Rossi and the Testers on the COP and Self-Sustain Mode in the Report

One of the things that many people have noted about the recently released report, is that the COP measured was below what many people had expected and hoped for. The team reported that during the 32-day run, the reactor put out 3.2 — 3.6 times as much energy (in the form of heat) as was input (electricity). This is higher than one of the tests in the May 2013 report (COP 2.9) but lower than the other (COP 5.6).

There has been much discussion here about the required COP for the E-Cat to be commercially viable. To make heat, and especially electricity cost-competitively, the E-Cat’s COP  probably needs to be quite a bit higher than 3.6, since fossil fuel sources are relatively inexpensive in some parts of the world, and the E-Cat requires electricity (expensive in many places) to operate.

One thing to not about the test is that the testers consciously and deliberately did not put the E-Can self-sustaining mode. In other words, they did not shut off the power input and let the reactor run under its own power  (which has been done in previous tests). The professors explained why they made this decision:

We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, despite the factthat we had been informed that the reactor was capable of operating under such conditions for as long a timeas necessary. That power input mode, however, would have caused significant temperature increases duringthe brief intervals of time in which power was fed to the reactor. Moreover, the emissivity of alumina istemperature-dependent: this would have made all calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of theacquired data difficult.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics in a response to a question about the decision not to use self-sustain mode, Andrea Rossi made the following statement:


So to my mind, the relatively low COP should not be taken as a negative result from this report. The E-Cat functioned reliably and remarkably throughout the 32-day test, again showing that it is an energy source unlike anything else in the world. When Rossi speaks here about ‘specific contractual targets’ this is probably in reference to an agreed-upon COP that must be met to satisfy customer needs. To meet these targets, I think there would need to be a COP of at least 6 — and to do this I think self-sustain mode would need to be employed.

Rossi has said recently that if they don’t meet the contractual performance level, they will not get paid. And fulfilling the contract with the first customer seems to be his, a IH’s focus at the moment.

  • Omega Z

    Is GoatGuy aware that they used to measuring devices. 1 upstream at the mains and 1 downstream. They both correlated with each other. Their just reaching for straws.

  • Omega Z

    Average conversion is based on 3/1. A conversion of 2/1(50%) as you propose requires very high temps.
    To be beneficial you need both high temp & high COP.

    Note the temperatures from this test are encouraging, but we don’t know what to expect when it’s actually applied in the real world.
    1400’C should be able to produce those high temps (650’C) for 50% conversion ratio. But, we can’t be sure of that yet.

    Yeah, Surely that car will get you across town. 🙂

  • Omega Z

    Nope. It take 3 heat to make 1 electric.
    At COP-6 you get 2 electric for 1 used. You doubled up.
    This is considered a minimum to be economical. You still require all the hardware as with any other power production system. This needs to be incorporated into the cost/benefit.

  • Omega Z

    A high COP is also necessary.
    Heat converted to Electricity is a 3/1 ratio average. 3 heat to make 1 electric.
    COP-3 results in an exchange of 1e for 1e. All you do is break even.

    You need both High temps & High COP to be economically viable.
    High temps can produce high BAR pressure that can spin the turbine. High COP makes it economical.
    I’ll add that the higher the temp, the better the conversion ratio. You may be able to attain a Heat converted to Electricity of 2/1 ratio.

  • Omega Z

    Oil prices are primarily in decline for “2” reasons.
    The Global Economy is still on the skids.
    The U.S. & to a degree other countries continue to increase supply.
    It’s Supply & Demand.

    If the E-cat report has any connection to this, It is because a portion of people/investors do not have an understanding of the facts. Once they gain an understanding, the prices would adjust if this is the case.

    E-cat cars are in the distant future. You would need about 30 to power the car & a few more to carry the load. Fuel to transport fuel so to speak. Steam powered cars could be done with fewer, maybe a dozen, but both are very problematic And steam just isn’t practical today.

    Note that Even Rossi said about 20 years for E-cat cars. Note that Rossi has usually been overly optimistic in his timeline projections. Only the Brave would argue with this. Your best bet is an EV car charged up by an E-cat generator. Even this is some years away.

    E-cats/LENR will have it’s greatest effect on long term lease arrangements. Oil field development at least 20 years in the future. We have already witnessed many of the Oil conglomerates do a shuffle in this area over the last couple years.

    I’ll go a step farther here. It wouldn’t necessarily be the E-cat that caused this oil lease shuffle. Likely just an awareness of the coming technology in general. An Awareness likely enhanced by the E-cat. The Oil companies aren’t fools. Many have dabbled in the technology themselves. They have people who’s job it is to be aware & project approximately when they think new technologies will arrive. They pay no attention to the skeptics. Only the hard facts.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Do you mean much higher temps than 1400C? I’ve heard somewhere that temperatures up to 2000C were reached but I assumed that was a very quick runaway reaction that stopped after all the nickel melted.

    If the hotcat can run above 1452C, everything I thought I understood about the e-cat now belongs to la la land. I’m even starting to doubt the whole NAE thingy, because in liquid form that shouldn’t be possible.

    Love it!

  • Daniel Maris

    Rossi is saying all the right things (and quite grammatically one might note!) i.e. we are now out of the era of testing and into the era of commercial application, beginning with a pilot installation.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    His point about escaping hydrogen might be true, but I don’t know how porous alumina actually is to hydrogen. But that is not central to the question if the device produced anomalous energy or not.
    Question about optical transparency of alumina is not directly relevant to the IR measurements. The testers interpret it so (Fig 12 caption) that inconel wires inside the reactor are seen as dark against brighter background, which I think is possible only if alumina indeed is partly optically transparent. But GoatGuy is wrong in claiming that the wires glow, because (according to testers) on contrary it’s the interior which glows more. I’m not able to judge from Fig 12 whether the dark regions are wires or spaces between the wires. I trust the testers on this point more than an external guy who has only seen on photo (Fig 12).
    The claim that IR camera is “inherently qualitative” instrument is itself inherently qualitative, in my opinion. It’s playing with words.

    • Mark Szl

      It is the use of the TRIAC in delta mode that maybe causing a systematic error in all these tests because of it’s nonlinearity. Goatguy posted a table with graphs about this device and has homed in on this. I would like to see a response as to whether his analysis is correct and as to it’s significance. Seems very danaging.

      • Omega Z

        As the dummy test was done with everything exactly the same with exactly the same components, why would it not show error in the dummy run. All that was changed was they inserted the nickel charge. Nothing was disconnected & reconnected. Both powered precisely the same. Their grasping at straws.

  • Sanjeev

    I see a sharp change in Energy sector on 9th Oct.

  • malkom700

    It is interesting that we would like to extra COP immediately, while for starting LENR is sufficient certainly COP 3. We should decide what is more important, our boiler or revolutionize the energy sector. The fact is that for the functionality of our boiler COP 3 is not enough.

    • Dods

      The COP was conservative at 3 because the reactor was ran with a constant power source as to make it easier to calculate the energy outputs. In reality the E-cat can run in self sustain mode and in self sustain power is only supplied for 1/3rd of the time which raises the COP to around 10 as an estimate.

  • Buck
  • Sanjeev
  • oarmas

    The report result was published by next big future, a high tech website, which has, traditionally been very skeptical of this technology, mostly, I believe, because of their sources of funding. They were relatively positive on the report, including references to diffuse the possibility of the operation being a scam. I consider this a positive development in the scientific community.

  • Christopher Calder

    I believe the real-world COP is a solid 6 or better in self-sustain mode with no Mouse attached. With the Mouse attached in self-sustain mode, I suspect the COP jumps up to the 8 to 12 range.

  • Sanjeev

    I guess there are also other reasons for keeping the COP low. The reactor was already operating just below the melting point of Ni (with just 1 gram of it) and would have totally melted it if COP was increased.

    There was no coolant to take the heat away because of the method of measurement they chose, so there was no other option to set it at a specific temperature and COP.

    • Christopher Calder

      The Hot-Cat has elements of operation that are counterintuitive. There are aspects to the design that the public (us) does not have knowledge of. Self-sustain mode does increase COP without overheating the fuel.

      • Sanjeev

        One would think that cutting the input power off will keep it going for a long time without any change in temperature, and so increase the COP (infinite COP when no input power !). Thats what I thought.

        But as the report says (and quoted above by Frank), turning the power on and off apparently causes the temperature to rise too much. At least I understood it like that.
        But I must agree, this report made me throw away all the theories on how it all works. Especially, I can’t make any sense of isotopic magic and the fact that it operated nicely near the melting point of Ni, which means that a solid lattice is not the most important requirement.
        Note that the report says that the fuel was almost fine powdery substance while the ash was granular with means the powder melted due to very high heat.

        • ed Storms remind that the reaction is the crossing of many condition.
          one if the availability of the fuel (hydrogen), and this can be improved by making the material breath hydrogen.

          so changing temperature may trigger the reaction by bringing fresh fuel, as temperature itself may allow the reaction by giving energy to the NAE

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I understood from Rossi’s recent comment (question/answer number 12 inside Hank Mill’s long list, that melting of the fuel is no longer a problem: the reaction starts again even if fuel temporarily melts. It’s hard to believe and enormous progress if true; but otherwise it’d be hard to understand how they successfully ran it at 1400 C which is only 55 deg shy of nickel’s melting point.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          This looks as if most of the hypotheses on particle size and surface structure were wrong, or at least simplifications. One could now ask which of the existing theories would remain in consideration of the new results.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Maybe the mixture of chemicals (“catalysts”) is such that it regenerates suitable surface structure for nickel automatically. If he has really achieved that, it’s quite a deed.

  • psi2u2

    An important clarification, confirming analysis that has already appeared on this site from more than one informed follower of LENR events: There seems little doubt that the technology can be pushed well beyond cop 3-4, but that stability, not maximizing output, was the primary consideration of these tests.

    How high can it go under what conditions? That question now becomes one of the guiding lights for further inquiry.

    • Ged

      How high you can go stably for what length of time is indeed quite an important question.

    • Donk970

      More important is wether you can get the device to reliably produce high temperature, high pressure steam or a high temperature gas to run a turbine. Most modern power plants produce steam at much lower temperatures than these tests were run at.

      • Omega Z

        1400’C should be able to produce 650’C steam. There are limits to how much heat can be transferred in an operational environment. You reach a point of diminishing returns.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      I remember Rossi stating that a COP of 200 was reached, but at that level neutron radiation was measured also. Neutrons as I understand it are incredibly dangerous. For example, one of the biggest problems with hot-fusion is to contain neutrons as they simply punch through just about everything, including human bodies.

      I don’t claim this to be true, because Rossi isn’t always clear in his answers (euphemistically spoken), but if needed the COP could probably be quite high. As you are already pointing out, duration and control are different matters though.