Rossi: E-Cat Replicators’ Work Matches His Early Results

A comment by Andrea Rossi yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics might be encouraging to replicators.

Rossi responded to a question from Øystein Lande who asked:

“The fact that replications so far have not achieved very high COP: Is there still a secret ingredient in Your e-cat that it not known to the public?”

Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi

Oeystein Lande:
The replications have reached the COP and the situations that we had originally. The eventual evolution is a matter of industrial refinement of the technology, that takes a huge amount of work. The eventual inventions that have allowed the improvement of the E-Cats are now the subject of many patents that are either pending or in preparation.
Warm Regards,

The successful replications that have been published to date have given a COP of between about 2 – 3 (e.g. Parkhomov), and what Rossi is saying here is that that is where he was when he started out. His improvements have been achieved through a refinement process — but we are not going to be told what those are until the patents are made public.

Rossi has always been very complimentary of those who have been able to achieve success in their replication attempts, perhaps because he recognizes that they are where he once was. When we hear of much higher COP levels in the E-Cat we might think that replicators are doing something wrong, but according to Rossi here that may not be the case.

  • clovis ray

    i think this is an important tip, offered up by (zephir) in this link
    The heater, 1 mm diameter( platinum)
    forming 42 turns of 20ram diameter, is
    placed inside the chamber.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The link seems dead

      • Zephir
        • Pekka Janhunen

          Thanks. Maybe Hank is right, and there aren’t too many mouse candidates in that small tube… I’m wondering, though, what’s the point of the mouse if its COP is close to 1. I never understood AR’s explanation how the cat-mouse system differs fundamentally from the original cycled E-cat. If the difference is a small deviation of mouse COP from unity, fine, but in that case it doesn’t sound a big deal. In that case I don’t understand why AR introduced a new concept for it and made a big fuss about it.

          Maybe what we were shown in Lugano was only the mouse (or only the cat) part of the device, and AR wanted to hide it to protect his IPR.

          Thinking aloud…

          • clovis ray

            I may have it wrong, but the way i see it is, the lugano device, could be either, if you take it in it’s ssm,where it is not using any input, it could be used as a mouse, to start many others and as soon as the others are going on there own, anyone of them can be used as a mouse.

            If the first one fails to ss, it would not make any difference as any one of the group can act as a mouse , only by switching it around, some chip could do this easily.
            Pekka i believe this is the paper i tried to link to,

          • Omega Z

            Only the cat was in operation in the Lugano test(continuous power), however the cat/mouse technology were both present.
            The mouse only functions when operated in the on/off mode. Per Rossi’s statement.

      • clovis ray
  • Bob

    Most of the “replicators” are not trying to compete with Rossi. At least to my understanding.
    They are simply trying to confirm that LENR/CF is a real and repetitive phenomena. Such groups as MFMP.
    I do not worry that they reach COP of 10 or 20. If they can reach COP of > 3 or 4 for sustained periods AND can repeat at will, then they have succeeded in their mission. MFMP has long stated that their mission is not to compete with a product, but to provide a “kit” that any University or scientist can use to replicate the LENR reaction.
    Once this is accomplished and hundreds of replications from “skeptic universities” is performed, then the LENR debate will be settled. We will not have to worry about only one entity being able to product a reactor with COP > 6.
    Just like in the Wright Brother’s days. Once powered flight became accepted fact, plane designs left forward very quickly. I suspect the same for LENR. Once it is accepted, the engineering muscle of established entities will design and develop at an accelerated pace.
    I do not want to sound like a broken record, but once the major companies seriously take LENR to task, they will leave Rossi behind in design advances. Economy of scale will not work.
    I hope Rossi makes his fortune, for without his breakthroughs, who know when this new energy source would have been realized. Perhaps next year, perhaps not in 50. So he deserves a lot.
    However, his economy of scale will not work. I suspect that Darden/IH knows this and is working very diligently behind the scenes with patent, licensing and other protections. However, there will be no 100% monopoly. The government did not let “Ma Bell” monopolize, nor will they allow Leonardo Corp. to do the same.
    We do not need the replicators to reach high COP. We only need them to reach reliable, repetitive reactions at a significant COP of 3 or 4. Even less if their measurement techniques are without criticism. In some ways, lower COP would be better, or at least not huge output power. It is very difficult and expensive to manage and monitor output powers in the tens, hundreds or thousands of kilowatts in a laboratory setting.

    • LuFong

      I don’t think IH/Darden care so much about the IP. They are concerned about combating pollution, particularly from coal. They want to see this technology applied for this purpose. The IP belongs to Leonardo/Rossi anyway. Rossi is another story.

      • Brent Buckner

        But IH/Darden may feel that Leonardo/Rossi’s ownership of IP gives value to the rights that IH/Darden licensed from Leonardo/Rossi. Darden has fiduciary responsibilities, so he is bound to care about profits.

        • LuFong

          It’s obvious Darden cares, but Darden who is a big if not the biggest investor has said he’s not in it for the money. Plenty of money will be made at some point.

      • Omega Z

        By way of Leonardo/Rossi/Industrial heat.
        The next Patent is issued to Industrial heat with Rossi & 1 of Industrial heats engineers as the inventors.

        Industrial heat is a Venture Capital(VC) instrument invested in Leonardo. A part of the partnership. When Rossi say the technology belongs to Leonardo, he means the partnership. It is all ONE.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You are right about the goals of the MFMP. It has been clearly stated here from day 1.

      We are technology and proponent agnostic. Test, validate, disseminate.

    • Omega Z

      Most of the “replicators” ARE trying to compete with Rossi, MFMP being 1 of the few exceptions.

      When a few dozen LENR plants are in operation in businesses, the LENR debate will be settled. Only then will “skeptic universities” become involved.

      Rossi does most of the chatting, but this is not Rossi’s show. It is Leonardo(Board of Directors) which is made up of many entities including Darden/IH & Rossi. Other then what Rossi has said, we really have little idea of what their ultimate plans consist of. If Leonardo were in talks with some Majors, we would never know & Rossi isn’t going to say.

      Darden confirmed the China connection only because it leaked out. Incidentally, The connection actually involves Chinese-American business people who do business in China due to family connections.

      If the Chinese Government is involved, it would be in providing the land access. In the past, China has been known to provide, land, state of the art factories & 25 years of Zero taxes. And sometimes, picking up a share of additional start up expenses.(Think G.E. & others.) All to attract Jobs. This is no longer a common practice.

      Tom Darden also indicated other contacts aside from China have been made, however, he didn’t elaborate as to who. Industrial heat recently announced setting up a large facility very similar to what they are doing in China. As with China, there is No indication who all is involved with this. Industrial heat is playing the front man.

      As to “Economy of scale” you likely mean mass produced at low cost. This has advantages. It creates a large cash flow & cash influx. This can be leveraged to gain access to or draw in Billion$ in investments.(Money likes Money) You become a huge player overnight and thus can recruitment the best engineers & scientists in the field.

      As to big Corporate Competitors, They will have to cross ALL the same bridges as Rossi. Several years of lab time & waiting for patents. And eventually, they to will need to run a pilot plant test just as Rossi is doing now. All the while, IH/Rossi will have a large on going R&D program and product production/sales.

      You are right that Government will not allow anyone to monopolize LENR & even Darden has said this technology needs to be dispersed. However, you used a bad analogy, “Ma Bell”. AT&T held a monopoly for decades with Government blessings. This was to assure a single standard.

      The Government didn’t break up AT&T because it was a monopoly. They broke them up because it’s R&D was beyond cutting edge.
      AT&T developed a communication technology that did NOT require landlines, wireless/cell phones or Satellite technology. When Government broke them up, all that R&D technology was taken by the Government as evidenced such technology no longer exists.

  • Gerard McEk

    Yes, that is what I assumed and is also a logical approach when I look to Rossi’s strategy to keep his competitors as far as possible behind. Possibly not before another big success of the replicators is published, he will put have his following patent being published (if that is possible to do).

  • Herb Gillis

    I recall reading some of Rossi’s first publications on the early Ecat which had tables of COP’s up to 200. That was at least 5 years ago. So; what early work is he referring to in this latest comment? It would have to be earlier than 5 years ago.

    • Mats002

      The oldest I know is a patent from 2009, here is a voice from JONP about that:

      will protect your invention.
      Imagine that a person that will succesfully reproduce your process, identifing the correct “catalyzer” to be used. This person could claim that the substance he uses as “catalyzer” is an his own discover, and he could also patent it, given that in your patent it is not specified what it is.
      Really puzzling, at least for me…
      Best wishes, L…”

    • Oystein Lande

      Rossi contacted Prof. Sergio Focardi back in 2007 with som ideas to improve the Ni/H LENR process…..Focardi himself had in the 90’s achieved COP=2 as far as I understand.

      So Rossi had probably started his own research before 2007….

  • Zephir

    At the moment, when we experience some overunity, then the actual value of COP is merely a matter of technology only. For example, when we already have COP ~ 3, we can arrange the system in form of ECat-mouse and to use the heat from first stage for heating the another level and to multiply the COP in such a way.

  • Brent Buckner

    Suggests that replicators looking to provide evidence of LENR may do better in the near term to focus on decreased measurement error bars as opposed to increased excess heat.

  • bachcole

    This is exactly as I said. Rossi is way ahead by virtue of his refinement of the process. By the time that Parkhomov et. al. get to where Rossi is, Rossi will be even farther along, perhaps selling units out of Home Depot. The only difference is that the replicators know that it is possible and Rossi didn’t know that it was possible. That is why Rossi is a hero, forging a path through the unknown.

  • Sanjeev

    A few hours ago Rossi posted that the new Ecat-X is working at 1400°C.
    So far no one has tested their reactors at that temperature.

  • Owen Geiger

    Edit: we are not going to be told what what those are

  • Bob Greenyer

    You can’t fault his ability to play with the gallery

  • Mats002

    Very encouraging!

    Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi, sed saepe cadendo.