On the Purpose of the Mouse

Thanks to E-Cat World reader Omega Z for sending me this comment, which I thought would be a good starting point for a new post. For newer readers here, when we talk about the ‘mouse’ we are referring to the first stage in the new configuration of the hot cat reactor which, according to Andrea Rossi, provides the energy and control required for the ‘cat’ or proper E-Cat section of the reactor. Post has been edited for capitalization, spelling and clarity.

Here’s what I see as the big story. The Mouse uses 900 watts. Not 1600 or 2600 in start up as the original cats did.
It’s COP is low. Like 1.02 to 1.1. Why not just use a 900 watt resistor? Seriously. This is in itself of no real consequence — one could just say big whoop!

On May 12th, 2013 at 8:04 Andrea Rossi wrote to Steven N. Karels, “The important thing is that also the Activator has a charge”

The mouse has its own charge. Hmmm. Yet such a low COP for itself. Why is that? What does the mouse bring to the table? Not a pun — it must be food for the CAT. Yes, it provides heat to activate the cat, but it brings something Else.

I would note that Rossi has said at high COP, neutrons escape. Does the mouse supply something that helps capture the neutrons, or, something else that enhances the process? I would point out that I asked Rossi about this within just a couple of days after he revealed the existence of the mouse.

I don’t recall the exact words, but it was of the possibility of the mouse providing food to the cat, or something that enhanced the capture process. My post went to moderation, then disappeared altogether. All my posts on the JONP now just disappear. No moderation — just gone. I suspect it’s a subject he doesn’t want visible on the JONP and as a precaution spams all my posts there automatically.

Anyway, I thought I’d provide you some food for thought.

  • Omega Z

    The Mouse
    Input is 900 watts 35% of the time. 21 minutes of every hour. Average. This happens at random moments. A minute or so here, A minute or so there. Not 21 continuous minutes.

    Also, It does not loop the heat back from the E-cat. It draws Electricity whenever it is On. Statements from Rossi lead me to believe it stays warmed from heat migration from the Cat, so it comes on near immediately to Reactivate the Cat. No Ramp up. But Rossi hasn’t actually stated this. Just My opinion/impression.

    You can forget the Diagram from a couple threads ago. No Feed Back Loop. Also Every E-cat has it’s Own Mouse. This Rossi has said.

    It activates the 10Kw E-cat. (Or Tiger 100Kw)
    According to Rossi, the 10Kw E-cat produces 10Kwh Per Hour. During the On or Off mode, the output is Stable at 350`C. So it operates in a manor where it carries thru the reactivation.

    This is Logical or it wouldn’t be able to run a Turbine in a stable manor. In which case, forget Electricity. All you have is an Efficient Heater.

    The Mouse Input Averaged over an (hour) is about 315 watts. The 10Kw E-cat produces 10,000 watts per hour.

    It’s not Fancy, but when certain Data is available such as how much total input per hour verses total output per hour, It’s quick & easy.
    10,000 watts divided by 315 watts in 1 stable hour run time gives a COP>33. This would be Optimal, Not real. There are losses to account for. At last report, it requires 4 hours start up before Output begins & other variables. It takes a lot to boost COP Levels & Very Little to knock it down Fast.

    Example- Mouse uses 900 watts for 4 hours continuous to Start the Cat. Your 1st production hour now needs to be divide 10K by (3.6+.315) K. Your down to a COP of 2.5- Takes a lot of hours to bring that back up & you will never reach 33. EVER.

    Maybe Rossi is under pressure to raise the COP Because of this very (Parasitic COP Loss). It Would be interesting to Calculate this out for 6 months with a COP of 6. Possibly the Financial Gains aren’t so impressive when all said & done. Especially after Electrical Conversion.
    Businesses do think these things thru.

    • Roy O’Neil

      Omega z:
      To me, “heat migration from the cat” is looping.

      • Omega Z

        Yes, the thought crossed my mine, but it would be indirect, almost a parasitic loss except it’s used by the device.

        One should also consider the Energy used by the Controls & computer. These to would lower COP values.

        I show a COP 33, but it’s not a practical number for use.
        Averages over 6 month cycles would be more reality.

  • gmackay

    I have a diagram that may help visualize the purpose of the MOUSE and the way that it influences the variations of the CATs.

    See http://www.slctech.org/~mackay/proposal_for_new_ecat.png

    It is purely for discussion purposes based on an interpretation of Rossi’s comments.

    • Roger Bird

      Finally something that I can understand. This is how I envision it, with the slight correction that it is in my basement sending 90kW’s back to the grid and enriching my family. (:->)

      • Omega Z

        Roger

        Haven’t you figured it out yet.

        They will charge you for back feeding the grid.

    • Omega Z

      gmackay

      Appreciate the Graphic, But maybe switch labels Mouse verses Cat.
      Some of Rossi’s statements is the the Mouse is bigger then the Cat.
      The Cat may be inside the mouse.

      Note some of the pictures on the latest threads. The Red spots may be the Cat, The Entire Device may be the mouse.

  • daniel maris

    Frank/Admin

    Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a post where you give a table of the E Cat versions with a brief description of their known mechanic, date of first appearance, output, estimated COP and state of development?

    It would be helpful I think – help get a fix on things.

    • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

      It is a good idea, Daniel. It would take a bit of research but I think it can be done. I will put it on my to-do list.

      • Omega Z

        Frank/Admin

        Ha Ha,

        I bet your to do list makes Rossi’s product list look pretty short. 🙂

        moderation, What, Frank is your name on the no no list?

        • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

          Frankly, yes. Oops moderated myself.

          • artefact

            🙂

  • lars

    He puts small ignitions in once in a while with the mouse wiche make it a great COP

  • Mark

    The main function of the mouse and or the tiger … is to distract us all from the still not delivered Independant 3rd party report. Entertaining yes but nothing is as important as that report.

  • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

    It seems that COP and the possible non-thermal role of the mouse are confidential. If COP of about 3 is true, then he must have found really big problems with earlier COP>=6 plants. If COP of about 20 is true, that would be a nice continuation to the Penon report COP of >=11.
    I think that AR tried to hide the possibly non-thermal mouse by instead emphasising its overunity COP, but people noticed that it was not a reasonable sounding explanation and started to grill him.

    • Glenn

      I think the problem with the COP >= 6 Warm Cat plants was that they just weren’t hot enough. Electric generation is the ultimate goal, so higher temperatures are required. Warm Cat was the proof of concept, now Rossi has moved on to working with higher energies.

      I’m starting to feel like these mouse activators are just an operational detail that is getting more attention than they deserve.

      The real “hot topic” we should be focusing on, in my humble opinion, is what are the true COP of these 350 C Hot Cat units.

    • KD

      From J-O-N-P
      Ron

      Dr. Rossi, this is a question that got spammed a couple days ago – it doesn’t rehash the activator info, I don’t think you’ve already answered it. When you were using a resistance heater to modulate the ecat reaction, it didn’t seem like you could maintain the reactor in ssm as you can now. This makes me think that the activator contributes something to the process beyond heat. My question is simply, does the activator add anything to the process other than heat? I won’t ask anything more detailed!

      Andrea Rossi

      Dear Ron:
      Confidential,
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      The trick with high COP of E-Cat is that that at 65% of time it is working, it don’t get energy input from the mouse.

      But he don’t say how much energy it is getting from the mouse at the next 35% of time.

      Mr. Rossi answer to Ron suggests that the mouse is energizing e-cat with some kind of radiation different than heat.

      Since work of mouse pay by itself, Rossi says that e-cat produces energy without any input of energy, just fuel.

      I don’t thing it is worth to catch Rossi at every word he say.
      He is giving just only general idea of his reactors, to preserve his IP to his work.

      • Roger Bird

        To me, Rossi just told us that the mouse adds more than heat. Otherwise, why would it be confidential?

        • telecommuter

          Because he’s trying to imply that it’s worth being confidential?

          When, oh when, do we simply wait for him to deliver on ONE thing he promises.

          • Roger Bird

            I’m having fun here, whether Rossi delivers or not. I’ll leave when I am no longer having fun. That’s how that works.

      • Jim Anderson

        The heat of course is infrared radiation and I think an Enginer or Physist could compute the frequency of the radiation from the temperature. With the frequency of the radiation and the size of the tube that forms the eCat we could see if any type of standing wave is possible which might help the reaction. The only other thing that I can think of is Rossi has seperated Hydrogen production from the main eCat either partly or completely. If that happened there would have to be a physical conection to move the hydrogen from the activator to the Cat The thing that makes me sceptical of some other form of radiation is the existence of the gas cat where heat is produced by burning natural gas. The gas Cat operates without additional electricity.

    • bv

      Ok, A.R. told us:
      1.) the mouse takes heat as well as anything else
      2.) we talk about dimensions of a whiskyglass

      let’s think about cascading first:

      Over time the Input “I” is roughly 1/3 of the output “O” (first level e-cat), if you take this energy to feed the next 3 mice=activators, the output (second level e-cat) will be 9 times the input and so on …
      All the rest will be timing and circling the flow of the energy with a nice number of these whiskyglasses

    • Toussaint

      Sorry, this is a bit off topic , but what make feel Rossi has found something real , is in this video back in 2011.

      Listen carefully at the 10mns mark

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II3NxxyxQ0I

      The body laguage does not lie.

      • Roger Bird

        I suppose that it could be considered disrespectful and not very manly, but he’s very cute. He is adorable.

      • Roger Bird

        This is a great resource. I just may watch all of these videos.

        I notice that Krivits is the interviewer. I thought that he didn’t like Rossi. Please, someone explain.

        • artefact

          Krivits fight against Rossi began directly after this interview trip to Rossi.

          • Roger Bird

            I thought as much. Krivits pointed out to Rossi, probably in an annoying and persistent way, that there was too much water vs. steam coming out of the hose or something along that line, and Rossi blew up at him and Krivits got his feelings hurt, and the rest is history. Who wants to bet $10? This does not make Rossi a crook or crazy. This is just a continuation of his pattern of being difficult to deal with.

      • daniel maris

        Yes, that is something about Rossi I have noticed he doesn’t display much body language associated with lying – quite the reverse. Which is why I have always thought that it is unlikely he is a scammer – more likely, if his claims are false, that he is deluded.

        • Dan

          I think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

          • daniel maris

            In what sense?

        • Roger Bird

          daniel maris, I agree with you. Lie detecting is real, and I do think that you know what you are talking about. I watched all 4 Krivit interviews on YouTube. If this guy is lying, why isn’t he working in Hollywood or the Italian version of Hollywood. The idea that some dude would put so much energy and time (more than 6 years) into a con when he is obviously independently wealthy, it doesn’t make any Occam.

          He might be crazy. But he doesn’t look like any crazy that I know about.

    • Omega Z

      Pekka

      Rossi stressing the Mouse has a Charge while producing such an anemic COP 1.02 seemed a flag to me. Why not just a 910 watt resistance heater.

      Whatever purpose the mouse has must be very significant. He just doubled the complexity of manufacturing. Operation costs increased as in you now have “2” charges to change every 6 months per Cat instead of “1”.

      Maybe Some element in the Charge migrates to the Cat. The Cat itself produces this element, but the Mouse increases it’s abundance. Possibly enhancing a capture process?

      I would Note that Hank Mills also asked Rossi about this, but in a non specific manor. Rossi gave his usual response. Confidential.

    • Lu

      The COP of 3 is very disappointing if it’s true–6 was marginally economical at best for electricity generation. On the other hand, the fact that Rossi can put an E-Cat into SSM without heat is maybe more important in the long run. As usual, we shall see.

      What bothers me however is Rossi’s presentation of his ‘E-Cat and Mouse’ design, the way he presented the numbers, and now he has gone completely black even in response to very reasonable questions about things he has stated. Doesn’t seem very professional and makes me wonder what he is up to. If he solves the riddle of putting an E-Cat into SSM with very little energy it will of course be worth it.

      P.S. Perhaps as a clue to what is going on, Rossi as stated in the radio interview that the charge in the activator and the reactor are different. The charge in activator is also ony.5g while the charge in the reactor is 2-3g,

      • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

        SSM is not new, already Oct 2011 demo ran hours in SSM. Also the repeating activation/SSM cycle has existed already in 2011. The new thing is that the activator has a charge (LENR-active material). Before the activator was only a heat source. Possibly an RF source was used as well, but its power was low compared to the heater. The two charges differ at least in geometry. They could also differ in materials.

        • Lu

          Never said or implied that the SSM is new. What’s new is that the E-cat apparently can be put into SSM without heat energy (or maybe properly, the E-Cat can be controlled without heat energy).

          • Lu

            P.S. Actually Rossi does say that the heat from the mouse activates the E-Cat so it appears that Rossi has not removed this requirement for SSM. Makes everything even more puzzling.

  • Roy O’Neil

    I think I understand now. Most, but not all, the heat input to the activator is output from the cat. The resistor provides only start-up and top-off heat and represents only a small fraction of the heat used by the activator. COP is near infinity through looping.

    • Omega Z

      Roy

      It isn’t looped back. The mouse feeds the Cat & that heat passes on for consumer use. Heat, Hot water or Electrical production. What ever the end use should be.

  • Glenn

    It’s maybe only a matter of time before Rossi introduces a 3rd stage: the Cookie.

    • Joel C.

      More like he’ll call it the Cheese… We’re talking about a Mouse, not the Cookie Monster. 🙂

      • Omega Z

        Joel C

        Thanks, I hadn’t came up with a name yet.
        Cheese. That works.

        And Yes, Rossi & 1 of the posters on JONP joked about this. Infinite Cascade.

  • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

    Admin: I tried to send comments about a technical issue twice, but both went to moderation, could you dig the longer one up, thanks? the shorter one you can delete.

  • buffalo

    @ted-x there is no evidence that carbon monoxide is being used for lenr promotion.infact many catalysts are poisoned by CO,might hinder h2 uptake.

  • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

    Admin: About a week ago, some words on the page are quasirandomly highlighted and they produce some popup notebox if a mouse moves over them (without having to click) and the box only goes away by explicitly closing it. I find them irritating. Do others experience it and could one somehow get rid of them for once and for all? (Second attempt, first went to moderation)

    • artefact

      had the same experience. “am” got for example highlighted which was in every post at morning.

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      Now the popup boxes seem to have disappeared.

    • Peter Roe

      Yes, had the same thing. I assumed it was some malware infection on my PC but I don’t see the same thing anywhere else, and it does seem to have gone now.

  • Roger Bird

    I am not a nuclear physicist, but my son thinks that I am as smart as one. (:->)

    In my very uninformed but well formed opinion, the mouse is generating far more than heat, and it exists to give stability to the whole package. And I think that even a small LENR device with thin walls could provide x-rays or neutrons or something else to help restart the e-cat.

    • lenrdawn

      If that is the case, then how can the hot-cat work with nothing but an electrical heater and two wires connected to it? There can’t be any electronics in that machine (too hot), no feedback or control mechanism, no frequency generator or hidden x-ray generator or whatever.

      • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

        Maybe heat alone is sufficient, but one needs less heat if the activator also produces X-rays or whatever. (Probably not neutrons, though, because some of them would escape.) Maybe what is needed is ionisation or free atom/free radical formation. X-rays produce both. DGT speaks about spark plug, perhaps for the same purpose.

        • Dave Lawton

          A spark gap within hydrogen will produce X-rays,or in air or nitrogen ,I remember the spark gaps we used for triggering our coax line transformers to multiply the voltage for our spark chambers created X-rays.

          • R101

            I’ve been told that park plugs can also be used as radar jammers.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    A question to our in house engineers. Am I missing something, if “Rossi says” he has an E-cat producing almost free heat, producing cheap electricity with a turbine should be a no brainer, right?

    • Roger Bird

      “in-house” with a hyphen. I couldn’t figure out what you were saying.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        What? Simple question. If “Rossi says” he has an E-cat producing almost free heat, producing cheap electricity with a turbine should be a no brainer, right?

        • Roger Bird

          I wasn’t addressing your question. I was addressing your failure to use a hyphen. Usually I don’t worry about such things, unless like in this case I tripped so badly trying to understand what you were saying that I almost broke my brain.

          To answer your original question, it does not take rocket science to figure out how to make the almost free electricity. But there are still problems: the initial cost of an electric generator; the noise from an electric generator; the space necessary for a generator; etc. Notice that my concerns are related to household use of an e-cat.

          And since the generator is so close to the destination of the electrons, the question arises do we want to switch to DC? At what point will society and appliance manufacturers decide to switch to DC.

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      I guess so, but if no one pays for such end-to-end demo, perhaps they have higher priority things to do.

    • Glenn

      To understand the electricity situation, let’s look at Rossi’s two main types of E-Cat: Warm Cat and Hot Cat.

      Warm Cat has a COP of at least 6, but doesn’t generate the high temperatures required for electric generation (maybe someone can explain this bit about the temperatures to me, I’m not an engineer and am having a hard time finding info online).
      Great for generating heat to warm a building or an industrial unit, but not much else.

      The latest Hot Cat produces temperatures around 350 C, which supposedly meets the requirement for electric generation.
      Unfortunately, according to the latest numbers we’re getting from Rossi, the overall COP of this device (around 3 units of power output per unit input) is barely enough to break even when you consider the efficiency losses inherent in electricity production. For an example, a typical coal plant only converts about a third of the thermal energy into useful electric energy.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        No, he confirmed over 100 COP, forget about COP, if Rossi says he can generate almost free heat, is making cheap electricity the logical result?

        • guga

          He confirmed a COP of 100-200 for the Cat component. And following his logic, it is correct that he is producing free heat. I mean, you put in 100W of electricity and get 300W of heat, so you have 200W of heat for free. But he also always insisted that the COP of the mouse was 1.02 to 1.1.

          So he probably could not efficiently generate electricity with the current set up. That might be the simple explanation for why he did not do it until now. It should be easy to connect a small turbine to a HotCat. If the total COP was over 100, you could not do much wrong.

          • KD

            He confirmed so high COP because he don’t take in the account energy input at 35% of time when ecat is energized by mouse.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Are you assuming the customer is not using electricity to heat?

            • guga

              Why? Sure I assume the customer uses electricity to heat.

              • Bernie Koppenhofer

                Because when Rossi says something he could be thinking of his target market which is companies using electricity to make heat, steel, aluminum, recycling industries.

        • Glenn

          I think the 100 COP figure is in reference to the 65% of the duty cycle during which the Mice/Activators are not drawing power from the grid. The theoretically infinite COP during this period of time is reduced from Infinity down to 100-200 due to parasitic losses.

          When you consider the entire 100% of the duty cycle, with the numbers we have been given by Rossi, the COP is at or slightly less than 3.

          If you want to take COP out of the equation, see my comment below about the magic cigarette lighter.

          • Omega Z

            Glenn

            There has been some confusion that hasn’t been cleared up completely yet.

            Rossi made a typo where a 1Kw mouse heated a 1Kw e-cat with posters speculating around COP-3.

            That’s Wrong. The Mouse activates a 10Kw E-cat which would result in a COP-20 to 30.

            The Mouse is also being used in the Prototype 100Kw Tiger which results in COP-100 to 200, But Note that it is still R&D & could change.

            Note that all numbers could change as R&D doesn’t always transfer to product.

            On Electrical Generation. You can do it with low temps, However the Efficiencies just aren’t very good.
            However, with the 2 stage Mouse/Cat configuration, that may be less of a problem for some applications.

        • G_Zingh

          “if Rossi says he can generate almost free heat”

          The heat is free it’s that darn electricity that you have to pay the utility company for.

          It’s free in the sense that you “buy one you get one free”‘ type of ‘free’. But in this case since its free 65% of the time you buy one you get around two ‘free’. A much better deal.

          • Omega Z

            #1.. Free is a misnomer. Someone else pays.

            Cheap is a real possibility, but also depends on personal perspective. If your broke, Only Free is Cheap. See #1.

            Input 900 watts 1/3 hour. Over 60 minutes=300wh\h input
            According to Rossi-10Kwh\h output
            10,000/300=??? Buy 1-Get 33

      • Dan

        It’s just a thermodynamics thing. The higher the temperature differential between the inlet and outlet of a turbine the more efficient the turbine will be. At some point the temperature differential is too low to make power generation feasible.

        • Warthog

          But that delta T can be quite small. See the tech for the “Ocean Thermal” electricity generating schemes, which work off the temperature differential between deep ocean and surface ocean regimes. Also many geothermal sources are not very high temps. Similar techniques are used.

    • Glenn

      Here’s an analogy to consider: I give you a cigarette lighter that will never use up its fuel. How will you use it to power a city?

      • Joel C.

        Make many more of these lighters so that when you put thousands of the together, they produce the required energy density to power something. It’s just the problem of scaliblity.

    • Peter Roe

      That would be the next logical step. Engineering is not always that easy though. In any case it’s still ‘rossisays’ at the moment.

  • Dan

    My take on this is that the CAT is a metastable system that’s either on or off with no in between. The mouse is a smaller, more controllable system that can be used as a low power initiator for the CAT. A little bit like an electric power relay where you use a small control current to control a much bigger circuit.

  • Tony2

    I’m not a mathemetician but it seems to me that the good Dr. Estri has missed something. If, for 65% of the time, there is 0 input but 100 kW output the COP isn’t 200 but it must be infinity. That leads me to wonder, then, why the mouse is EVER needed after the tiger gets going.

    This seems like a lot of hand-waving and theorizing about something that could be easily put to rest by monitoring the input power over time and the output power over tiime and compare the two. But since the tiger is only producing heat, this becomes more difficult to do. Something seems not right here. Seems like AR is moving into the perpetual motion realm.

    Tony2

    • guga

      No, it´s correct. Rossi himself wrote that actually the COP is infinite, but blahblah, makes no sense, blahblah, parasitic loss, blahblah. Well, Rossi somehow decided that 100 to 200 might be a good number.

      Really, it does not make a difference if infinite or 200. The high input needed for the mouse is the real problem.

      • guga

        Sorry, concerning the question why the mouse is needed: According to Rossi he needs to control the reaction. And he once said he would not get safety certification for a self looping system. Though I´m not sure if this would concern only domestic Ecats.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi uses Scientific Semantics. Probably influenced by the PhD’s in his surroundings..

          As a Consumer, I will stick with the numbers. Input verses Output. I want to know what I’m replacing with what. In the End- It’s the Bottom Line…

    • Joel C.

      Try not to over-analyze the numbers there. There have been typos in the past and surely there will be typos in the future.

      Let’s just wait for the report created by actual scientists who know what they’re doing – hopefully.

      • Peter Roe

        First para completely agreed. Second para, perhaps a 20% chance?

  • Ted-X

    It looks that we are converging on electron orbitals passing through the nucleus. Hybridization orbitals in nickel half-carbonylates (nickel covalently bonded at the surface to 1, 2 or 3 carbon monoxide molecules, the remaining bonding with the metal lattice) are like Rydberg atoms. Pekka previously confirmed my statements that the hybridized electrons are essentially passing through the nucleus of Ni). So, no Coulomb barrier, electron capture by the nucleus (without the muon) and then some transformations (perhaps two beta emissions? – just a speculation. In this case the mouse could have some metal oxides and graphite or activated carbon, heated to generate some carbon monoxide for the surface carbonylations. A polarizing electric field might be a contributor enhancing the activity.
    Just a speculation on Rydberg atom and its similarity to hybridized orbitals in covalent compounds.

  • Peder

    When will the third party test report be published?

    • Redford

      Rumours are “very soon”.

      My expectation is “maybe this year”.

      Skeptics says “never”.

      You pick!

      • guga

        Well said!

  • Sean

    Understanding the cycle of a turbo jet engine, I see some similarities of the ECAT. The first that it be started by an external energy source. (Electric motor or compressed air). Second the compressor has to reach a required RPM (compression) before fuel is introduced. At the same time high voltage igniters are activated. Now we have a tiger. Here are the facts:, approximately 2/3rds of the thrust energy attained will drive the compressor stages. Only 1/3rd actually makes usable thrust. Lots of things going on to make it happen. Wonder what the COP of 96,000 pound thrust of an RR Trent engine is?

  • Joel C.

    renatoestri
    May 14th, 2013 at 11:39 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    I try to give a contribute to the debated COP matter about the
    Tiger-Activator new configuration.

    Should this table resume in numbers the correct interpretation
    of your answers ?

    % Time / COP / Pow In / Pow Out
    65% / 200 / Zero / 100KWh
    35% / =1 / 100KWh / 100KWh

    Thank you very much in advance
    renatoestri

    Andrea Rossi
    May 15th, 2013 at 7:44 AM
    Dear Dr Renato Estri:
    Perfect. You got exactly the core of the issue.
    Thank you. To the readers: please read carefully this comment of Dr Estri: it explains exactly in a short matrix the COP issue.
    Warm regards,
    A.R.

    • Gigawatt

      Again…does this not imply overall COP = 2 ?
      total energy out / total energy in = 200/100 = 2

      • Joel C.

        It does not imply that.

        The Mouse provides its own heat and gets some of it from the Cat to reactivate it.

        The Mouse takes a small sip from the grid from time to time.

        COP is likely to be significantly more than COP of 2.

        • lcd

          not according to that matrix, it is two

          • JimP

            No – you are missing the time value

            • Blanco69

              35% of the time value input power = 100kw. That doesn’t look missed to me.

              • Redford

                Hmm, how do you get two ?

                Output in an hour : 100kWh
                Input in one hour : 0.35*100kWh=35kWh
                COP=100/35= nearly 3.

                Anyway Rossi is clearly confusing things here. I thought maxIn was 900W. Now this ?

              • Peter Roe

                JimP is making the point that the units given are kWh. This is a measure of energy, not power – difficult to interpret unless the time period is specified, i.e., kWh/h = average kW.

                These last two threads seem to be largely about trying to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

        • guga

          “The Mouse provides its own heat and gets some of it from the Cat to reactivate it.”

          What do you base this assumption on? All we know from “Rossi says” is, the mouse takes 900W from the grid and produces 910W of heat.

          • Joel C.

            Refer to the workflow chart created by Glenn.

            If you look closely, there is an arrow line that comes from Cat’s output heat to the heat source for the Mouse activators.

            • guga

              Ok, then on what information does Glenn base his workflow chart? This chart is not based on the information we have, but rather on wishful thinking of how we hope it is.

              Again, I do not exclude that such back-feeding might be possible in the future, but we have no good reason to assume that this is how Rossi currently constructs his HotCats.

              • Joel C.

                Wishful thinking or not, we are almost completely in the dark as to what is actually going on.

                Saying it ain’t so is just as bad as saying it might be so.

                Either way, we wait for the third party report to get a much better idea of what the eCat is capable of.

                • guga

                  I´m seriously trying to base my statements on Rossi´s blog comments to the best of my knowledge. I´m always open to discussion or correction if it is somehow based on our only source of information, which is Rossi.

      • Blanco69

        Rossi confirms above that the power in for 35% of the time is 100Kw. So, in my book COP is 100/35= 2.8. At 30% efficiency on electricity generation it would cost 35Kwh to produce 30Kwh. Not worth it. Just to confirm, Rossi says that “exactly the core of the issue” is input power for 35% of the time is 100Kw. This looks more like the heat after death stuff we ent over 18 months ago.

        • Joel C.

          It is nothing close to what you just described.

          • Blanco69

            You must be reading a different thread to me then because it says that for 35% of the time, the power in = 100kw.

        • Redford

          I think you may be missing the point here. The point is that it’s electricity in, electricity out. So COP once positive just means how much Tiger you must get to achieve the global COP you want.

          • Peter Roe

            Electricy in – heat +something? out.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Ok, by asking all of us to refer to what Dr Renato Estri stated, Rossi is confirming he is talking about a larger E-cat than 1 kW

      • guga

        But it doesn´t change anything. In this example, the output is 100 kWh/h, but the input is 35 kWh/h. COP around 3.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          guga… replying to your previous post “why I’m so excited about the above post” I am not excited I am simply saying if “Rossi says” is right,???? almost free energy might change a few things. To answer this comment, do you agree, in the above example, there is 100KWh of free energy to be used in any way we want?

          • guga

            Sure, though I would say it is rather 65 kWh/h of heat that is “free”. We “pay” electricity for the 35 kWh/h rest.

            The disappointment is that the old low temperature ECat produces even more excess heat. So this is nothing new or exciting.

            And electricity production to re-feed the activator, which many including me had been hoping for, seems difficult or not even doable with a COP around 3.

            • Bernie Koppenhofer

              Maybe he is using a 1 kW mouse to run a 100 kW Tiger, who knows…

  • pg

    + 1 month (sorry Peter couldn’t resist)

  • Max Toll

    I still can;t my head around the stated COP of 1.02 to 1.1. This implies that the LENR output of the mouse is 2% to 10% of the electrical input. Unless AR has access to some very high precision calorimetry, I find it very hard to believe that measurements of such accuracy can be performed.

    • Karl S

      My guess he got these numbers from the third party results

    • lcd

      who really cares right

      • Peter Roe

        Judging by the verbiage, a lot of people care.

  • Martin Leonard

    Ron
    May 14th, 2013 at 7:03 PM
    Dr. Rossi, this is a question that got spammed a couple days ago – it doesn’t rehash the activator info, I don’t think you’ve already answered it. When you were using a resistance heater to modulate the ecat reaction, it didn’t seem like you could maintain the reactor in ssm as you can now. This makes me think that the activator contributes something to the process beyond heat. My question is simply, does the activator add anything to the process other than heat? I won’t ask anything more detailed!

    Andrea Rossi
    May 15th, 2013 at 7:49 AM
    Dear Ron:
    Confidential,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • zero

      THIS. This is one of the only comments on this page worth reading. The mouse either enhances the reaction in a way that Rossi will NOT say, or this is a smoke screen put up to confuse potential competitors that possibly Rossi and crew only know about.

      That or Rossi just wanted to add some Mice, Rats and Tigers to the Cat, Puppets, and puppeteers that are already in this circus. I can’t wait till the monkeys and clowns that are in out government and press get involved, then we’ll really have a show.

      • Ron Stringer

        This is a tricky one to figure out – when Rossi used simple resistance heaters to initiate and control the reaction, he claimed COP = 6. He has replaced the heater with some kind of reactor, and I cannot for the life of me see the advantage, because whatever the separate COP’s of activator and ecat, as far as the overall unit is concerned, it looks like you only get out twice what you put in. (I agree with him that trying to calculate a “COP” in this case, when you are trying to average infinities, is wrong, but economics is economics, nonetheless.) And why not use a “normal” ecat to activate, with the COP 6, instead of 1.01, or 1.1, only slightly better than the resistance heater? There is something to this that we are not privy to, and asking him to explain it annoys him. He seems to think it is self-evident. I thought the activator might only draw 1kW, but the table is clear that this is not the case.

  • Blanco69

    The mouse has one advantage over resistance heat. It seems to be able to restart for the next on/off phase without drawing energy from the grid. In some way restarting while the ecat is in it’s coolling phase.

    • guga

      I must disagree. This notion came up in previous discussions, but it is not based on what we know.

    • Peter Roe

      If it’s not started by means of electricity it couldn’t be switched on and off by a control system as stated.

  • Peter Roe

    Assuming we stay within the realms of known physics (as opposed to some kind of resonant field of previously unknown type, etc.) the ‘food’ options seem to be limited. They are, ionised H (if there is a physical connecting pathway), heat, EMR (gamma, x-rays), particles (neutrons) or an EMF, such as the field that Rossi has mentioned on occasion in connection with possible direct generation of electricity. My money would be on the latter (in combination with heat), as in general, anything that creates an EM field is also affected by such fields.

    Also assuming of course that any of Rossi’s JONP stuff is to be taken seriously.

    • buffalo

      yes as it would make no sense to stepup heat by 1.2 cops,unless this purely theatrical to illustrate cascade effect.

  • artefact

    <What does the mouse bring to the table?

    Atomic hydrogen?