E-Cat Test Result Guess (Peter Gluck)

Thanks to Barty for sharing this post from Peter Gluck’s Ego Out website.

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.de/2016/03/mar-04-2016-number-worth-million-words.html

Let’s be sure we put this in firmly in the RUMOR category for now. Peter does not say how or where he gets his information, or if it is just a flight of imagination. Hopefully he will clarify soon — I will try to get in touch with him.

Peter writes:

Think about these Mottoes and try to answer to this- how many words worth can be a very significant Number?
Let’s take 21 – it happens to be exactly the half of Douglas Adams’ hyper-magic number- and in this case it is – at least I hope so- the global- and average COP of the Rossi-Industrial Heat 1MW LENR plant communicated by the ERV. The plant has delivered 8400000 kWh energy to the Customer who confirms this value officially and has consumed a few kWatts less than 400000.

UPDATE: I heard back from Peter who says that this is just a guess on his part. I have changed the title of the post to reflect that.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I think Rossi made it though all the flak we saw before and
    is now on his way home. Time will tell.
    http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/36.jpg

  • Lux Terrea

    From the numbers I’ve read here alabama power could be replaced with about 23 grams per year.

  • LCD

    Even if the cop is about 6 it still would be revolutionary because we all know that it brings LENR front and center, after that it will just improve.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I doubt that the test was run at anything close to optimal efficiency. But a COP of 20 is more than enough to change the world.

    • Mats002

      Yes teacher!

  • georgehants

    The end of the World (as we know it) is coming.
    Lets hope this time the guys carrying the sandwich boards (us) have got it right.

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    Mats Lewan,

    Will there be a major news conference to let the whole world know the results?

    Christopher

  • Frank Acland

    For those in the know, it must be quite a temptation to share the news if it is good. But I guess there are some strict conditions of confidentiality for all players on the inside. Still, things do leak, and we know that Mats Lewan has heard from multiple sources that the test has been successful. Perhaps Peter’s guess is an educated one based on things he has heard. Me, I’ve heard nothing, and probably that’s just as well, as it would be quite a burden of responsibility to know something an have to keep quiet.

    • Michael W Wolf

      gees, when MFMP went public there were 14 of us watching. When the announcement is made, everywhere it is put, people will be calling in bunk.

      • Mats002

        14! Wow! Only 6999999986 to go. Of course oil price drops heavily because of this.

    • Gerard McEk

      It may be nothing, but yesterday on the Dutch television news the CEO of the national ‘Nederlandse Bank’ made an odd plea to quickly withdraw from Oil, Gas and Coal for future economical reasons. The Netherlands are a huge hub of all these commodities for Europe, with an invested capital of 368 Billion Euros. There is no chance that other energy sources (wind and solar) will be able to replace the energy supply in Europe in midterm time, so does he know what’s going on with Rossi and the test results?

      • Peter

        I’m from the Netherlands and I see that in de past year the price of petrol is decreased dramatically. I also follow the news and of course the ecat news and I can see no other direct reason than this (low oilprices) has something to do with LENR. Nobody will officially confirm this and even a well known newsletter that I have written more than once will not even spend one second on LENR and ecat. Well, they will be in for a surprise I think!

        • Mike Henderson

          @Peter
          “I see no other direct reason than this”

          I would take a look at these other direct reasons:
          1) the death of King Fahd and changes in OPEC politics,
          2) the possible manipulation of oil prices to harm Russia and / or Iran,
          3) the impact of fracking on natural gas economics.and the U.S.’s transformation into a net oil exporter, and
          4) the addition of gigawatts of wind & solar power capacity.

          LENR is still considered lunatic fringe alchemy by the energy markets. The coal industry is already in tatters. (http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/03/arch-coal-fund-climate-denial/) I would not want to be holding Exxon stock in the next year or two.

          • Billy Jackson

            I think Mike is correct.

            I think that the e-cat may have produced some ripples for the future of big oil. but its to early to say that its had this major massive impact on the active market. I think that has been the glut of oil that fracking and other energy’s such as solar/wind put out.. the demand went down.. i would look to something along those lines for today’s markets.. but would not doubt that the e-cat has changed future forecasts for the 5+years market

            • psi2u2

              Well, all I can say is, watch out for falling objects if LENR is not already priced into the current market values…….

          • EEStorFanFibb

            I agree. odds of LENR having any affect on the commodities markets right new are very small imo. everything happening now can be attributed to coming climate change regulations and the strong rise of renewables/battery storage. I’m sure certain members of the elite powers that be are aware of LENR but not the markets as a whole.

        • Gerard McEk

          Yes that has been said more often and there may be a link, but in the past I think that link was too far fetched. This odd remark of the NB CEO is very strange though, so maybe?
          Er is een kleine groep Nederlandse LENRn enthousiasten. Als je geintersseerd bent, laat het dan weten, Peter.

          • psi2u2

            Personally I do think that looming LENR has already been a secret lever moving the market — but of course there are many other reasons for the decline in price, so it is difficult to prove.

  • http://www.russgeorge.net/ russ george

    Let’s see electric power in Miami costs 7 cents per kwh for industrial customers… so Rossi bought $28,000 worth of electricity and provided his customer with $588,000 worth saving the customer about half a million dollars. That half a million had to pay Rossi and his assistants and for the hardware for more than a year. It doesn’t seem like Rossi is becoming rich yet.

    • Michael W Wolf

      what really matters is that there were no co2 emissions. This should rock the foundations of science if we lived in a normal world. But we don’t. It’s a world full of money and power, not the freeing of mankind.

    • Oystein Lande

      Well, it depends on what you Compare against:

      Fuel oil energy- 12,5 kwh pr liter.

      Assuming 80 USD/ bbl of heating oil costs, this would mean 50 cents pr liter heating oil.

      So heating costs would be 4 cents pr KWh using fuel oil.

      This is the price Rossi must compete against for pure Industrial heating.

      • Omega Z

        This particular E-cat plant was not intended to make money. Only to flesh out information and issues to be worked out for the production version. That and to certify it as to safety standards etc…

        • Billy Jackson

          I would have to agree with Omega Z. This was a concept test. Does it work in a real world working environment. So far according to rumor its an unequivocal yes. If we have learned anything over the years its to not trust rumor. The truth will be in the report.

          (a COP of 20+ cant help but bring out that smile though) 🙂

    • pg

      This wins the short sighted award hands down.

  • Curious Swede

    That amount of energy equals a mass loss of 0.34 g if I have all the zero’s right.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Are you saying that 8 Million KW/H Hour is generated by the conversion of just 0.34 gram of mass?

      If so, it just put into perspective what nuclear reactions can really deliver…

      (though I have trouble believing this)

      • Frank Acland

        I recall that Mats Lewan said he had heard that just “tenths” of a gram of fuel were consumed in this test.

        • Brent Buckner

          Mats Lewan wrote: “I have also been told that the total amount of fuel—mostly harmless elements such as litium, hydrogen and nickel, according to Andrea Rossi’s granted patent on the technology—was in the range of tenths of grams.” http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/18/mats-lewan-covers-conclusion-of-the-1-mw-plant-test/

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yea, and i remember reading it could have continued as the fuel was not spent. Or should I say catalyst was not spent?

      • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

        Energy = mass * (speed of light)²
        Or E=mc²

        That’s a lot 🙂

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          As we heard the fuel was exhausted at the end of the test I thought that the big 250KW reactors would probably have consumed like maybe 12,5 grams each (1 gram per 20KW reactor = 250 / 20 = 12,5 gram) for a total of 50 grams. Allowing that not everything in the fuel is being used by the reaction I thought is possible that maybe 25 gram in total was consumed. You can see how I was just guessing…

          Frank seems to confirm this, but I never though about how much energy E=MC2 delivers. Intellectually you know it’s a lot, but confronted with reality: 0.34 gram for all 4 250KW reactors together… This is just stunning… The possible amount of power available to humanity is absolutely staggering…

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            So for the first time in my live I will try to calculate using E=MC2. Here goes:
            0.34 mass * (300.000)2 = 30.600.000.000 Joules
            30.600.000.000J for 3.600 seconds delivers 8.500.000 Watt
            8.500.000 Watt – 400.000 Watt input power = 8.1 Million Watt so close to what is being reported. That is cool … unless I’m totally wrong 😉

            • EEStorFanFibb

              you blew it on the units I think. 0.34g needs to be converted to kilograms. m must be in kilograms.

              I stopped checking after that.

            • Slad

              0.34g is correct because you used km/s instead of m/s for the speed of light, so it cancels the kg to g

              • EEStorFanFibb

                I should have kept checking
                :p

              • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

                Of course I knew that, Slad and EEStorFanFibb 😉

                But I didn’t…

                Anyway, I actually do follow what you’re saying Slad, though I was just lazy because a little more investigation into the terms of that equation would have revealed that I just made a mess of it. It just shows how precise you have to be in this field. Hat’s off to all of you involved with this LENR business.

                Still it’s nice to see how I’ve sort of hit the jackpot by pure luck which is what advancements in this field sometimes looks like 😉

            • Michael W Wolf

              Maybe that is how the guesser (Gluck) derived his numbers?

              • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

                Most probably, which means the COP will likely be between 0.000021 and 2100000 as per my calculations and if I’ve got the terms right…

          • Rene

            It is much less fuel that that. I recall Rossi said only a fraction of the fuel gets converted before the structure becomes inefficient or quenches entirely. Then the spent material is sent back for reprocessing and reuse of the material that did not participate in the reactions.

          • Billy Jackson

            Z.Z.Z. It makes one wonder does it not? while we are learning new methods to garner energy more efficiently. we still have massive room for improvement when it comes to the conversion via this method. less than a gram of material for almost a years worth of running… to quote Zed.. that’s absolutely staggering…

        • Alan DeAngelis

          “The amount of matter converted to energy in the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 700 milligrams, less than one-third the mass of a U.S. dime.”
          http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jul-aug/24-numbers-nuclear-weapons-bomb-stockpile-peace

          • Mark Underwood

            By and large, no protons, neutrons or electrons were harmed in the exploding of the atomic bomb. They were merely rearranged into lower energy configurations.
            On the other hand, if (say) an electron and positron met then *that* would represent matter being converted into energy.

      • Michael W Wolf

        I was thinking the total for the whole 350 days.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      It does lead me to question how much of the total “fuel” is actual reactant mass?

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty
    • Mats002

      So now we have a ‘Peter says’ situation? For worse or for the better?

    • LuFong

      No, he calls it an “idea.” It’s clear this is just his fantasy. Let’s keep things real before we celebrate 🙂

    • Gerard McEk

      Peter sounds like serious. If Ecat X is even better, then the replicators have a long way to go.

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    On Vortex Peter wrote that we may hear more details either later today or tomorrow.

    So this is more than just a “guess” in my opinion. Maybe Peter did not expect that his post goes viral and is now pulling the break a little 😉

  • Slad

    I think Peter Gluck must be getting into the clairvoyancy business:
    He’s been making some oddly specific “guesses” of late…

  • Frank Acland

    I heard back from Peter who says this is just a guess from him regarding the results. I have changed the title of the post to reflect that.

    • Curbina

      Thanks for the important clarification Frank, I think it got some hearts pounding strongly around the globe, include mine.

  • Curbina

    One can only have a glimpse of glory before being let to eat the cake. I hardly think this is a rumour, knowing the contact network Peter has, and also knowing most people respect him highly even if they don’t agree with him.

    • GreenWin

      Good idea Curbina… http://bit.ly/1YbVBqq

      • Curbina

        😉 thanks, I’ll have to get my blood sugar tested after this, but it was yummy. 😀

  • LuFong

    8400000 kWh / 350 is exactly 24000. This seems very contrived to me. Also Rossi claims the test lasted 352 days while I had earlier calculated 362 based entirely on Rossi’s statements and the calander. The 352 claimed by Rossi also seems at odds with his statements of the test going into March. Best to just wait for the report and ignore unsubstantiated rumor.

    • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

      I guess this are rounded numbers by Peter Gluck.

      • GreenWin

        barty, thanks for the update. Nice to be in the know, even if ‘unconfirmed.’ For a smile, see my speculation on your comment in ‘Rossi Addresses Health Concerns.’

    • Anon2012_2014

      1 MW x 350 days x 24 hours = 8,400,000 kWh. It is contrived and not measured. It is just the nominal power output (not the measured output) of the plant. The 400,000 is also a contrived number undoubtedly as confirmed by Frank. It’s not COP 21. We hope it is COP of 3 to 5 as would make sense for a lower temperature ECAT device used to heat. If the COP is greater than 10, it would be used for electricity generation.

      • LuFong

        All the numbers are most likely made up based on hearsay Peter may have heard and are consistent with 21 and 1MW and 350. No problem with this as long as it’s clear what he’s saying. For me, I’ve waited 5+ years and am willing to wait a few more weeks to get the real numbers.

        Electricity generation has very little to do with COP although for a certain temperature needs to be above 3-4 for it to be economical. Earlier rumors were that the COP is between 20-80 for the low-temperature plant and energy consumption between 12-50kW. I would be extremely thrilled with 21 as this would difficult to find systematic errors to explain the excess.

        • Anon2012_2014

          I have been following also for a long time, and I remember Rossi promising COP of 6. I would be thrilled with COP 10. But I have never heard rumors of COP 20-80 for the 1 MW plant until now. It would be entirely revolutionary.

          • Heath
          • Michael W Wolf

            If Rossi can harness 1 spec of energy, it would be revolutionary. How much is what R&D and engineering are for. To say that breaking the laws of physics isn’t enough to convince the establishment, and that rossi needs a marketable product. What the heck do we need the establishment for? Isn’t that what they are supposed to do? I mean business men say “do you have a working product?”. Science is the figuring out what uses we can get from it. Einstein discovered E=MC2, they didn’t tell him it’s no good til you have a working product. Openheimer made use of it.

            • Anon2012_2014

              Wolf,

              I have been following a long time and I am being gradually persuaded that the science is proven. What I haven’t seen yet is solid evidence for sufficient performance for a commercial device, as the evidence I have seen points to a device with a rather low COP, limiting its usefulness. If it is demonstrated that the conditions needed to sustain a reaction have high average COP over the energy production cycle, the eventual applications are replacement of all current energy production methods. That is what I mean by revolutionary. Getting rid of all fossil fuel and all fission energy is a revolution akin to the first Industrial Revolution, or the replacement of horses with automobiles. I wait for evidence.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi has always stuck by the COP>6. This is pretty much minimum required to be cost effective against fossil energy. Also, even if COP>10, at 120`C, your not going to produce much electricity.

        • Anon2012_2014

          I did some work and COP of 5 is essentially the minimum to try and extract electricity assuming the heat is supplied by electricity. I think with an organic working fluid and a more efficient heat engine with a 50% efficiency of converting the heat to electricity (example: sterling engine driving generator) we could work with a COP of 6. Higher COP better.

          The lower COP units could make more efficient electric heating units for buildings. If cheaper natural gas can be substituted for some or all of the heat, these could make very economically useful heating “furnaces” for building use.