You can change this text in the options panel in the admin

There are tons of ways to configure Magazine Premium... The possibilities are endless!

# Rossi Says E-Cat COP Fixed at 6

May 29, 2012
By

Andrea Rossi has been consistent in saying that his E-Cat systems have a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 6 — meaning that the total energy output of an E-Cat is six times the amount of energy input. Many of us have wondered whether this number is based upon Rossi’s current design, and if it can be improved upon in the future. A question about this was raised on Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics Blog:

Q: Have you found some very fundamental physical reasons to this limitation (which you will publish some day) or is this just because of the current engineering choices ?

A: Very good question. We have found physical reasons to this limitation, and we are going to publish this fact along with the theory.

When I interviewed Rossi recently I asked about the COP issue and received a similar response, and it seems like the COP of six is necessary for safety and stability. Rossi said, “we have from some part some clown that says I made a COP of 20 a COP of 50 and this is just clownery that we never see anything working really at that level because it is simply impossible . . . The reality is that work safely we can get a COP of six, and this is quite an achievement . . . we have very stable situation when we work with a COP of six, and this is why we stay on that range.”

### 95 Responses to Rossi Says E-Cat COP Fixed at 6

1. H-G Branzell on June 3, 2012 at 10:14 am

The reason for the COP of 6 is probably the following:

To heat water from room temperature to boiling requires 80 calories/g and to transform it into steam at 100 degrees Centigrade requires 539 cal/g, together 619 cal/g.

If you heat the water to the boiling point without making steam but assume that you have all steam the apparent COP will be 619/80 = 7.7.

But that will not do for a demo. If you make steam of 25% of the water which will be sufficient to satisfy most of the spectators the apparent COP will be 6.

Since no acceptable calorimetry or verification that all water is vaporized has been done during any of the demos this scenario is a realistic possibility. It also explains why the COP cannot be much over 6.

2. Brad Arnold on May 31, 2012 at 10:32 am

I am not sure people realize that COP is in a sense irrelivant, because if the E-Cat can generate electricity, it can supply it’s own electricity, thus making the COP infinate (it using some of it’s own electricity is just another inefficiency in the system – equivalent to say the inefficiency of a turbine turning heat into torque).

• praos on July 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Not irrelevant, by no means! If efficiency of genset is realistically put to be 35%, then for COP6 eCat only 20% will remain to be delivered to grid. This will increase the size (and cost) of the plant by factor of 35/20 or by about 75%. In all probability this is not a game stopper, but irrelevant? Hardly.

3. edog on May 30, 2012 at 2:22 am

Was that the Amazingly Important news Roosi had for us?

• edog on May 30, 2012 at 2:24 am

For the uneducated:
ruse (ruːz) pronounced R-oo-s

-an action intended to mislead, deceive, or trick;

Am I being harsh giving Rossi his nickname Roosi?

• Fede on June 1, 2012 at 4:53 pm

Not harsh but certainly not constructive!

4. Francisco das Chagas on May 30, 2012 at 1:58 am

Any device with a COP of just 2, in terms of ELECTRICITY, is a “Holy Grail”.

But the output needs to be ELECTRICITY.

Just think: if I have a device that puts out 2 times more ELECTRIC energy than the ELECTRIC energy needed to put the device to work, I can use half of the ELECTRIC output to feed the input power of AN EXACTLY EQUAL DEVICE, and the other half of the output to feed A THIRD DEVICE, ALSO EXACTLY EQUAL TO THE FIRST ONE!

That means: if devices A, B and C are equal, and have an ELECTRICAL COP of 2, then, the output of A is enough to power the input of B and C.

This way, with the same energy input of “X” on A, I can have “2X” output from B and “2X” output from C, with a total output of “4X”. So, the COP that was 2, becomes a COP of 4!

And we can use that “4X” output to feed four other equal devices, D, E, F and G.

D, E, F and G will give a total output of “8X”. So, COP 2 becomes COP 8!

And there you go…

In the end, you may have 1024 devices being powered by 512 devices, that are powered by 256, that are powered by 128, etcetera, until you have just ONE device in the base of all the system. COP 1024.

I guess you understand that any device with a COP of 2, that can be replicated, is equal to INFINITE COP.

COP 2 = INFINITE COP.

• longjohns on May 30, 2012 at 2:48 am

cop of anything greater than 1 is infinite

• Dave on June 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm

But the problem always is that you DON’T have electrical output! Your output is heat and turning heat into electricity means that your COP of 3 may not even be enough to get the same electrical energy out as in.
Using an E-CAT to generate electricity means that a COP of 6 may NOT be enough for domestic electricity generation! You simply lose too much energy when converting heat to electricity at the domestic scale…

5. [...] E-Cat World This entry was posted in About Cold Fusion, ColdFusion Updates and tagged andrea rossi, cold [...]

6. Hank Mills on May 29, 2012 at 10:42 pm

The Very High COP of the E-Cat

Recently, there has been a lot of talk and discussion about the COP of the E-Cat. The term COP stands for coefficient of performance. Basically, it means how much power you put in compared to how much you get out. With the E-Cat, you are guaranteed to get out six units of power (thermal) for everyone one unit of power (electrical) you put in. This means that a minimum COP of 6 is guaranteed.

A few individuals have been trying to spread lies saying that a COP of six is low. However, it is not. A COP of six is actually very high. For decades hot fusion scientists have attempted to build reactors that can exceed a COP of 1.1, and have not been able to do so. They have not been able to do so despite billions of dollars in funding. However, the current models of E-Cat that are soon to be commercialized can produce an average COP of six which is tremendously higher than any attempt at hot fusion has ever been able to produce. In addition, this COP of six can be produced utilizing only tiny amounts of fuel, without producing any nuclear waste, and without producing any radiation that can escape the reactor.

With a COP of six and 600C steam the E-Cat technology can change the world. A higher COP is not required. Consider the following example.

A one megawatt plants produces one megawatt of output power in the form of steam, while consuming 166 kilowatts of electrical power. With 600C steam a turbine can produce electricity with approximately 45% efficiency or greater. However, to be conservative lets say the efficiency is only 40%. This means that 400 kilowatts of electrical energy is produced. 400 kilowatts of output minus 166 kilowatts of input equals 234 kilowatts of excess power.

Basically, a first generation one megawatt E-Cat can produce 234 kilowatts of excess power. This is enough power to run a small neighborhood of homes. It is also enough power to run a medium sized business or a shopping mall. This power will be produced with almost zero fuel cost (maybe \$20 dollars a year), no pollution, no nuclear waste production, and the only cost will be the purchase of the system and maintenance.

The price of the first systems will be economical, but not as low as the price will be once the scale of production is increased. Once they are mass manufactured the price will go down even more. Eventually home E-Cats that can produce electricity will be mass manufactured, and the price will go down to the point that energy will be dirt cheap.

However, a COP of six is not the limit. In the past E-Cats have produced COPs of 200 or more during periods of self sustained operation. During self sustained operation the electrical resistor is turned off, which is what consumes the majority of the input power. The only power consumed is from the radio frequency generators, sensors, and whatever pumps are needed. The result is that a huge amount of output can be produced with very little input.

Right now, an E-Cat cannot run forever in self sustained mode. Every so often power has to be applied in the form of a “drive.” Otherwise, the reactors can become unstable, the nickel powder can melt, and the reactor can go dead. Resolving this is just a matter of engineering and research. I am sure that in future generations of E-Cat the self sustaining periods can be made longer, and the COP will become even higher.

So in fact, the E-Cat can produce a very high COP right now, but only for certain periods of time. Then the COP will go down when an input is applied. This is not a big deal, because the average COP will always be at least six. A few years from now, the average COP may be 10 or 20.

But again, a COP of 10 or 20 is not needed. A COP of 6 is very high.

It is high enough to produce all of the world’s electricity.
It is high enough to desalinize ocean water.
It is high enough to provide all of the world’s heating.
It is high enough to be incorporated in vehicles.
It is high enough to end the energy crisis, and end the use of fossil fuels.

A COP of 6 is high, regardless what the skeptics or competitors say.

• jacob on May 29, 2012 at 10:51 pm

thank you Hank for clearing that up,that’s what i thought it would be enough to lead to excess power
or infinite overunity on the system.thank you

• Francisco das Chagas on May 30, 2012 at 2:05 am

400 kilowatts of electrical energy are enough to power TWO E-cats, that require only 166 kilowatts each (so, two E-cats require 332 kW for input).

So, you can have E-Cat number one receiving an input of 166 kilowatts, and producing 400 kilowatts of electricity, that is then used to power E-cat number two, and E-cat number three.

E-cat number two produces 400 kW of electricity, and E-cat number three also produces 400 kW of electricity.

So, you have the 166 kW of input to the E-Cat number one producing 800 kW of electricity from E-Cats number two and three.

166 kW becomes 800 kW.

Get it?

• jacob on May 30, 2012 at 2:20 am

equal unlimited energy

• Carlos on June 2, 2012 at 12:15 pm

It’s not unlimited, the E-cat consumes something in the process to create energy. However, if you build it right, no external input of electricity will be required once you turn it on, and the e-Cat will produce electricity as long as it has charge.

• Omega Z on May 30, 2012 at 2:39 am

Hank

If what we know of the E-cat is a fact, I agree with most of what you say in principle. Cop 6 is high. Even thou Rossi says there’s problems to COP>6, I believe in time those problems will be overcome.

There are home Geothermal heat pumps that can reach like COP 5.3 under Ideal circumstances. But these require 3 to 5 200 foot wells which aren’t cheap to drill & could never produce temps high enough to generate electricity. The E-cat wins hands down on upfront costs plus COP 6 guaranteed..

Refuel of a M-cat will most likely cost substantially more the a home E-cat. \$10/\$20. The M-cat has several hundred cores verses a home E-cat of a couple. Maybe Rossi’s charge on them will be better priced. We don’t know. Doesn’t matter. It’ll still be cheap.

IF You want to be off grid, The Home E-cats will have to be daisy chained or greatly increased in Kw range to power the average home. People don’t comprehend how much power they use at given times.

People look at the numbers & think 1,100Kwh per month & think a 10Kw E-cat is way more then they need.

Peek use is what you have to figure. A 10Kw E-cat even if it used no electricity itself at 40% won’t run the average Cloths dryer.(25amp@220volt=5500w) This doesn’t include the array of other things in your home that could be on or come on at any given time. The best peek usage calculation would be to figure everything in your home & add 10% Plus allow for an electric car at some point. At least in the near term. 300-mile to a charge in about 2 years. Possible 500/1000 in 5 years.

Figure peek*3/conversion to electric plus E-cats to supply the E-cats with Electric for total size. That will give you the total number of E-cat Kwh capacity needed. The number will be much higher then what Utilities figure because they know that not everyone will be running everything at the same time. Or you can timeshare your appliances. That means waiting to do something until something else shuts off.

If you stay connected to the grid, this isn’t a problem, Except that If everybody has one, The Utility isn’t going to buy it back. In fact if the grid is left intact, they may charge you a usage fee. Or they’ll eliminate it all together.

If the E-cats are used buy a Central Utility & you settle for your monthly Utility bill then these things aren’t a problem. You’ll still have cheaper electricity (Maybe half the present) & the Utilities could be more centrally located which would reduce outages & reduce outage duration times when they do happen.

I believe the later is what we’ll see at least in the near term. Future improvements in the E-cats may bring home electric generation to the people eventually. It will require major advances in the generators themselves or TE converters. I don’t see them allowing 600`C E-cats with several thousand PSI for consumer use anytime soon. The Risk factors are to high. Heat & hot water for now. Cooling later.

It’s not my intent to put a damper on things. It’s easy to let our imaginations & hopes get ahead of us… Such as, thou there several years away, Others are working on different LENR type projects where direct electrical conversion has been mentioned. What that entails is anyone’s guess at this point. Does it mean 10Kw would produce 10Kwe or near it. We can hope…

• Robert Mockan on May 30, 2012 at 4:38 am

Hank, presently the average NET efficiency of coal fired electric power plants is 31%. This is using a heat source from chemical combustion with a temperature of 1300 C to 1700 C. Newer plants can just make 40%, using very high pressure super critical steam and heat source temperatures of 1700 C, lots of heat exchanger regeneration, and heat sinks near ambient. These are the practical numbers.
Not withstanding Siemens turbine efficiency, it is heat exchanger temperature differences that enable practical high NET efficiency in electric power plants. A LENR 600 C reactor can never be a drop in replacement for a boiler with a heat source of 1700 C. I do not recall reading any person “spreading lies” that COP=6 is low, relative to hot fusion research. Nor is it low relative to much previous experimental LENR research heat source studies. But, Hank, to a power engineer a COP=6 LENR reactor leaves much to be desired, even at 600 C. I also should add that will not be the temperature of the steam, because *practical* heat exchange requires a large temperature difference. With a 600 C core temperature, and the reactor shutting down at low temperature, and regeneration required to raise the working fluid back up to the lower reactor temperature limit before drawing more heat, it is not possible to have the super critical steam one obtains using a 1700 C boiler. So, really, expect 25% to 30% maximum NET efficiency of the power system. And that is where the devil of the details lay with COP=6. It is not low, relative speaking to the comparisons you make, but…

• GreenWin on May 30, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Robert, while it is interesting to armchair engineer this stuff – I imagine these baby step numbers are just fine for now (and out of Rossi’s hands.) For the past 60 years and with \$250B the hot fusion guys have yet to deliver unity. Or a COP of 1.1.

• Robert Mockan on May 30, 2012 at 9:28 pm

Since 1989 there has been a persistent belief held by many that cold fusion could deliver, but ALL the promises have fallen short when it came to commercial applications.
Over 20 years ago cold fusion experiments were producing gain ratios of 6 at 400 C (Liebert and Liaw molten salt electrolysis with palladium and deuterium). In other experiments gain ratios of 1:1000 to 1:4000 were obtained (Patterson power cells), as demonstrated at the 1995 Anaheim Power Convention.
Thin films of nickel loaded with hydrogen gas were being melted 15 years ago, with high gain ratios. Piantelli himself was doing COP greater than the E-Cat using nickel and hydrogen over 15 years ago.

Until Rossi actually delivers, this is all deja vu to people who have followed this technology over the years. My “armchair engineering” is MUCH closer to reality than some of the promises that have been said or implied by others. My only concern is that I also expect more than can be delivered.

• Linda on May 30, 2012 at 11:00 am

Thank you Hank, all jokes aside, that’s excellent, it makes perfect sense.

However, six, ten, it hardly matters, because right now, for all practical purposes, it is actually zero if it cannot be tested or sold.

The only question that really matters is when? Can anyone answer that with any certainty?

• GreenWin on May 30, 2012 at 7:20 pm

Linda, if a some conscious field scientists e.g. Deepak Chopra suggest time is merely a human construct to measure stuff – the arrival of over-unity energy is now.

This will not satisfy evidence-based materialists but it does suggest that the day a group conscience imagines without doubt an e-cat or CIHT hydrino cell, or Brillouin boiler or Hyperion heater – is here… they will be.

For the pragmatists, it is fair to doubt Rossi’s predictions. But who did the rather elaborate wiring, plumbing and thermal engineering for his 1MW unit? It is no small task and someone – likely not Andreas, built the thing.

Personally, I suspect elves.

• Dave on June 1, 2012 at 4:58 pm

I believe a COP of 6 is just ok… A COP of 1.1 is simply nonsense and hot fusion has always been nonsense and just a consequence of twisted sceintific culture. For a domestic scale E-CAT generator however, there is still NO electricity production included, because the COP of 6 is still insufficient as it produces heat which is low quality energy (especially so when low temperature heat/steam)! And I believe that most of us are waiting for a domestic scale generator that includes electricity production.
Also, at a higher COP, for example 20, the LENR device becomes much, MUCH more efficient.

7. the snake on May 29, 2012 at 9:49 pm

COP is irrelevant, what counts is energy density. Surprisingly, Rossi never gives any quantitative response about energy density. So why doesn’t he measure how much energy he can squeeze out of a mass unit. He stated that a cartridge will be changed after about 6 months. He likes the number 6. I have no doubts that there is some internal energy in Ni-H compounds. There were some statements that say that H is depleted, that it involves some metal alloys or catalysts that take large amount of energy to be produced, some say it’s fusion but never try to prove actual radioactivity or let allow some analysis of the reactants. Defkalion’s prototype had a large fixed H-tank attached to their device. Up to now there is no proof and even no serious claim for a new energy source rather than a new energy transformation process of yet unknown physical explanation.

• Zedshort on May 30, 2012 at 12:16 am

Your snake handle is exceeded only the the slippery hold you have on coherent thoughts.

• Ged on May 30, 2012 at 8:33 pm

The answer is easy. Take the amount of grams of nickle Rossi says is put into the reactor per a six month period, and then the power output of the device, and voila, energy density. You can do it yourself with the knowledge already here, Rossi doesn’t have to do it for you.

• Dave on June 1, 2012 at 5:07 pm

If the energy produced is dense enough to fit a generator in a small home and energy can be produced at low cost, then the E-CAT is good eneough for me.
And I think that compared to geothermal systems, the energy density is at least 10 to thousands (or millions) of times more dense (just use common sense and look at his systems) so who cares…

8. Linda on May 29, 2012 at 8:57 pm

These clowns and their clownery have obviously been sent by the puppet snakes to vex Rossi.

Time and again, this has resulted in huge amounts of vented steam from Rossi. This process is quite reliable and repeatable. Unfortunately, this clownery-induced steam is the only steam so far proved by Rossi to have a COP above 6.

Perhaps the master plan of the puppet snakes is to actually put Rossi in a shipping container and torment him, thus providing the world with an endless supply of cheap energy, as well as amusement.

• GreenWin on May 29, 2012 at 9:38 pm

Heh, heh, a diabolical plan indeed!

• jacob on May 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm

linda ,they would love to put him in a shipping
container,but if he suddenly went missing it may
be aired on CNN, they can’t take that chance

• Zedshort on May 30, 2012 at 12:20 am

Very funny, but you fail to understand that I am the patho-skeptic puppet master. I and I alone bid them to come and go.

Come here my little snakey-poohs,
I have a tasty mouse for you.

9. Charles Ponzi on May 29, 2012 at 8:27 pm

> we never see anything working really at that level because it is simply impossible

Isn’t that what they said and continue to say about cold fusion aka LENR?

• Peter Roe on May 30, 2012 at 7:43 am

Sounds like something out of a time warp from 1989.

• Barry on May 30, 2012 at 11:59 am

No.

• Barry on May 31, 2012 at 1:10 am

Sorry Charlie

10. Andrew Macleod on May 29, 2012 at 8:01 pm

I think Rossi is only talking about the home ecat. A limitation brought on by removing the compressed hydrogen to get safety certification.

11. Carmania on May 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm

Assuming Rossi locked the design of the E-cat v.1.0 (and it’s not a scam) it is in his best business interest to not communicate better efficiency in coming version. I will not buy the first version anyhow unless it will pay of in less than a year since I am convinced there will be much better versions soon.

• Zedshort on May 30, 2012 at 12:24 am

Does that really make sense if it pays for itself in a year? Remember, your dollar is your most potent tool for sculpting the world about you. That which you vote for fills the world, for better or for worse.

12. GreenWin on May 29, 2012 at 7:34 pm

Momentum grows. The genie is out. Shadows recede.

“The resistance to a new idea increases as the square of its importance.” Bertrand Russell

Here’s an interesting article written by physicist and former NASA astronaut Dr. Brian O’Leary. He has personally investigated dozens of zp/vacuum-based energy inventions and is aware of the difficulty in bringing them to light. He might be a good source for the filmmakers at OddBox? who are making some kind of cold fusion film.

http://bit.ly/JseLkk

13. mobigozer on May 29, 2012 at 7:04 pm

@Robert Mockan: COP of 6 is interesting, I would guess a COP of 10 – 15 nevertheless is a minimum in my businesscase…
With turbinesefficiency of 1/3 to maybe 1/2.5 (max?) you need to have a higher COP, otherwise the payoff is simply to low. It’s experimental technology, isn’t it? No massproduction here.

• Robert Mockan on May 29, 2012 at 8:00 pm

I agree completely. I’ve posted several times some simple calculations showing that in small power systems trying to get extra electric power output using a COP=6 LENR reactor as the heat source, given that the NET conversion of thermal power to electric power is likely to be in the mid 20% range at maximum, not the idealized 30% to 40% efficiency, would result in serious engineering problems where a light weight power source is needed, like for aerospace applications. Although fine for hot water, even for a reactor used in severe cold climates where one has a reliable cold heat sink, and can use the waste heat for shelter or greenhouse heating, to substitute for fossil fuels in many applications the reactor needs higher COP than 6.
I would be very pleased with COP=20, at 400 C, even if only generating a few thermal watts per gram of catalyst or LENR fuel. Increasing the catalyst load is much more cost effective than the other power system hardware.
Rossi is saying his E-Cat catalyst can operate at 600 C and the calculated thermal output per gram is at least 100 thermal watts. If he can push the COP to at least 20, the technology WILL take over the world. My objection to COP=6 is physics and mathematics derived, and unless it goes higher, LENR applications for useful power will be limited, in my opinion.

• Claes on May 29, 2012 at 8:10 pm

But this was the heater with its integrated hydrogen solution, I haven’t heard that it would apply to the technology per se.

• Robert Mockan on May 29, 2012 at 8:46 pm

More experiments are needed. Unfortunately my discretionary funding has been depleted. I may have to take another hiatus for a few years to save enough to continue.

I’m sure many LENR researches have lamented the fact that continued delay developing this technology is literally killing millions of people.

This state of affairs is pathetic.

• jacob on May 29, 2012 at 9:36 pm

maybe give Rossi some credit and it is wise
for him to stick at COP of 6,so it will not lead to mass panic, we all know what he said
earlier even units still running and producing heat after being shut off ,and Defkalion with a cop of 20 according to Sterling Allen on his visit to Greece.

The clowns and puppets are breathing a sigh of relief and can catch their breath
to hear that the limit is COP of 6 and are taking some time to regroup.

An other possibility is the military customer got under pressure from the feds
to kind of please ,please do please pretty please do no ruin our oil industry and nuclear industry not yet altogether ,because we worry so much and can not sleep
at night and have night mares at cop of 20

don’t you all agree? someone said something
to keep the COP down.

Was it Dick Smith ?

• Robert Mockan on June 1, 2012 at 1:28 am

A very real possibility the COP=6 limit is propaganda. Another reason why every person needs to know how to make the LENR catalyst. The fascists would want control for as long as possible.

• Omega Z on May 29, 2012 at 8:53 pm

COP 6 is good.

It will get the Job done. with multiple units it can be self sustaining & cost effective.

However I agree that Cop 10 would be the Ideal minimum & anything beyond that would be icing on the cake.

Rossi has always stuck with Cop 6 guaranteed. I fully agree with his point/position. If he has COP 6 with stability, it’s best to go forward & get a working system completed for market.

Face it. If Rossi said he was putting the project on hold until a higher stable COP was reached, the hardcore skeptics would have a field day with it. Especially if it took several years to obtain.

Once he has completed a marketable system, he may back-step & look at ways to possibly improve the COP. If not Rossi, Someone else will.

As you said. It is experimental technology & even thou there may be things that prevent a higher COP, There is nothing that rules it out at this time. Not even Rossi’s statement to that effect. Even he is still learning as he goes. Theirs just to many unknowns.

Many people are taking bets/sides on different horses in this horse race. Personally I’m hoping Rossi is first. Mainly because I think he deserves the credit for busting out this can of worms. It’s helped open the door for others to come forward. Even NASA is getting into the public act.

At the same time I would like to see all the different approaches to this technology to work out for many reasons. It allows competition. Good for the consumer. It also allows different tools for different Jobs. Undoubtedly some will work better for different things.

I’m also of the opinion that this technology will take years to be integrated into society. The more options & companies involved will speed this up.

A 600`C E-cat with several thousand pounds of pressure will probably never make it into personal possession for homes due to safety concerns. These other systems my by pass that problem & it will become possible for individual electrical production. There are many problems to overcome that many don’t give a thought to, But in time these problems can be fixed.

Things are at least headed in the right direction, But we still need to see one completed & on the market. You can’t take further steps until you complete the 1st one.

14. PersonFromPorlock on May 29, 2012 at 6:16 pm

‘Rossi says’ whatever. Let’s see something that works.

15. Robert Mockan on May 29, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Defkalion claims up to COP=20, and product sales in July/August of 2012.

Clearly, if Defkalion is not in error about their measured COP, then we are NOT looking at an inherent limitation of the LENR process using nickel and hydrogen, but engineering issues.

I would be more than pleased with COP=20 and 400 C.

• jacob on May 29, 2012 at 9:43 pm

COP of 6 stable is a good start,and can work its way up, UL and Patent office could be asking to limit it at COP of 6 ,and if they comply ,Rossi may get his patent accepted and a book with UL stickers

• chris robinson on May 29, 2012 at 10:07 pm

However Rossi has now unequivocaly stated that he considers COP6 to be the theoretical maximum limit for LENR technology and apparently intends to put out a paper with his hypothesis on why that limit exists shortly

Defkalion have previously maintained COP20 with what I thought was near identical technology

Brillioun have stated COP10 is feasable

This is an intrigueing turn of events

• Omega Z on May 29, 2012 at 10:15 pm

No offense, But Defkalion has shown us much less then Rossi. Because of their initial involvement with Rossi I believe they do have a work in progress. But I think they also have engineering issues.

I think I also read were they intended to have a working prototype by sometime in July. This would be required before any UL certification could begin, so even if their being up front with most of the facts they are behind Rossi.

They may have jumped the gun on there COP numbers early on. We’ll just have to wait & see. Prototypes/proof of concept & a consumer product can be totally different animals. Rossi’s home E-cat is half of what his prototype was. I also read where someone who new someone at Defkalion(Rumor) said their using a surging process to control the core in place of Rossi’s secret Ingredient. Something I believe Rossi had tried at 1 point.

This may be a problem to overcome because of stability but, may be of help to Rossi increasing higher temps if he already has stability.. Just speculation as none of us really knows anything about the inner workings of the core.

My Opinion & something most people don’t think about is the Extremely High temps at such a small scale(Size of a D cell battery) makes it very challenging to transfer heat fast enough to keep the core from melting.

You have limited transfer surface. The hotter the fluid gets the harder it is to transfer heat to it. The Laws of Physics. Slowing the flow to increase heat transfer allows core temp to rise to much & melts down. Increasing the flow reduces heat transfer & fluids don’t get hot enough.

Having worked with Heat on demand water systems makes me aware of the problem. The Fact that Rossi has stated that they have completely redesigned the core for the M-Cats implies this is the problem. Their trying to increase the transfer surface area without diluting the LENR effect.

I think many people here would be less critical of Rossi if the had a better understanding of how complex this problem is. Getting 600`C & stable is a Major accomplishment. Personally, I’d love to tinker with this situation for Kicks. But I’d hate to be under the Pressure Rossi is by the impatient people on these sites.

My simple explanation of the problem probably won’t change their attitude much if any. It’s something many need to personally experience to truly grasp the difficulty..

It’s enough to make you pull your hair out. Fortunately for Rossi, he doesn’t have much. But then, Maybe that’s why!

• Omega Z on May 29, 2012 at 10:24 pm

It’s hard to keep rumor & facts strait. But I also think it was mentioned by Defkalion that they may license their product & it would be up to each Individual licensee to get UL certification in their marketing zone.

• jacob on May 29, 2012 at 10:36 pm

do we really know what Defkalion is doing
don’t hear much right now, but the Greek like Italians are hard at work and i am sure working with a feverish stamina to get ahead
of Rossi,and the Greek and are deep down warrior spartans running toward the finish line ,their economy is not good ,thanks to the mob of Banksters that target Greece.

My money is with Defkalions stolen Rossi reactors,if they can take that from Rossi,that means they are shrewd business operators walking over d. bodies to get there.

don’t underestimate the Greek ,when they are quiet ,they get the job done .

• Omega Z on May 30, 2012 at 3:13 am

No. Don’t know anymore then anyone else. As stated, mostly what you’d consider rumor as in some who knows someone says.

But certification will make a difference & I do recall Defkalion stating early on that they may have the licenses pay for their own certifications independently. Of course that’s been some time ago & things can change. Defkalion did state that their prototype would be ready come July. Again several months ago.

First to market also doesn’t guarantee success long term. Many first to market companies have disappeared when the Big money steps in. There are no guarantees for anyone. Not even Rossi.

• Casey on May 30, 2012 at 5:41 pm

I do recall Defkalion stating early on that they may have the licenses pay for their own certifications independently.

But if the Defkalion design will collide with Rossi patent, it might live licensee with royalty paid to Rossi or some lawsuit

16. Karl on May 29, 2012 at 3:35 pm

I do not see why a COP 6 should be a show stopper. Connected to a reasonable effective turbine, for every 600 degree e-cat you operate should be able to feed the e-cat with the electricity needed to keep it in sustainable operation. In addition you could deliver about an equal amount of electrical power for other purposes. In case of using it for a household, by taking care of the rest heat this could be used to heat or cool a house.

• Peter Roe on May 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Assuming a handy 33% conversion, that means that in ‘self sustaining’ mode, the 6 units of heat output would provide 2 units of electricity, a half of which is then required to drive the reactor, i.e. goes back into the system, meaning that output is actually 5 units. So for every 1 unit of electricity out, 4 units must simultaneously be dumped as waste heat, presumably in the form of used steam.

Unless a good part of this waste can be recovered, or the generator is used in a CHP system, dumping the heat could be a problem. One perfect use might be in airships, where the waste heat could be used to heat helium, or even to heat air, to control lift.

• georgehants on May 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm

Am I correct in that Defkalion are claiming a much higher figure.
Should be interesting.

• Pekka Janhunen on May 29, 2012 at 4:40 pm

Peter Roe, nearly off-topic minor comment: helium is a byproduct of natural gas mining, hence widespread use in airships is not feasible. Hot air is a better idea.

• Peter Roe on May 29, 2012 at 6:04 pm

Perhaps helium could be transmuted from hydrogen using an ‘offshoot’ LENR technology! But I do like the idea of using the ‘waste’ heat from a Rossi reactor to generate an airship’s lift using hot air. Modern fabric or film materials could probably keep enough heat in to make this easily feasible. Using hot air would also mean that in the event of a tear in a lift cell, once the tear was patched the airship could be on its way again, no replacement helium required.

• jacob on May 29, 2012 at 10:00 pm

don’t worry there will be no more hindenbergs,we will be getting the same type of transportation,that our ancient civilizations arrived
on earth with thousands of years ago,also covered up real well in the dark ages we are still in,

ships ,mother ships , levitating cities all powered by space time ether magnetic propulsion.

In 1959 by an international signed agreement by the airplane manufacturers,including lookheed martin,GE ,skunkworks ,Boing have of and on asked for permission to use those antigravity motor for propulsion and to use the magnetic lifting technology from time to time,
rub a balloon on you hair and you have antigravity,hair stands up,it is just that simple just a little bigger and with DC static electricity that is a repulsive force.

• Alain on May 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm

if activation is done by temperature (and heat absorbed and paid back with the COP6) then even a small COP>1 can be tuned to get as high as possible. just insulate the reactor, and less heat leak, temperature increase, until the reaction is stable and only a small part of the heat is leaked.

if excitation is electric, then COP6 is needed, but above 350C it is much enough.

17. Robert Mockan on May 29, 2012 at 2:25 pm

There may be inherent limitations of LENR due to the energy cost of activation, and COP=6 for forced activation using the nickel and hydrogen system may be one of them. However, higher COP has been documented by other researchers using other materials, and the “heat after death” effect, where no electric power is used to sustain activation, has also been documented.

Depending on how much of the thermal energy release is coming from the nuclear binding energy of the nickel, and how much from hydrogen fusion, the fact is nickel has the highest binding energy of all the elements. It has been noted by many critics, as a reason for their skepticism, that the process of changing nickel to copper absorbs energy, rather than releasing it, and their question has been where is the net LENR energy actually coming from? If it does involve neutron creation from hydrogen protons, and neutron fusion into helium, then the energy cost of making the neutrons, subtracted from LENR using a nickel lattice, does give approximately COP=8 as the maximum possible, if electricity is needed for activation.

I do not consider the Rossi statement that COP=6 is an upper limit to be a show stopper, but obviously without much higher COP the nickel and hydrogen system would not be suitable for many applications.

18. Bruce Fast on May 29, 2012 at 2:23 pm

Rossi said, “we have from some part some clown that says I made a COP of 20 a COP of 50 …” And what ever happened to Rossi’s “self-sustain mode”? Obviously his “self-sustain mode” was unstable. Obviously his October demo was to a great extent smoke and mirrors. This is why Rossi’s word can’t be trusted. This is why those of us who believe that LENR is viable are not nearly as convinced that Rossi has what he says he has.

19. Frank on May 29, 2012 at 1:47 pm

“We have found physical reasons to this limitation”

Wow, what a drastic change in the physics must have happened – just a few years ago Rossi talked about measured Output/Input Energy ratio in the range of several hundreds!
You can find those numbers on page 4, table 1 of the ‘Rossi/Forcadi paper’
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2010NewEnergySource.pdf

• Robert Mockan on May 29, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Hmm. Yes, that paper by Rossi and Focardi dated March 22, 2010 raises many questions.

I suppose you refer to these numbers, that do indeed show output/input ratios greater than 6.

days method input energy output energy out/in
2008-5-28 A 0.2 83 415
2008-6-11 A 0.806 165 205
2008-9-2 A 0.5 40 80(*)
2009(2-17-3-3) B 5.1 1006,5 197
2009(3-5-4-26) B 18.54 3768 203
2009-10-22 C 0.018 3,23 179

According to the data provided Rossi was getting out/in ratios as high as 405, and the low was 80.

Focardi was a co-author on that paper.

• Casey on May 30, 2012 at 5:49 pm

Given numbers are from testings. Rossi also stated that many reactors were destroyed while tests were done.
This way he understand limitations to keep process in the reactors in safe condition.

• Ol' Bab on May 29, 2012 at 7:20 pm

It’s pretty obvious what’s going on.
In the first exciting years of real power being achieved Rossi’s goals looked like this:

1. Get some power in every unit (repeatability).
2. Get more power. No market for just a few watts.
3. Achieve as high a COP as possible to make it hammer-on-the-head obvious to skeptics.
4. Stay safe -no radiation poisoning, no explosions.
5. Get gross control. On-off.
6. Make it stable and (fine) controllable, ie, marketable.

NOW, he has 1, 2, and 3 mostly done, 4 is okay by experience. He’s under great pressure to deliver on promises, so the new list is:

1. Make it stable.
2. Make it safe.
3. To hell with COP, it won’t do both.

Ol’ Bab, who was an engineer…

• Omega Z on May 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm

I think that when Rossi found something that worked he jumped to the higher limits & worked his way down until he found a point where he could maintain stability learning things in the process & figuring in safety. This may even be a benefit for improving the E-cat faster in the future as he already been there. Knows what problems he’ll run into & have to overcome…

Everyone else started at the low end or opposite end of the spectrum & are working their way up. This may be a disadvantage for them as they can only speculate on what problems may arise. They haven’t been there. This may be a slower process.

Then again depending on the individuals working on it, many times people stumble onto answer by accident. Only time will tell.

Just to add. According to Focardi, Rossi didn’t want to start the demonstrations when he did. He would have preferred to have waited at least another year. Focardi wanted them done when they were Probably because of his age he wanted it to go public while he’s still around to see it.

Rossi agreed out of respect For their friendship & Focardi’s help with the project.

• admin on May 29, 2012 at 11:05 pm

Yes, I remember Rossi’s comment about honoring Focardi’s desire to do the demo — “friendship has its price.”

20. jacob on May 29, 2012 at 1:42 pm

For your information every body,a cop of 6 is enough
coupled with a Siemens power plant to have a self running machine ,because some output is used to run a electrical generator to power the Ecats and total
performance of that set up is INFINITE COP
once a machine is self running it has infinite cop.
and just needs small amount of nickel and hydrogen

The military ,if ECAT it put to proper use will have
unlimited range on any of their war machinery,patrol missions and peace keeping duties ,not having to refuel helicopters ,

folks this technology makes this possible ,and this
technology like the internet and other technology
like the micro chip also developed by the military,
laptops and flat screen TV”s, look what the military
already has done for us,education ,protection of our country,bringing us more every day.

There is good reason why the military is getting involved in this ,new cutting edge technology ,saving billions just on fuel patrolling the seas,

and since the US military also works with UK and CAN
military ,they would adopt it too

Is that how it is going to start to be implemented?
to once again make us proud of our military?

what better way to lift our spirits and we could almost dream about a new utopia possible .

• atanguy on May 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Why would you need such a big military if the need of energy for the nation and the rest of the world is satisfied by LENR instead of oil?

• jacob on May 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm

as in the second world war ,America went from a depression to putting everybody to work building war machinery,if it can be done again ,except for peaceful purposes to implement LENR and put our countries back to work,the military maybe the only power capable of doing it.
what are the chances anyone else can pull it off under the current conditions of oil and power monopolies ,and current banking cartels ,
we don’t stand a chance unless it is protected by the military and the military
can not be stopped by a cartel an oil mafia or government criminals.
the military will no doubt have a better vision that any government controlled by lobbyists

• Peter Roe on May 29, 2012 at 8:08 pm

Past experiences with military rule have not been encouraging, anywhere that I know of.

• jacob on May 29, 2012 at 10:17 pm

just a temporary involvement
is required

• Omega Z on May 30, 2012 at 12:01 am

@atanguy

Sadly, for the foreseeable future, there will be Idiots who still have dreams of grandeur & power. Think North Korea, & Iran who want sharia domination of the World.

Hopefully if LENR comes to fruitation & spreads & peoples standards of living improve & life becomes better they’ll lose there pool of followers. Ending their dreams grandeur!!!

Things then just become a matter of law enforcement & Militarizes can be drastically scaled down.

@jacob

As I stated above, LENR could eliminate most of the problems & the Military will be much less necessary although needed in other ways in a smaller form.

As for putting people to work, The Military acts as an Economic Driver. The same could be accomplished with a major space program both public & private.

Fortunately LENR Technology will make this much more feasible & we will still reap all the technological advantages gained just as with the Military. Maybe more so.

In the Early NASA days, it was estimated that every dollar spent created 15 dollars in new jobs down line. Even today they estimate a 7 to 1 return. That’s better then COP 6. LOL.

Sadly, today our politicians don’t seem to have a clue as to what a real economic driver is. It requires a focused approach such as the Military during WWII or NASA in it’s early days or the Manhattan project. A solid Goal. Public support is always welcome & preferred when possible. Society wanders aimlessly without a united Goal..

Today, most things are more of a scatter shot & the only reason there is any focus on the Military today is because of the War.

And I agree, Wouldn’t it be great if we could do this without Killing people being the Focus of our attention instead of making things better for all.

I believe the Human race was meant to advance, learn, & grow, not just to survive- Eat,work,sleep- eat work sleep.

What would be the point. Might as well be sheep. Such a waste having been endowed with a magnificent brain.

Kudos to many of you who post & follow this technology. It speaks volumes of the Human spirit whether you grasp all the complexities or not. You can’t reach the stars if you can’t dream.

• jacob on May 30, 2012 at 12:43 pm

thank you for your reply,I appreciate the fact that I am not alone in my believe that the human race was meant to advance and have
abundance for all and predestined to
live in a new Utopia ,I just feel it
is meant to be.
I hope I can be part of creating that
and probably already created it for myself, I am self employed ,I provide a service in the agricultural community ,never have a shortage of work and I can appreciate where i am.
my hope is succeed in building free
energy devices the a tough enough to stand up to the high G-forces to produce energy from the magnetic vortexes ether back ground

• Casey on May 30, 2012 at 5:52 pm

Senator Mark Udall of Colorado rattled off a series of statistics that underline the reasons for the military’s emphasis on becoming as green as the army’s uniforms:
- The military is 25 percent of government’s energy burden
- The Pentagon is biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world, burning 300,000 barrels of oil per day at a cost of more than \$30 million in fuel per day
- A \$1 increase in the price of oil increases DoD’s energy cost by \$100 million per year
- 1 out of every 50 convoys in a combat zone results in a casualty, and the Army has accrued more than 3300 fatalities in convoys since 2001
- Convoy and security costs \$100 per gallon for combat zones
Udall emphasized that the military is implementing many fuel-reducing technologies because of the high human price paid in getting fuel to the front lines. “Saving energy saves lives,” he said, adding that adopting clean energy technologies is “one of the most patriotic things we can do.”

• GreenWin on May 30, 2012 at 7:35 pm

Casey, kinda makes ya wonder why Senator Udall makes no mention of NASA acknowledgment of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Or any mention of LENR. Maybe he’s not the patriot he thinks he is.

21. Tom on May 29, 2012 at 1:28 pm

So this means the 600°C unit is being heated to 100°C by external sources? Could you possibly use one Ecat to heat the next and daisy-chain Ecats to get infinite COP?

• Bruce Fast on May 29, 2012 at 2:20 pm

I don’t think your calculations are at all correct here. Rossi is putting electricity in, and getting heat out. Daisy chaining is not possible without a heat to electricity conversion. Such conversions have a cop of about 1/3 at best. (At best means when the heat source is about 600c — the hotter the more efficient.)

• Jim on May 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm

even with a generator for electricity, the heat isn’t lost. So no reason not to stick in a generator and get 1/3 electricity. That electricity is still twice as much as you put in.

• Tom on May 30, 2012 at 12:08 am

But does an ecat have to be powered by electricity? Could it be powered directly from the thermal energy from another ecat?

• Casey on May 30, 2012 at 5:55 pm

It need also electricity to run pumps and control instruments

• Robert Mockan on May 29, 2012 at 3:25 pm

It depends on what, exactly, the electric power input to the E-Cat is being used for. If just for resistive heating then engineering should be able to design use of reactor heat directly to sustain the E-Cat operation. I suspect Rossi may be using resistive heating of the reactor core to provide hydrogen diffusion through the lattice because hydrogen absorption and desorption in nickel are temperature dependent. In other words, he may be using temperature dependent pressure cycling, and resistive heating simplifies the system controller. If that is the case, then COP=6 is NOT an inherent limitation, and a more efficient design is possible.

• Omega Z on May 30, 2012 at 12:45 am

@ Robert

I think I recall Rossi answering someones question that any heat source could be used in place of the Electrical input to start the reaction. Natural gas or whatever with design modification.

But I don’t take that to be a given as sometimes Rossi misspeaks due to misunderstandings in the language translation.

Even if correct the E-cat would still require some Electrical input to run the controls/pumps & so-forth. Besides. The point is to eliminate fossil fuel use & non-fossil fuel technology isn’t cost effective or reliable 24/7. The point of the E-cat-Cheap Energy/Dependability.

Also, There is a lot of research going on in electrical generators that can use lower temps/waste(<100`C) heat that look very promising in a few years. Forget Siemens for now. Others are working on systems designed specifically for the individual small scale.

The E-cat is just half of the Equation. Advances in other areas is the other half. A Working E-cat to market will spur this other research at a much faster pace as they will want to get in on this. It's highly possible by the time an E-cat II comes to market you'll see 35% to 40% conversion to electric with low temps. It would require a heat sink of which some are looking to heat operated heat pump cooling systems designed into them.

To mention a possibility.

Some speak of dumping the waste heat after producing electricity & requiring a heat sink.

It may be possible to incorporate a multipurpose unit. Produce Electric then dump the waste heat into the home when it's cold, divert to hot water storage, & a heat pump for cooling when it's hot.(Ammonia & duel/fluid Refrigerant systems work by heat/ Not compressors.) This is just 1 of several systems of this nature but would require re-engineering to be cost effective in this arrangement. The Research mentioned above may already have a head start in this area.

• Robert Mockan on May 30, 2012 at 10:33 pm

It would make sense to use electric power in a feedback control circuit, but it would be ludicrously poor engineering to use it for resistance heating if there were any way to utilize LENR heat directly to accomplish the same purpose. Electricity for the electronics is a given, of course, but that should not use more than a few watts regardless of reactor thermal power generation.

Either something is not right with the assumption about how that electric power input is being used, or the E-Cat design is seriously flawed.

• Omega Z on May 31, 2012 at 8:06 pm

@Robert

I should have added that it was implied that Electric is also very convenient for the development of the E-cat verses other heating options.

As stated before, It’s been sometime since I read this on his blog & my Memory may be off. There are something like 4K Q&A and would probably take many hours to find it.

I enjoy most of Your & GreenWin among a few others posts. Reasonably fair objectivity neither extreme skeptic nor Blind faith. Something mainstream Science could use a little of.

22. Lu on May 29, 2012 at 12:49 pm

Safety issues may generally be overcome with proper engineering so I’m not sure where Rossi is coming from.

• Claes on May 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Such as by limiting the effect. Car engines are generally possible to trim to give a lot more output but all sorts of problems arise from that with reliability and safety. So the proper engineering response is to limit the effect to some comfortable level that doesn’t stress the design. Of course you may use much more expensive designs and materials also, but that would impact the cost of the product. Nothing strange really?

• Lu on May 29, 2012 at 1:29 pm

One way to overcome the safety issue is to limit the effect. The other is to build in safeguards which allow for “higher” operating levels.

• Zedshort on May 30, 2012 at 12:51 am

Give an example of the safeguards please.

• Ol' Bab on May 30, 2012 at 1:23 am

Rossi has made it pretty clear that he has to have a “low” (6) COP to get stability. Stability is absolutely required for safety, because nobody with their ass on the line is going to certify as safe something which can’t be trusted to not put out 200% or 1200% power at random intervals. This is engineering.

I’ll grant that better engineering (or luck) might have lead Rossi to the higher stability that Brillouin gets. Then he would be fixing his COP at (say) 12 or 20.

Ol’ Bab

### Polls

How has your thinking been affected by 3rd Party E-Cat Report?

View Results

### Support ECW With a Subscription

 Suggested Subscription Options 1 : \$1.00 USD - monthly 2 : \$3.00 USD - monthly 3 : \$5.00 USD - monthly 4 : \$25.00 USD - yearly 5 : \$50.00 USD - yearly