Rossi: E-Cat Power Density ‘Substantially Improved’


He’s not giving too much away, but Andrea Rossi indicated today that there have been substantial improvement in hot cat design and performance, specifically mentioning ‘substantial’ improvement in power density. Here is a question and answer Journal of Nuclear Physics reader Mark Saker:

1. Does the newest 1MW prototype bear any resemblance to previous designs or is it a far departure. A: It bears any resemblance
2. What is the size of the 1MW product and what shape is the unit as a whole A. Confidential.
3. Are you looking at larger scale devices and if so what are the sizes in output and physical size. A. we have substantially increased the density of power, but I cannot be specific until the R&D and validation work is not completed and its results ( positive or negative) published
4. Are there still restrictions that the electricity/heat needed to ignite and control the device cannot be taken from the output of the device or have you found a way around this? A. I do not understand the question
5. How much would a 200MW device weigh? I’ve been looking at the VASIMR requirements for a 39day trip to Mars (I know it is a long way off but I can dream!) A. see #3
6. How long till the extended test is finished? Is there a specific date when they will finish the tests and then just have to write the paper? A. this does not depend on me. Maybe ( MAYBE) a month, plus the paper preparation and publication time.

I followed up with a question about whether there had been a corresponding improvement in COP, but he wouldn’t provide a response, except to say that he no longer liked the term COP which is used in describing heat pumps, air conditioners, etc., and would rather use the phrase “ratio between energy produced and energy consumed” — which I think is fine, because it describes the essence of what we are looking at when evaluating LENR.



  • Buck

    The news keeps on getting better and better. When Rossi is happy with his progress, then I’m also happy.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    From the customer’s point of view, “energy” is not the same as “energy”. It is essential which forms of energy are involved. For instance, the price per kWh electricity is usually much higher than the price per kWh energy from natural gas. Thus, even if an electrically powered device that delivers heat (which could also be generated by gas) produces more energy than it consumes, it will be unprofitable if the output-input ratio is lower than the ratio between the kWh prices for electricity and gas. Physical concepts alone are not always suitable for economic practice.

  • Fortyniner

    Rossi has pulled right back on the ‘domestic’ heater and the indications are that IH will go straight for the industrial market, where tests for heavy equipment are well established and there is no public input or consultation. It would be up to certifiers to decide how far to go, but generally such certification is relatively superficial. No one asks precisely what compounds are formed in ash from a new type of furnace – only what is to be burned and what atmospheric emissions this will produce. Their main concerns would be ‘health and safety’ from operator’s POV, electrical safety and failsafe shutdown provisions, strength testing of pressure vessels, and potential atmospheric or hydrological contamination, including potential radiological dangers – all pretty standard stuff.

    Assuming the reactor components to be basic materials such as ceramics, nickel, lithium hydride, potassium carbonate or whatever, these are all covered by appropriate Material Safety Data Sheets. If new metals/chemical are formed after some period of operation, then these too will have MSDSs, which would probably only be considered relevant when reactors were recycled or disposed of.

    Probably their main problem will initially be finding someone to underwrite the risks of operation, so they may choose to carry out the first installation in plant owned by the consortium.

    • Mark Coffman

      The more time goes on the more it will become apparent that LENR is an integral subset of
      nuclear processes and that generally nuclear processes are dangerous as heck. People will
      forget about the island of safety surrounding LENR proven in it’s early days. It would be better
      to *USE* LENR closer to where it was discovered and monitor and legislate against people doing
      things that arbitrarily make exits from the island of stability surrounding where it was initially
      discovered. I expect it will be found that LENR can be used in a way that is substantially safer
      then the way nuclear fission is currently used, for example, and therefore it represents a truly
      advanced energy production method.

      :S:MarkSCoffman

  • Fortyniner

    Very clunky. Why not ‘power gain factor’ – PGF, calculated the same way. PGF(e) would then be the ratio of electrical power out / electrical power in – i.e. incorporating the efficiency of the conversion process.

    • Sandy

      My REPDEC is clunky but it is only two syllables long when spoken, while your PGF is three syllables.

      In accordance with the example of LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) I did not include in REPDEC the “o” in “of” or the “b” in “by”.

      • Fortyniner

        History will decide…!

        • guy

          Who is history?

  • V.p.S.

    Looking forward to and eagerly awaiting the extended test report. Skipping anything else, as all R&D details may change several times until the final product and the latter’s arrival on the market could be still like a year away.

  • Omega Z

    I doubt a 3rd party would be allowed access to the reactants.

    If the tests are done by a 3rd party on their premises & accurate measurements of input/output is available, then the 3rd party need not have any access to the reactants. Size & weight can rule out all possible conventional energy sources.

    I would also note: That Rossi did cut open(In Half) the core of the Hot Cat & allow the 3rd party to examine it in the previous test.
    The only thing he didn’t allow them was access to the Nickle powder charge that he scraped out of it..

    • Mike

      It is simply a matter of safety. Authorities have to know if there is any dangerous substances in case of a fire, working environment etc

      • US_Citizen71

        But, only if there is dangerous substances inside. Do you see a material list on the back of your blu ray player or furnace? How about your tv?

      • Omega Z

        This would not be necessary for a 3rd party test.

        And according to Rossi, the Only thing that’s toxic is the Nickle nano powder. Which should it melt down or produce a small explosion, the powder melts & fuses together. It’s then no longer toxic.

    • Fortyniner

      “…Nickle powder charge that he scraped out of it”

      I think its more likely that the nickel and other necessary compounds acting as H2 donors and/or catalysts, were hiding in plain sight – all embedded in the sintered ceramic core that supported the resistive heating coils (which probably also supplied an EM field to poke the reaction).

  • Omega Z

    “ratio between energy produced and energy consumed”

    This is actually more definitive then using COP.
    One could actually catch themselves chasing after their own tail using the Term COP. In fact, it isn’t all that accurate even when applied to heat pumps etc.. These devices seldom if ever match reality. A COP>5 heat pump may only average COP=3 or less due to individual circumstances.

    Industrial/Commercial is going to be much more interested in:
    Output/Input over ?X? Period of run-times. I can actually visualize some type of hourly X,Y, Operational Graph. And it is likely that All Rossi’s data collection is figured in this manor.

    For them, These Numbers will be crucial as to it’s projected operating cost/benefit. These numbers will be integrated with scheduled & allowing unscheduled downtimes.

  • MasterBlaster7

    I’m still using COP…its easy.

    Energy density going up is probably the most important question he can answer here.

    Based on my knowledge of the NANOR…a similar device…if the energy density went up….the COP probably went up.

    In NANOR 7…what they found is…higher input energy actually lowered the COP. It has to do with the increased electricity not coupling with the LENR process. So, I bet Rossi’ has found a low input energy sweet spot that he likes. The low input energy being equal…..a higher energy density probably means a higher COP. Could be wrong…but higher energy density is still good.

  • Chris I

    I’m not sure what he means by his answer to 1 because these syntactic structures in English bear any resemblance to the way of saying it in Italian….. uhm, I mean, errrr…

    As for the COP, goodness, call it a tomato.

    • AB

      It’s obvious. He means the design is not a “far departure”.

  • Charles

    I would think a crafty writer who is up-to-date on the process could prepare the write-up as they go and have to do nothing more that draw the final conclusion and plug-in the numbers. Yeah, yeah, I know. It’s not that easy. But, it almost is.

    • Billy Jackson

      after the last publication i think they will take their time and get it right rather than rush.

      • Chris I

        It won’t make much difference. All that counts is for the Cherokee partners to sell the wares as soon as they’ve got’em ready.

        • MasterBlaster7

          You know, I was thinking about this….the initial roll out….

          What if, they bought a stranded asset coal power plant. Then, they retrofitted it with the commercial e-cat. Then they connected it to the grid. So, they have a demonstration plant. They can still run experiments and take long term measurements on the e-cats at the plant. Additionally, they can make money by selling electricity to the grid at a standard rate and pocketing the difference for future research and funding?

          • Fortyniner

            I think that is inevitably the way they’ll go. The publicity would be invaluable – demonstrating how a ‘dirty’ coal plant can be quickly converted to the new green energy.

            Also doing this kind of thing is the core business of Cherokee (they may already have something suitable on their books) and an existing power plant would not only have all requisite utilities including outgoing power lines on hand, plus possibly a re-usable turbine-alternator, but would also have the necessary ‘permits’ and precedent for a power generation plant.

            • GreenWin

              Peter, IMO, this scenario is active today. My research has even documented the exact location of a plausible retrofit (a former NG fired plant.) However, I have indications that it is best to keep this project off radar to allow parties to work in peace. I am respecting those indications. BTW, take a look at the Google enters Home Energy Management post I put up on Always Open Thread.

              • Fortyniner

                Thanks – that’s very interesting. I agree that there would be no useful purpose served by outing the probable location – their plans have probably been unsettled enough already by ‘sleuthing’. I’ll take a look at the post you suggest.