LENR-Invest and LENR Cities Announce Partnership

Here’s an announcement that was passed on to me by Michel Vandenberghe of LENR-Cities, an organization “working on an innovative open business model designed to tie LENR research to the early adopters in industries as parts of a business ecosystem”

May 10th 2013

LENR-Invest and LENR-Cities tune their energies on LENR market.

Their teams are pleased to announce that they are partnering in order to grow the reach of their ecosystem by offering new capabilities to companies developing LENR applications.

Our joint offer addresses needs in funding and technology enablement by leveraging all capabilities of our ecosystem and partners.

For more details, please send an email to contact@lenr-invest.com or contact@lenr-cities.com.

LENR-Invest, based in Lausanne, Switzerland, has recently launched a web site and where they state their goals: “Our philosophy is “the more we are, the stronger we are”, and we focus on creating and strengthening collaborations between the actors in the field. There is an ocean of opportunities for companies related to new and clean energy. LENR-Invest team is dedicated to make this happen as fast as possible.”

Some more information about the partnership is described here in a post on LENR-forum.com.

It’s not surprising at all to see people with confidence in LENR to start thinking about ways to bring the technology into to the marketplace, and it will be interesting to see how this kind of activity will develop over time.

  • Tracker

    Admin, may be should you add a post everyday (with a title such as ‘Today discussion DATE’. More than 50 replies on are off-topic, not including this one 🙂

  • Barry

    Great work Tyler thanks. Though it feels strange to be in agreement with Mit Romney.

    This is not only a great resource but a good link source for a professor to do his own research.


    • Barry

      Qops, out of place. Comment in ref. to Tyler’s at the bottom of the page.

  • buffalo

    you guys have got it all wrong here.if the COP of the mouse is eg.1 then the COP of anything ontop of the mouse is far greater than 1.if the mouse pays for itself,then evrything added to the mouse is overunity.so 35% of the time the COP is 99times overunity and 65%of the time its 100overunity.

    • miau

      I take one basic hotcat (mouse+cat) as reported by rossi. I am in no mood to calculate other than simple math and I don’t care about the inner organization of the system.

      I calculate the overall output
      I calculate the overall input

      output/input = COP

      p.s. if a cascade system of many hotcats is possible than COP is not a problem as it gets bigger and bigger the more the tree gets bigger.

      • miau

        if Andre Blum’s hypothesis is correct than maybe all rossi’s words start making sense.

        ie the mouse pays for itself in the sense that after the first start the heat it uses is generated by the system itself.

        that would explain why rossi talked about almost infinite COP.
        that would also be utterly unbelievable.

    • Bob

      In all my experience with mice, they have never paid for themselves.

  • Alainco wrote : “Science will discover LENR in Wall Street Journal” ,

    Highly probable 🙂

  • lenrdawn

    As long as there is no domestic or industrial LENR product to buy and development either doesn’t exist or is kept totally secret, something like LENR Cities doesn’t serve any purpose. As soon as anything “LENR” is actually on the market, it’ll be so big that these guys will be swept aside by the big kids. Nobody will need anything like this – no matter what the scenario will be.

    • You are right. if there’re no products and no development, LENR-Cities has no purpose. Does that mean everything on this blog is pure speculation?

  • John L

    I believe the misunderstanding is: Rossi said
    “when the Activator is on ( and the Cat off)” and others thought:
    Activator Operation, on: 35% then off
    Tiger Alone Operation, on: 65% then off

    Therefore the equation is:
    COP = (t1*P1 + t2*P2)/(t1*P1/C1 + t2*P2/C2)

    But it may really be said:

    The ECat is activated for 65% of the cycle and as it is coming off SSM (temperature is starting to lower), the Activator kicks in (35% of the cycle)to bring it back to active (and subsequently SSM state)state again then the Activator is actually OFF. So the ECat is not actually in “OFF” state but “cooling OFF” state just after SSM.

    ECat is on in active and SSM state = 65% (but not really OFF)

    Activator on = 35% and actually OFF 65%

    The equation become: ECAt output always 100% ON (active + SSM) plus COP of the mouse for 35% of the cycle

    COP = (P2/0)+ ((t1*P1)/(t1*P1/C1))

    Since (P2/0) does not make sense

    COP = (P2/n)+ ((t1*P1)/(t1*P1/C1))

    n = parasitic heat loss

    Regards, John L

    • Peter Roe

      But Rossi uses kWh/h as his unit, meaning kW averaged over a time period. If the time period includes the various on/off cycles as it should, then the kWh/h figures already factor in the duty cycles, and therefore do not require complex calculations.

      • John L

        Same thing as KWh is energy (a Watt is a joule per second (time) or Power, so power x time gives you total energy). KWh/h is an expression of power (top h cancels bottom h).

        • Andre Blum

          Peter Roe understands that perfectly. He says by choosing kWh/h, this already factors in the duty cycles.

          • John L

            fully agreed. just elaborate to make

            thing clear for my own students

        • Peter Roe

          Thank you but I appreciate that. The use of the term kWh/h indicates that output power in kW has been measured repeatedly (or graphed) over a period of time, and then the unweighted mean has been calculated. The purpose of this procedure is of course to smooth out the effects of variability, drift, or in this case of on/off duty cycles.

          My point is that as Rossi is using the term kWh/h, then as long as the time period over which the measurements were made was long enough to cover one or more complete on/off operating cycles (as it would have to be in order to be meaningful) then there is no need to include the 35/65 duty cycles in any COP calculations, as the averaged power input and output figures already take account of the fluctuations in output caused by this factor.

          Edit: Thank you, Andre!

    • miau

      even if it is so, if the cat is always on (ssm or not) and its constant output is 1 (assuming that the mouse output must be added), we have: in a 100 unit of time (1*100+0.91*35)/(0.9*35)=4,1857142

      the hotcat gives us (as heat) apprx 4 times the energy we consume. ie COP 4.

      where am I wrong?

      • John L

        ((1*100)/n))+((0.35*0.91)/(0.35*0.9)) is a very large COP

        Why divide ECat power output by mouse power input? n is approaching zero (asymptotic).

        Remember he said the mouse pays for itself

        • SteveW

          The Mouse consumes electric energy and produces slightly more thermal energy with a cop of 1.02. Is this correct? Wouldn’t an ordinary electric heat element do almost as good (in a closed system). I don’t understand how this doesn’t reduce the cop and how the mouse “pays for itself” since it requires a lot more thermal energy to make the equivalent electric energy to run the mouse.

        • miau

          mmm you didn’t convince me. in the real world (not that of complicated COP formulas) I produce 1*100 + 0.91*35 and I consume 0.9*35 and the end result is that energy was multiplied 4x, not some large number (and that energy is heat). COP is 4.

          I hope my simple math is wrong but it doesn’t look so to me. I think rossi gave us wrong data, somewhere or he is working too much.

          p.s. 100=100% of the time
          35=35% of the time

          p.p.s. that parasitic heat loss n has to be added in the consumption list.

          • John L

            your original equation:

            That is Ecatoutput/mouseinput + mouseoutput/mouseinput

            mmm that is not a cascaded system, cat-mouse system but cat with mousewire + mouse with mousewire.

            • John L


              n is not an assumption. That differentiates between physics interpretation and pure mathematics.

  • elasticbucket

    peakoil.com used to be. Maybe a tad too many oil barons or left fielders though.

  • Björn

    Andrea Rossi
    May 12th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
    Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
    Please don’t go too far: just, for now, let’s limit to what I wrote about the Activator/E-Cat cycle. Please read carefully what I wrote. More than that is not possible to get, so far. Our basic module is made by an apparatus in which we have 2 components: an activator, which consumes abour 900 Wh/h and produces about 910 Wh/h of heat. This heat activates the E-Cat and then goes to the utilization by the Customer, so that its cost is paid back by itself. This activator stays in function for the 35% of the operational time of the syspem of the apparatus. The E-Cat, activated by the heat of the Activator, works for about the 65% of the operational time, producing about 1 kWh/h without consuming any Wh/h from the grid. Combining these modules we can make E-Cats of 1 kW , 10 kW, 100 kW, 1 MW , respectively, of power.
    Warm Regards,

    These figures give us a COP less than 3!

    • Kim

      Yes I agree, thats what i come up with
      COP of less than 3 According to this latest

      Man, were getting COP wiplash and mixed
      messages from Uncle Rossi.

      Whats up with that?


    • Peter Roe

      Rossi uses the term kWh/h, which implies that the duty cycles (35% and 65% for the 2 stages respectively) are accounted for in the figures he gives. If this is the case, then the overall COP is 1.0/0.9, i.e. about COP=1.1! Even if the figures do not take into account the duty cycles then the COP for the complete assembly would still be abysmally low: 1.0×0.65 / 0.9×0.35 = 2.06! What has happened to the COP in the hundreds claimed in the last pronouncement? (“we rate it between 100 and 200”).

      The ‘activator’ produces a gain of 0.91k/0.9kW i.e., just under 10%? On face of it, completely pointless. Why not just use a simple, slightly larger, resistance if that’s all there is to it. And then the e-cat only outputs 1kW averaged? (presumably meaning about 1.5kW during the 65% duty cycle). This is getting very strange.

      “producing about 1 kWh/h without consuming any Wh/h from the grid” What about the 0.9kWh/h grid power supply to the activator? This heat has nowhere to go except to be counted as a part of the overall output. It’s completely meaningless to say that ‘this pays for itself’ – how could it, if all that is produced is a marginal gain at the activator stage.

      I said I’d stop trying to analyse ‘rossisays’ but this one is so bizarre I couldn’t let it pass. These recent pronouncements move the goalposts practically daily, and seem to be deliberately engineered to sow confusion and doubt, but to what end I have no idea.

      • artefact

        I can only think that some of his numbers are wrong. It wouldn’t make sense else. Why go from COP 6 with a new design to something that low.
        Rossi said also that the COP increased because of the two stage design.

      • Omega Z


        I think we’re missing something here or Rossi is describing it wrong.

        Or Maybe the pressure has caused a break.
        Guess well have to stay tuned to see what going on.

      • Peter Roe

        Did I say ‘moving the goalposts’?

        I meant of course sneaking onto the football field in the night, taking down the goalposts then carting them away and re-erecting them in another town many miles away.

        ‘It does my head in’ – as my kids were fond of saying when they were about 12.

      • miau

        (1.0*65+0.91*35)/(0.9*35)=96.85/31.5= COP 3.0746

        it’s still half the old COP and not enough.

      • georgehants

        Andrea Rossi
        May 12th, 2013 at 9:50 PM
        Dear Frank Acland:
        while the E-Cat is turned on, no other source of energy comes to the system. When the Mouse is turned on, the E-Cat is turned off and in this phase the Activator draws energy from the heat source. When the E-Cat is turned on ( about 65% of the operational time) the denominator is zero, no energy comes from any source to heat the Activator and the E-Cat, while the E-Cat is turned off ( about 35% of the operational time) the activator draws energy from the heat source, but at the same time produces for the Customer an amount of heat that is equal or more than the energy consumed, so that irt is pays the energy that consumes by itself.
        Warm Regards,

        • Peter Roe

          Thanks George (and Admin).

          “while the E-Cat is turned on, no other source of energy comes to the system.”

          I assume this means that while it is in SSM no input is required. OK so far.

          “When the Mouse is turned on, the E-Cat is turned off”

          This seems to confirm a means of powering down the e-cat – but surely it gets its power as heat from the activator?

          “and in this phase the Activator draws energy from the heat source.”

          The ‘heat source’ presumably being electical input power to the activator. Or does he mean it draws heat from the e-cat – if so, how could it be switched off and on?

          “When the E-Cat is turned on (about 65% of the operational time) the denominator is zero, no energy comes from any source to heat the Activator and the E-Cat”

          Now he seems to be saying that both the activator and the e-cat are heated from an external supply.

          “while the E-Cat is turned off (about 35% of the operational time) the activator draws energy from the heat source, but at the same time produces for the Customer an amount of heat that is equal or more than the energy consumed, so that irt is pays the energy that consumes by itself.”

          He keeps talking about a ‘heat source’. What is this, if not an external electrical supply to the activator (gas? in which case how is this applied and measured).

          He also keeps coming round to the activator ‘paying for itself’ but obviously this couldn’t be the case if it consumes electrical power and only returns a marginal gain in heat output – so he must mean something else. In which case the whole assembly must be kick started by an external supply of heat, before it could ‘bootstrap’ as Rossi seems to be saying.

          I think that if we assume that Rossi has not in fact begun to gibber and drool, that he is trying to describe a system, but has been barred from giving away certain vital parts, and without this missing information the rest makes little sense (especially the nature of the input power and its relationship with output).

      • Peter: I’m getting 3.07: (0.35*0.91+0.65*1)/(0.35*0.9)=3.0746. Anyway, I also do not understand how the activator could pay for itself and how 1.x COP of the activator could make a big difference. If the activator accepts heat from another E-cat as input, however, then one could get unlimited COP from a backcoupled plant (he said “the source of the activator can be electric power, gas, or any heat source”). That might be a reason to separate the activator from the E-cat. In any case his recent comments look mysterious. Maybe he suffers from sleep deprivation accumulated in the last 2 weeks.

        • miau

          yes. if numbers are correct, allowing for a chain of reactors so that only the 1st activator (in a long tree scheme of mouses/cats) sucks energy from the grid seems to be the only reason for this new configuration.

          other than that, the sleep deprivation theory looks more and more likely… aren’t there some of his collaborators to help him explain clearly the configuration or do proper math?

          • Peter Roe

            Yes, complications like that would skew the COP figures, but Rossi does list 1kW as an option, in which case there would be no room for such ‘daisy chain’ cascaded arrangements.

        • Peter Roe

          Pekka and miau – I don’t understand why you are summing the outputs from the activator and the e-cat before dividing by the input, even assuming that the duty cycles need to be included in the calculation (Rossi uses kWh/h, implying that the figures are averaged, and therefore already incorporate the duty cycle figures).

          As the output from the activator must form the input to the e-cat, it can’t be included as separate output, so it simply becomes a part of the overall ‘1kWh/h’ combined output.

          Assuming one activator to one e-cat, 0.9kWh/h goes in, 1kWh/h comes out, so overall COP=1.1(ish) according to Rossi’s figures.

          • miau

            you’re right. looking at the reactor as described by rossi: 0.9*0.35 comes in and 1.0*0.65 goes out.

            rossi should sleep, something is missing or the mouse/activator can use the heat generated by a cat so that a tree configuration can multiply the COP at will.

        • Torbjörn

          Compare with this report from October 9th 2012: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot-cat-report/
          The self sustained mode was about 65% of the time and he got a COP of 11.7.

          • Torbjörn

            By the way, Pekka, I read about your solar sail for the first time in 2008, and now there is a new aricle in the science magazine ALLT OM VETENSKAP. Congrats!
            So does it extract 10 millinewton force from the solar wind?



            • Roughly, one 20 km tether produces 10 mN, 100 such tethers produce 1 N. 500 nN/m. Of course, these are theoretical estimates, should be confirmed by direct measurement in solar wind.

      • Guga

        I must agree with you completely. Well, I get a little different COPs, but that doesn´t matter.

        The whole “pays for itself” thing is pointless. That is like explaining that you can heat your house for free with electric heaters, because they produce the same amount of heat that you put in as electic energy.

        Writing about near infinite COP if he needs the same energy as input for half as long as the Ecat operates? Before we got these numbers I was asuming the activator needed only a fraction of the output power as input. Because otherwise his info would make no sense. But, what a surprise, it did turn out to be meaningless indeed.

    • Pedro

      Isn’t this 1KWh/h just a typo? The whole thing was about a 100 KWh Tiger, remember… so the 1 KWh seems out of place here. Should be 100 KWh I think.

      • Pedro

        That would also explain the 100-200 COP: in .35 KWh (1 KWh for 35% of the time), out 65 KWh (100 KWh for 65% of the time) gives 65/.35 = COP 200.

      • Peter Roe

        It certainly doesn’t make sense otherwise. But Rossi also says “Combining these modules we can make E-Cats of 1 kW , 10 kW,…”, i.e., he is confirming the 1kW output of a single module.

  • Roger Bird

    Too many cute catch phrases and words like “grow the reach of their ecosystem” for me. I don’t even know what that means. It is way to ultra-cool for me. Ah, the word “pretentious” comes to mind, one of my favorite words. They seem way too pretentious to me. I don’t trust them. I won’t invest in them. I don’t care what they say.

    • Hi Roger,

      Thanks for your feedback. We need your criticisms and suggestions. That shows it is time for us to open our books to give more details about what we are doing.

      One fact is clear anyway. We ALL need to get LENR activities to reach a critical mass to make things happen…

      You guess that what we are trying to do is not easy even if what we are going is not as clear as you may expect ; Right ?

      We apply the well known principle : “Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast”.

      About LENR-Invest : I think may be the key information is missing. LENR-invest’s strategy is to bridge the gap between a lab demonstrator and an industrial prototype, by funding companies at this early stage.

      Isn’t it venture capital for development business? You can find information about the company (Location social capital 100K), created in April this year. http://www.moneyhouse.ch/fr/u/lenr_invest_sa_CH-550.1.121.850-4.htm

      Do you think people invest 100k of their own money to be pretentious?

      Hope this helps 🙂

      • Roger Bird

        “Location social capital 100K” why is it that I have to ask what this means? That bothers me.

        • Is it the weather ?

          • Roger Bird

            Is what the weather? You are coming off as environmentally pretentious, and I am expressing my contempt for your approach to communicating. Is English not your mother tongue? Is that the problem?

            • Tracker

              In France and in Switzerland, english is not our native language, may be a part of the problem but for sure not the first one.

              100K was obviously about capital stock, not ‘social capital’ (my mistake, “capital social” is the term used in france for capital stock) but anyway this not your point.

              We do not ask you to trust. invest in anything or to care what we say : Just your opinion and criticism to improve our way

              We got it : Thank you.

              • By the way, ‘Tracker’ is my pseudo (related to a Market intelligence activity)

  • GreenWin

    More diversion from having to pony up? Cat and mouse leaves only the grouse.

    • Andrew Macleod

      I think your in the same mood I have been for awhile now. It’s hard to hold intrest in words and belief. It’s past the point of talk for me anyways, my only intrest now is cold(or hot) hard proof.

      • Hi Andrew,

        My question is the following : We’ve two decades of experiments with many proofs. Is it the key question or is there a need to have a focus on something else ?

        • Peter Roe


          I think that many people on LENR blogs are convinced that LENR is a real and potentially world-changing phenomenon. What is still less clear is whether anyone has yet brought the technology to the point of industrial usability.

          Andrea Rossi seems to have done so, at least in the case of the LT 1MW e-cat, but his claims on JONP have become more and more separated from any ‘hard proof’ that Andrew mentions. Recent posts in particular seem to indicate a lack of honesty (and sometimes increasing oddness) that have introduced doubt about earlier claims in many observers.

          Until someone – not necessarily Rossi – actually rolls out a working prototype that is confirmed genuine by one or more ‘3rd parties’ it seems too early to be talking about investment, other than high-risk speculative support, or about involving possible application developers. There will be an avalanche of both when the first confirmed working cold fusion boiler unit is presented.

          • Hi Peter,

            I understand your point of view 🙂 with some significant differences in reading what you say.

            We consider that bringing the technology to the point of industrial usability is not (only) a R&D question.

            When the boiler will be presented it will be too late to prepare the path to make it a potentially world-changing phenomenon

            There will be a period of lock-out between the presentation of the boiler and full market control by large organizations.

            The boiler is going to be presented.

            Our model is about building a win-win between LENR research and early adopters in industries.

            Peter Gluck makes a difference between LENR+ and LENR. I do think it is a key.

            • Peter Roe

              OK, I appreciate your point about the likelihood of cold fusion being ‘captured’ by vested interests as soon as it is proven. I have been making exactly that prediction on this and other blogs for a year or more (I lose track – it’s been a while!). I’m not sure that this has not already taken place in Rossi’s case.

              I agree that financial support of LENR developers, dissemination of information and promotion of commercial associations before public confirmation is a sensible path to take, and wish you success in your initiative.

    • Kim

      Time for talking is over.

      Time for Action.


      • We waited already much too long.
        Evidence where present since 1991 beyond any reasonable doubt.

        That make me thing that business MUST NOT WAIT for science, because science will accept LENR only when it is an industry.

        Notice how the report of Defkalion and Brillouin, have been ignored, not even criticized seriously… What they cannot reject they simply ignore.

        Science will discover LENR in Wall Street Journal.

        It is hard to swallow, but in “Antifragile” Nassim Nicholas Taleb remind us the story of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis,
        (read http://books.google.fr/books?id=T9hbUv4NIU0C&pg=PT184&lpg=PT184&dq=Ignaz+Semmelweis+antifragile&source=bl&ots=KAwyhHT9rH&sig=zuQmMF43aymCH9B9ksiAHEiNH7Y&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=d92QUYj9CZSUhQfZ8YDIBg&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAg ) that proved evidence that hygiena was needed and efficient in hospital, and was criticized with exactly the same arguments that were used against LENR (theoretical, errors, frauds), for longer than LENR leading him do psychiatric hospital and death of precisely the fever he tried to get rid of.

        The only question is whether it will be :
        1- a network of mid-sized companies like well grown LENR-cars, Kresenn, Defkalion, Leonardo corporation, Möse, Nichenergy, infinity turbine, Tesla, green turbine, Space X, National (id), chaffoteau & maury, Moulinex, Pilatus…
        2- a cartel of big industrialists like Mitsubishi, Toyota, General Electric, Huawei, Apple, Areva, Monsanto, Siemens, Exxon, Airbus, Boeing, EDF…

        If business is done as usual, you can safely bet on solution (2) with 20 more years delay.

  • Torbjörn

    “Our philosophy is “the more we are, the stronger we are”, and we focus on creating and strengthening collaborations between the actors in the field. There is an ocean of opportunities for companies related to new and clean energy. LENR-Invest team is dedicated to make this happen as fast as possible.”

    I believe that very few actors in the field will start to collaborate with each other, sharing their secrets, and let “LENR-Invest” invest.

    I have to say that this “LENR-invest-thing” sounds suspect.

    • lukedc

      Show me your secret sauce and I’ll show you mine.

    • GreenWin

      There would be lots more interaction and data sharing if there were actual paid jobs at hand. So far, 95% LENR work is squirreled out of well-intended souls for bupkis (Yiddish for ZERO.)

      “We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.”
      Kurt Vonnegut

      • Without a way to transfert a share of future value into today spending…no way 🙂


        Make a market, we do prefer the ecosystem term which is more relevant, in order to increase the likehood to get a share and do trading on this market to get way to pay jobs… Perception and evaluation of risk is a key criteria in investment.

        The LENR community as a whole as a huge asset…

    • Hello Torbjörn,

      You wrote : “very few actors in the field will start to collaborate with each other, sharing their secrets”.

      It is a key point! We think that keeping secret a such secret is the worse strategy ! Which actors can transform a “secret” into a world wide paradigm change in energy (or not), that is a lot more… Everyone knows that.

      LENR has nothing to do with ‘standard’ business and playing usual rules of game/business is the garanty to loose.

      it requires some efforts 🙂

      Either these actors play the usual game and they will be in the best case, somewhere in a lab of a big corporate … This can be enough for some of them but some have a dream and would like to have another strategy.

      We believe there’s one.

  • Don PA

    Admin – please allow this off-topic request.

    I need you and your reader’s help.

    As a multi-year follower of E-CAT World and the LENR saga who excitedly talks about LENR whenever possible, I have been asked by a Chemistry Professor at the University of Pennsylvania to reply to his LENR request.

    “I spent some time looking [at LENR]… I am no expert on these matters, but it doesn’t look substantially different than the Pons and Fleischman-type experiments and hence I am extremely skeptical that this isn’t just a chemical reaction.

    If you can point me to peer reviewed literature that says otherwise, I would be very happy to have a look.”

    Question – Can the E-CAT World Readers help me create a set of URL links which will provide good reading and help educate this Professor?

    I am aware of the NASA work, the MIT work and the work of many others – but I have not seen a comprehensive list of URL links which will clearly help a reader understand the state of the art of LENR.

    If each reader of this post can provide their favorite link, we can build a really great list.

    Your help is greatly appreciated.