people along incorrect speculative paths, and in fact the power input is required simply to re-stimulate the reaction, which would otherwise fade away.

Possibly a little dangerous this close to the supposed release of new information, but my own pet theory is that the periodic injection of power may not be needed for resistance heating as suggested by Rossi, but for direct electrical current flow through the nickel, or just possibly for the generation of an intense EM field. This may be necessary in order to periodically produce magnetostriction in order to violently distort the lattice at an atomic level and provide new sites for a reaction to continue. Of course heating of the nickel would also be a by-product of any such input.

• A COP of 1.1: crawl
A COP of 6: walk
A COP of 10 or 20: run

Prove the thing can crawl or walk before going into long talks about how fast it can run.

• GreenWin

According to Dr. Hagelstein and Swartz this STILL RUNNING experiment demonstrates an average COP of 14. But why believe the data?

http://www.iscmns.org/work10/HagelsteinPdemonstra.pdf

• Barry

GreenWin, I’m glad to hear somebody say CF/LENR is repeatable science. In the article Mitchell Swartz said,
“This open demonstration of an active
ZrO2-PdD nanostructured quantum
electronic device has confirmed the
existence, reproducibility, and better
control, of CF/LANR, and has shown that it
may be superior CF/LANR nanostructured
material, configuration, and means to
activate these important systems.”

In the very least I think we can safely say, with all of the collected data from all over the world, the Pons and Fleischmann effect is now repeatable science. And to say otherwise is pathological science.

• GreenWin

Chuck is a self-acknowledged prevert who feeds ego with skeptopathic posts.

• Peter Poulsen

The E-Cat, if it works, is using fuel. Its fuel is Nickel and Hydrogen(from what we know).
You dont get a better power versus gas ratio(nickel and hydrogen) just by adding more E-cat’s in a parallel system.

• Ged

It’s more like “more E-cats in a serial branching system”. In such a case, you are multiplying the amount of energy out pure unit of fuel, albeit slightly. The real point is, by serial branching (this is not parallelism, but a mix of the two) you can produce a massive amount of electrical energy while self sustaining the entire system (no energy but what is provided by the e-cats themselves are needed to keep the system going).

• Peter Poulsen

I just dont see how this should be any different or special. You can also combine alot of low power batteries to get a huge power output.

You can use one nuclear plant to power two nuclear plants, that then powers 4 nuclear plants and so on.

In either case how many you wish to combine depends on the amount of fuel you are willing to spend, whether its nuclear plants or E-Cat’s

• Jim

The difference is that some of the “fuel” is electricity. The amount of nickel and hydrogen is already minimal. Doubling or tripling those isn’t a problem. Increasing the output electricity while not increasing the input electricity is the object.

This is different from Nuclear or batteries in that to get more electricity out of nuclear, you need more of the very very expensive fuel, and adding more nuclear plants in sequence doesn’t increase the COP.

Neither does adding more batteries increase the COP, since batteries are fixed in output of less than you put into them.

• Cathelin

• Jim

Wrong. The question and article is about how much electricity you’re getting out from what you’re putting in. No one will ever really care if it takes 1 or 12 grams of nickel if you get 6 times as much energy back as you put in.

• Cathelin

If there is no clear COP definition, there is no COP calculation. In other words, if you do not include the “Ni-H” energy burnt, it is impossible to quantify how much electrical energy is usable and how much is lost. From a wrong definition you will get any sort of “COP” figures, depending on how many theoretical devices are used: starting from any number (6?) to the infinite and this is why these “COP” discussions do not mean anything and are somehow useless until a device producing more electricity than what it needs to run safely, smoothly and continuously is produced.

• Peter Poulsen

Jim:
If you want to calculate the COP you have to take into account how much fuel you have to spent.
You wont see a machine with infinite COP anytime soon because that would mean it could produce energy from nothing.
Furthermore you dont get more energy out than you put in. The difference with the E-Cat(if it really works) is that it can spend its fuel extremelly efficiently. A nuclear plant also only spend a miniscule amount of fuel compared to the huge amount of energy it outputs. The difference is just that the E-Cat fuel is very cheap yet still very efficient.

Stacking E-Cats wont bring the efficiency up, and it certainly wont increase the COP.

• daniel maris

I think the problem of putting e cats together in series is exemplified by the cost of the 1 MW generator from Rossi – which is much greater than the small e cat heater.

The best way to produce electricity cheaply is not to keep replicating machinery, but to intensify output. It may well be cheaper (in the short term) to draw the initiating electricity off the grid (because the electricity companies have already amortised their capital investment costs).

• Ged

In all honestly, it’s simply an interesting way to build up the system, but you’re right in that it isn’t going to really change costs. Intensifying output (increasing efficiency per unit fuel) is the only way to truly do that.

Still, due to the incredible low cost of nickle and hydrogen, building up a chained system would be cheap in the long run for providing large amounts of electrical output, as it is. How long you’d make money back is a completely different issue: basically chaining two 1 MW reactors so that you get the full 1 MW out of the second reactor means it’s 3 million per MW capacity. This would put the MW cost basically on par with a nuclear power plant. But at least the fuel would be cheaper, space use smaller, and safety infinitely higher.

• Lu

I think there is too much focus on the E-Cat COP. I also think there is too much pandering, frankly bordering on slavish fawning, going on in terms of the E-Cat and what it can do. I can take a match and light a gallon of gas and release quite a bit of heat energy–does that mean gasoline has near infinite COP?

What the E-Cat possibly provides is another source of energy. This new source of energy requires additional energy to be liberated, not unlike current forms of energy. To get a barrel of oil, it takes about 20% of the energy in that barrel of oil. This is referred to as Energy Return on Investment, or EROI, and is very much like COP except it’s not at the device level.

Thus oil has an EROI (or COP even) of 5. In the past it took about 25% of a field to feed the horse which plowed the rest of the field, or and EROI of 4. Hydro-electric power has an EROI in a range of 11-267, depending on the site. In this context, an E-Cat COP of 6 (or really 2-3 after converting back to electricity, which hasn’t been done yet) is certainly not high and even a bit low when compared to other forms of fuel.

Other considerations make the COP low. In terms of economics, natural gas in my area produces heat more cheaply than an electricity based E-Cat so in this sense the COP is too low to be competitive. Also when compared to Defkalion’s COP of 20-30, the E-Cat’s COP of 6 will lose by a wide margin when full life-cycle costs are factored in. (In my view, the Hyperion is as real as the E-Cat.)

The real benefit of LENR based technology is that is appears to be a new form of fuel, abundant, and clean. It is not clear, however, that is an immediate panacea for all our fuel issues as some have suggested. Currently over 90% of energy used for transportation comes from oil, owing to it high energy density and portability. In fact 74% of oil is used for transportation, something which almost insure that oil will be with us for a long time. Rossi himself has stated that the use of the E-Cat for transportation is a long way off.

The E-Cat and other LENR devices holds much promise in providing us with another form of abundant, clean energy. There are many engineering challenges ahead in order to integrate it into our daily lives. Nobody really knows how the E-Cat works so it is very presumptuous for anyone to start designing energy delivery systems with infinite COPs. So called tests really have been only demos and for the most part private. Show me one reputable person or organization who has run such a test, published the protocols, results and data, and is willing to vouch for the integrity of the tests. These may be coming but we haven’t seen it yet.

• Thank you for that ‘reality check’, Lu. Even ignoring the ‘Rossi says’ factor, some recent discussion has been a bit silly.

• Ged

Spot on. It’s all about a cheap, clean burning fuel, in the end.

• Jim

Actually you’re sort of mistaken.

Regardless of the technically correct definition of COP, the point is that gasoline takes very little energy to release the energy in it. This is why gasoline is one of the most effective forms of fuel we have. If it took a match at 6000 degrees to light it, even if it gave off 6 million times as much energy, it wouldn’t be nearly as useful.

So basically I’m saying that yes, the amount of input power is very important, and the article’s point is good.

• GreenWin

Lu, good remarks – including, “The real benefit of LENR based technology is that is appears to be a new form of fuel, abundant, and clean.”

I think at this point it more appropriate to call it a new form of “energy” from an undetermined fuel source. Since there are so many active theories none of which come close to describing the variety of reactions seen.

The only apparent source of “fuel” in these reactions is H2 or deuterium. The Ni, W, Pd, Pt, etc. appears to function as a lattice geometry. The energy seen does not derive from chemical combustion – but is speculated to come from nucleons fusing – proven in many ways by CR-39, tritium, He4, transmutations, gamma, heat, etc.

Mills has just released third party verifications of his CIHT cell that claims to capture energy flowing from H1 transitioning to fractional Rydberg H(1/4) state. His process uses transitions to generate electron flow across a cathode – immediately useful as electricity. The only fuel in Blacklight’s CIHT cell is H2 catalyzed from plain water.

It is rather fun to see so many good minds spin on this phenomenon. With benefits astonishingly great.

• Robert Mockan

The Blacklight CIHT battery does use
Hydrino formation. Typically that ionizes a catalyst that provides the energy sink. What Mills is describing is not the “direct” BLP high voltage “rocking chair” electric cell using inner electron shells, that BLP has been researching for many years, but rather an “indirect” design using the energy release from hydrino formation to reform ordinary chemical reactants of the electric cell.
This is described here:

The difference between a direct and indirect design is large. A direct design would have a voltage per cell in the 10s of volts, while the indirect design has a typical 1 volt or so output per cell. Higher voltages for the indirect design require placing many cells in series, like in a regular battery.

This does not reduce the importance of the concept, but the CIHT cell BLP is promoting does generate a LOT of waste heat, and would need active cooling to operate. Also, degradation of the chemical reactants over time may be a serious problem, like in any regular rechargeable battery being able to withstand a limited number of recharge cycles.

• GreenWin

Thanks Robert. I see Mills uses LiOH-LiBr as his electrolyte which might require replacement. And the MgO matrix could deteriorate. The major achievement well beyond SOFC and PEM cells is he electrolyzes water in-cell for source H2 and subsequent hydrino. This obviates reformation of NG/CH4 or the use of pure H2 as the energy carrier.

All in all a major breakthrough that sure causes gnashing of teeth and outrage in old world power centers.

• Robert Mockan

Yes. Serious repercussions.
Other battery technologies and fuel cells rendered…obsolete, by the CIHT. I would like to see them lower the operating temperature from the 400 C it presently requires, but even the way it is excess heat generated in the cell could be used in the home for space heating and hot water… (hey, that sounds familiar!).

• Filip

I mentioned this before, do ‘they’ also use COP to calculate a nuclear plant(fission)? Or is this a new way. Was a COP above 1-x impossible also for a nuclear plant or just for chemical reactions?

• The problem is that Rossi is using the concept of ‘COP’ in a way that it was never meant to be used. Wherever the COP exceeds 100%, the energy difference must come from some other source, whether that is chemical, electrochemical, nuclear fission or LENR.

It might be better to simply talk about the ‘power’ produced by a device, meaning the difference between the input and output power, rather than dividing one by the other. That difference would then represent the power being extracted from the energy source, whether the mechanism is understood or not.

In practical terms, because both are variables it would be necessary to add the time factor, i.e. to specify both the power and the time periods over which measurement takes place to derive a figure for average energy output (kWh/h or equivalent). Rossi does not specify whether his ‘COP’ is an average, a maximum or a minimum, which is potentially a very important consideration.

• Filip

You are right, mathematical a COP above 1 is infinite.
Many other parameters need to be considered, not only time but also maximum input energy. Thanks.

• Ged

I believe Ross has made a point to state that the COP of 6, as he’s using it, is the lowest COP the E-cat will give; the guaranteed return.

• Jimr

I have been following this COP discussion the last couple of days and question some of the responses.
A 10 kw of heat with a COP of six would take an AVERAGE 1700 w electrical to operate.
A 10kw of heat converting at 33% to electric ( this would be max, more likely 25-30%) would produce 3300w.
The problem from what I have been reading is that the 1700w is not a continuous feed. From some of the graphs I have seen it would vary from zero to almost 10000w to start up and operate continuiously. I see no way a single Ecat could support 2 others.

• I agree with your analysis – a COP of 6 is not adequate for the various scenarios envisaged. Even if output from a number of units were to be commoned together to form a mini-grid, and individual units were to draw on this as required, overall output would be extremely variable (due to random demand variations) until very large numbers were reached.

There would also be the problem of disposing of approximately 4 units of heat for every 1 unit of electrical power generated, as I mentioned in an earlier thread. CHP is probably the only viable use for such a multi-unit system (usual caveats).

• schmued

A battery pack for buffering the electrical energy would solve this problem …
To be honest, I don’t like the phrase “A COP of 6” when the units are mixed! Everything is ok when the I/o ratio (I would call it like this: Input to output energy) is over 1.0. That means electrical input 1000W electrical output 1100W (conversion losses already substracted) that is the only relevant factor!

• Jimr

Have you priced a battery pack and control that would intermittently supply and control, say 6000 w. Everything about these configurations add up to a lot of money.

• Robert Mockan

Batteries might be a possible solution except typically have a net electricity storage to use efficiency in the 50% range.
If the LENR reactor is running at COP=6 battery storage for peaks like you describe could exceed the net available electric power from the power system.

• No expert, but I doubt it’s that difficult, or else hybrid cars wouldn’t work as efficiently as they do.

• But in this case, at ‘COP’=6 the margins are so narrow that losing 50% of the available energy would probably be fatal, as Robert says. Such a system would never have a significant surplus of power that could be drawn off as output.

• It would about as much use as one of those toy steam engines with a dynamo. They usually get through 100ml of alcohol in 20 minutes and can just about light up a pea bulb after all the losses in the system!

• Ron

Start up power and running power should be very different. Since the LENR system generates heat, very little input power for heat should be needed. Some power is used for control systems and valves but after one control system + a redundant computer only valves need to be duplicated. Once a multi E-cat system is running, I think the energy required is minimal.

Using CHP for industrial or building use, the efficiency should be higher than 60% and could go as high as 80%. A 1MW system could produce 600KW to 800KW equivalent of which about 350KW (35% of 1MW) would be electricity. The remainder would provide heat for the building and industrial processes. Heat used to run the E-Cat should be minimal after start up and I would like Mr. Rossi to explain the 166KW figure and separate start up power from running power.

• Andrew Macleod

For this to happen it would need 100% reliability. One break in the chain would bring the whole system down. Redundancy is needed.

• Filip

In serie, yes, in paralell, no, it’s like your Christmas lights, in the early days, you had to change a light, I think

• Ged

In a branching tree, the weakest link is the root. Knock that out, and all the leaves collapse.

• Iggy Dalrymple

Yes, but trees sometimes produce cavitation, a form of hot fusion.

• GreenWin

Iggy knows stuff he shouldn’t.

• Andrew Macleod

In parallel you won’t get the multiplying effect, energy out will be a direct ratio to what’s going in, in series as the chain gets bigger the output grows by atleast a factor of 2.

Parallel 16 units with an output of say 200kw and an input of 100kw =1600kw or 100kw gain per unit
Series 15 units with an output of 200kw and an input of 100kw closed
looped still equals 1600kw output with only 100kw being used from an outside source instead of 1600kw in parallel

Series 16:1
Parallel 2:1

• techmate

If anyone had an Ecat in their posession they could do all kinds of things with it.
Right now “0” Ecats x anything is still 0 Ecats.

You are all being sarcastic right?

• Jay

techmate – no worries no one is speaking to you.

• techmate

Correct you are not speaking you are typing!

I find it interesting that every time a guy named Rossi posts something from his condo in Florida there is quite a flurry of “what ifs”!