How Does the E-Cat Pay For Itself?

There has been a flurry of Q & As on the Journal of Nuclear Physics since Andrea Rossi started to describe some more details about the ‘cat and mouse’ configuration of the new hot cat. Rossi has given similar results a number of times, and yet there still seems to be some confusion about how he gets to the ‘100-200 COP’ calculation. Here are three different attempts to explain from Rossi:

It’s simple: if the COP of the activator is >1, whatever the number, it gives heat that repays for itself, besides activating the E-Cat. The economy of the system is: the Activator consumes 1, yields 1.x as heat to the Customer AND activates the E-Cat: the E-Cat consumes nothing from the grid , gives its energy to the Customer.

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 it is pays the energy that consumes by itself.

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.

The key question here is how does the activator ‘pay for itself’, when it is has a COP of only just above 1? Is the energy required to control the ‘Cat’ so small as to be almost insignificant — and the rest of the heat is passed through to the output of the system?

To avoid off-thread discussion in the previous post, let’s keep our discussion about this configuration here. Ok — discuss!

UPDATE: Thanks to reader Glenn for providing this image to go along with our conversation. He is asking for critiques, so please feel free to comment!

proposed e-cat setup

  • Nicholas Payne

    Whats all this “h/h” stuff. Does it do anything except add to the confusion? Can’t it just be dropped on the grounds that it is “redundancy/redundancy”?

  • buffalo

    perhaps by regulating pressure the reaction dies but no significant amount of h2 would be ‘used up’ ever.all h2 content remains same always.

  • Al

    From Patrick Ellul over on Vortex:

    I thought he might have done a typo, and mean 10 kWh/h so I emailed him to ask.

    He confirmed that it was a typo, and he meant 10kWh/h for the ecat, just
    like it has always been.

    If that is the case:

    0.91 * 35% of the time = 0.3185 kWh/h
    *10* * 65% of the time = 6.5 kWh/h

    total output = 6.8185 kWh/h
    input = 0.9 * 35% of the time = 0.315 kWh/h

    COP = 21.65


    Rossi has mostly focused on the share of time spent in each mode, what matters equally much is the energy ratio. The critical question therefore is how small you can make the activator relative to the ssm module. So far we don’t have full clarity.

    • Peter Roe

      Goalposts moving again. Rossi has had plenty of time to realise that many of the questions he has been asked relate to the apparently small difference between input (wherever this comes from) and output, and the 1kW figure has been repeated in several places. There are still many open questions about start-up requirements and the nature of the ‘heat source’, and many contradictions with things he has said before. Perhaps Rossi can get the 13-yesr old schoolgirl to explain exactly how this thing is supposed to work, as he is certainly making a hash of it himself.

      From a practical POV it is just a ‘black box’, and any speculation seems a bit futile if we try to base this on Rossi’s incomplete and ever-shifting answers, as the ‘facts’ will have changed by tomorrow. All that matters is how much power needs to go in (even if just initially) and how much heat comes out – which remains to be seen if or when a device based on this concept actually goes into production.

    • M a r i o

      Patrick Ellul The average output of E-cat is 10kw/h per hour, considering the on time plus the off time.
      During the on time (1/3 of the time, let’s say 10 minutes on 30 minutes, the temperature of the E-cat does not decrease to zero centigrades, but few degrees.
      Similarly, during the off time (65% of the cycle, let’s say 20 minites on 30 minutes), the temperature does not rise of hundreds degrees. Of course there is a fluctuation, but in the order of tens of degrees. Therefore the E-cat COP has to be calculated on the average of 10Kwh/h. Then you have to add The COP of the activator. But the only electric energy used by the device (Activator + 10 kw E-Cat)is that of the activator.

  • lenrdawn

    A. Rossi:

    “I made what I wrote read by a 13 years old middle school girl, and she understood perfectly.”

    Unfortunately a 13 year old is never around when you need one. Rossi is playing games here. Having read through it several times and reading the comments on this site and JONP, I can’t make any sense of it without resorting to wild and inconsistent speculation and neither, apparently, can anybody else. No wonder the patent office rejected him so far. What else can they do when the only people in the world who know what he means are himself and a 13 year old middle school girl. 😉

    • Peter Roe


  • Karl

    I can’t read Rossi other than he has created the perfect energy supply. It is not exactly a perpetum mobile per definition but very very close. You just need to recharge the Cat (and possibly the mouse) perhaps once every 6 month. Under this time span his mechanism is virtually running by itself producing the selected energy, 1, 10, 100, 1000 kWh (depending on the type of the Cat) every hour for 6 month.

    You just turn it on, by activating the activator (mouse) which does not seem to need any external energy. After the Cat is on and operate in ssm the activator could stop or at least it is being activated again at the end of the ssm of the Cat to control the Cat. Now the activator controls the Cat until the Cat is stable and start to run in ssm mode again.
    The Cat is producing high energy during all the repeated cycles.

    It seems that Rossi has created a mouse (activator) that handle all control of the Cat:s energy production that does not need any external energy to start and at least operate during the required time period to reduce the power of the Cat at the end of the ssm of the Cat. The intriguing new mechanism seems to be the mouse that makes all this to happen. If this is the case the terminology of a certain COP seems from now on irrelevant.

  • LENR4you

    The main task of the activater-cat is to produce a sorte of X-rays for the hot-ecat to trigger the reaction!

  • What if

    Where is the test?

  • Dickyaesta

    Is it only me or has anybody else the feeling we are almost there?! Reading the expertise of the posts the ultimate days one would say so…. Thanks guys.

  • buffalo

    can somebody please remind me why an ecat begins to lose power after a while in the first place.if this was a nuke reaction wouldnt it be completely self sustaining??

    • Kim

      Similar to a pharmaceutical drug.

      you have a onset,peak,duration.

      Onset occurs at 68c.
      Peaks at 350c (known stability point)
      Duration at 350c (plateaus)
      Then falls back to 68c to start again.

      Why? How? What?
      Many theories and good ones at that
      but nothing solid yet.

      Very stable if controlled at proper points
      with software.


      • Shane D.

        Sounds like you are referring to my Viagra, up until your comment about “not solid yet”. So far works every time.

        Can’t see where the “software” comes in though.

        Take care,

        A happy customer

    • clovis

      HI, Buffalo
      Good question,I’m not sure that it does lose power after a while.
      The only reason i can think of to shut down would be to change reactors, every 6 months i think it was,

    • Shane D.

      If I have Dr. Storms right, I think it has to do with those nuclear active sites (crevases actually) he describes.

      There are only so many, depending on quality of material, along with surface preparation, and those particular sites seem to get worn out after a time.

      • buffalo

        i was also thinking along these lines however it doesnt explain the need to reboot the reaction as those active sites would be permanently destroyed after round 1.perhaps the other guys have it right here who say it is designed to not to have a ‘runaway reaction’

    • G_Zingh

      I think it starts to power down in ssm because it is engineered to do so otherwise the reaction cannot be controlled. The purpose of the Activator is to bring the ecat to a point it ss but not so much that the reaction feeds on itself. My understanding is that there is no way to cool the ecat other than the ecat cools itself by powering itself down for 35% of the cycle.

    • artefact

      Some time ago Rossi had the problem of runaway if he did not control the reaction good enough.
      At that time there was no 2 stage design. So one reactor had to produce h (or h- ) and do the reaction to get the power out of atoms. The reactor got hotter more h got produced and the reactor got even hotter if it could not be made stable. -> runaway.
      Now with the 2 stage design it is a lot safer I would think. The activator produces h, the e-cat uses it and gets colder until it is used up. Then the activator needs again to be started.

  • New Q & A from the JONP that has a bearing on the question at hand.

    1)The mouse / cat system is in closed loop? in the sense that the mouse is back-fed by (part of) the energy produced by the cat?
    2)If not, you’ll work on this in the future?

    1- no
    2- I do not know

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Is the heat being used my the activator?

      • clovis

        Bernie, I think that is correct.
        I think that it will use resistors only after,the cat has been shut down and for first time startup, energy can come from reserve electric energy instead of grid power and then it would truly be decoupled and ss so to speak,.
        but heck I’d just be taking a guess.

        • Omega Z


          Rossi says it does not feed back.
          I think what Rossi alludes to is the Energy used by the Activator feeds all the way through as useable heat in the output. AKA, Not Wasted.

          As far as cost, Using 900 watts to produce in excess of 200Kw would calculate to Less then a Half a Percent of the output.

          Or Consider getting $2 dollars worth of heat for less then half a cent. Negligible/Near Zero cost per unit of energy.

          • G_Zingh

            I am pretty sure the 900w number refers to the 1kW cat not the 200kW cat.

            • Peter Roe

              He confirmed 1 activator to each module, so that right. However, apparently each moule outputs 10kW, not 1kW, according to Rossi’s latest ‘correction’.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I am not an engineer, but many engineer types on this site and JONP have asked Rossi why he could not recirculate the heat to make the system self contained. I think “Rossi says” he has done just that, almost.

    • clovis

      Hi, Bernie
      there is so much wound up in your statement, i feel that it self sustains (ss) with a few caveats, nickel is consumed through transmutation into copper, and produces a tremendous amount of heat,-output,over unity but not quite ss just yet, ways are being explored in order, to really close the loop, maybe if a different forum of matter was used instead of nickel, key Dr. Rossi’s marmalade consensus, but with that problem solved you could somehow capture the h4 that is released in the transmutation phase and loop it back in, for a super charger when needed,lol, heck floor it. lets get this party started, i’m getting old,–smile- i feel that Dr. rossi has thing well under control, steady as she goes, everything moving along as planned. i am personally glad that Dr.R is in control of the new fire, no ordinary man can hold the fire,and he has already said that god was guiding his hands, he said something to the effect that if he wanted to do it some other way that, that god would show him his error, so to me it seem that god is going to make a change in the world,about time , we have gotten it in one hell of a mess,lol
      god said that no power can stand against him, -smile, so hold on to your set we’re in for a ruff ride at the start, but there is soon to be a new world where ignorance and injustice is left behind. and then good times ahead,the lord will be with us and we will be receiving all of his blessings, what a wonderful time that will be, all things are possible through him, sorry for the sirmon, just got m juices flowing,, if you can understand any of this i will be glad,.smile

    • M a r i o

      Eng Rossi could recirculate the heat to make the device self sustaining or self running ; but for SAFETY reason one cannot use the heat feedback of the E-Cat to stabilize the same E-cat because in case of trouble it would be incontrollable. No way to pass the safetey certification.