Rossi: For 1MW Plant Test, Maximum Possible Input 300kW — Average Output 1 MW

I have been trying figure out what the minimum COP could have been in the 1MW plant test, so I asked a couple of questions on the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

1. What was the maximum electricity input available to the 1MW E-Cat plant during the year long test?

Answer: 300 kW

2. During the 1-year E-Cat plant test, during the time the plant was operating (excluding down times), what was the average power output (thermal)?

Answer: The average energy produced has been: circa 1 MWh/h

Assuming Rossi’s answers are truthful here (and no hidden sources of energy were input into the system), the minimum COP for the entire test would have been about 3. That would be if all the electrical power available was used, and without any self-sustain mode employed. If there were long periods of operation in self-sustain mode, as Andrea Rossi reported while the test was going on, then it’s conceivable that the COP of about 50 as reported in the legal complaint could have been achieved.

I also asked Rossi about the electricity bills of the customer. He affirmed that those bills have been retained, but declined to say whether he and/or IH had access to them, saying this could be something that could come up in the court case. I would think that the customer could end up being an important witness if the case gets as far as a trial.

  • John

    I reviewed the technical specs for the E Cat listed on HydroFusion s website. It gives a maximum input power of 200 kW, and an average input power of 167 kW. Why is there a difference between what is listed on HydroFusion’s website and what is given here?

    • DrD

      Available input power must be > actual (MAX) input power.

  • DrD

    It’s not all personal gain. As said many times, you don’t develop, improve, manufacture and support something as difficult as this for free or even on charitable donations.

  • DrD

    such a positive reply to such a question. Amazing.

  • DrD

    Try reading all of this blog and his.

  • Owen Geiger

    Rossi said the new reactors incorporate all the changes and improvements that were developed during the one year test.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Mats Lewan on his blog from April 24th reports on a one-month bill for the place alleged to be the test site. He reports that it: “… indicates an average consumption of about 10 to 20 kWh per hour”. Even if it is off by a factor of two, it certainly can separate COP 1 from COP 50. The other measurement (assuming that the steam out does not contain liquid water) required is water mass flow rate into the plant. You will see arguments about how accurate the flow sensor is and if it was properly calibrated. I have calibrated flow sensors by using a stop watch (much less than 1% error), a bucket (about 5 gallons US), and a scale (less than 1% error). All you need to do is divert the water flow into the bucket, time the diversion using the stopwatch, and then weigh the water in the bucket. It is certainly not rocket science. It should be easy to differentiate COP 1 from COP 50.

    If the ERV could not make the measurements, something is radically wrong.

    • Owen Geiger

      Calorimetry is be standard, straightforward work for specialists who work in this field, and yet pathoskeps will debate it endlessly as if it’s impossibly difficult. Use some common sense. Obviously engineers know how to do this properly. And because of the importance of this test almost certainly everything was checked and rechecked many times. And then consider the bogus argument that IH was supposedly fooled for one year. This is such an outrageous claim that stretches credulity. How could IH be this incompetent?

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Pathoskeptics will also argue that the quality of the steam was wrong and that will “invalidate” the test, but even if no steam was generated, only water at 100C, you still can separate COP 1 from COP 50.

  • radvar

    You know, that statement says a whole lot more about you than it does about anything else. I mean, you do know that, don’t you?

  • Tom59

    Stepping back and away from discussions about all sorts of details, we have a technology, barely understood and far from systematically researched. But there is something and it is potentially big. Rossi took up the splinters of understanding, puzzled together a device that shows the effect and tries to push this to market, largely in a one man show. We follow his struggles in real time and wait impatiently for the happy end which we expected for the past weeks but it did not come. Maybe we are at the same level as an early alchemist who heated an obscure mixture and blew up his lab. Far away from a controlled use of explosives. But that early explosions raised questions among the curious and we ultimately arrived there. Maybe Rossi is that early alchemist.

    • psi2u2

      Very nice perspective.

    • Eyedoc

      Sorry, but that was F & P……AR is the guy 100 years later that got the mixture right and sold gunpowder

  • Snobben

    I have been following A.R since he first showed up on Swedish TV, 6 years ago. I belived in him and gived him hes chance to prow what he’s got. But some time it’s time to wake up and that time will soon be here. Of course it’s up to every one to make that decision. But i think it’s healthy for AR to feel the clock is ticking what ever he have in hes mind…

  • Snobben

    Welcome where?

  • “but observations or reports are just reports”

    If they come directly from AR, aren’t they just a tad bit more reliable? i mean, first hand from one of the principals involved, the inventor even, must carry more weight?

  • Yes, one must ask how or what is the scam even?

    He is NOTHING in the vein of Bernie Madoff or Charles Ponzi even.

    And the ‘boys’ involved at this point (IH et al) are professionals at this point

    Not our grandmas and their pensions …

  • Anon2012_2014

    Thanks Engineer48.

    #71 is from Rossi’s lawyer in the complaint, not the ERV. #73 is from the ERV:

    “More specifically, the ERV found that over the Guaranteed Performance period, the amount of energy produced by the E-Cat Unit was consistently substantially greater than six (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the unit. In fact, the ERV found that during the testing period, the average energy multiplier (Energy Produced / Energy Consumed) was often greater than sixty (60).”

    This tells me the ERV measured COP 6+ with occasional burst during self-sustained mode to 60.

    I think average 50x COP is a likely gross exaggeration that has been seized upon by the uninformed. COP of 3 to 10 is reasonable for the 350 day test of total energy in (joules or kWH) to energy out. If the plant is running at 50x COP meaning that it consumed only 20 kilowatt years for an output of 1000 kilowatt years (rounding test time up to 1 year), it is essentially too good to be true. This is almost certainly a gross exaggeration which will be shown when the ERVs report is made public.

    • Engineer48

      All the claims are from Rossi, as written by his lawyer.

      Please reread claim 71, which in effect states the total energy outputted, over the period of the test, was significantly greater than 50 times the total energy consumed.

      Of course that claim, which is very clear and made by Rossi, must be verified.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Thank’s Hhiram. I try to analyze and be honest. Sometimes I make mistakes — I’m only human.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Furthermore, because pretty much all of the Electricity in France comes from Nuclear, the French tend to heat their house electrically. If they could used 1/3rd less with electric heaters that had a COP of 1.5 then the balance they could sell to Germany, which would offset their reliance on burning dirty Lignite coal for much of their energy production.

    Saying you need a high COP is not really considering the massive benefit even a small positive COP could have for the environment.

  • Snobben

    I know some intresting things regarding the one megawat-container and the secret custumer. I heard from people that was there Swedish physics and one journalist. The thing is that the container realy was in operation, and Rossi was the one runing it. The tricky part is that the containers heat was konected by a hose to a hole in the wall. Nobody that visited the container knowd whar was on the other side of the wall. I my self think it sounds very surealistisct like an episod from the TV-serie Lost or something like that. This information is for me first information and second information and I’m convinced that this is how it looked for all visitors at the customer… sorry for any miss spellings…

    • Those people I talked to, who visited the plant, said exactly this. The steam output was led in a tube going through a wall where the customer’s production supposedly was being run. The door to that space was closed and they never opened it. One of them, however, claims to have gleaned when the door opened for a moment, and saw what seemed to be production activity.

      BTW, on my blog at, I published also this today:

      ‘I have been talking to people having visited the 1MW plant and meeting with the customer during first half of 2015, showing them pictures taken at the registered address for the customer JM Products—7861, 46th Street, Doral, Fl 33166. They say that it looks very much like the place they visited, noting details such as the stairs leading up to the entrance at the back of the building—an area where trucks can load and unload cargo. I and other persons have tried to call the telephone number listed for JM Products, (786) 631-4676, a number that was also written on a business card I have seen, but there was no answer.’

      • Ged

        Mysterious. Like some Steven King novel. Makes our lives interesting.

      • Snobben

        My opinion regarding Andrea Rossi and hes LENR is that all people sitting on information,small or big should make it official. That includes all involved parts no mather in which level or task. Just speak out, thats the only way to reach the truth

        • Snobben

          If A.R have what he says he have there is nothing to protect, only good things can come out of it. If he don’t have it, then there is absolutely nothing to protect. I think the second scenario is the most likely outcome…sadly

          • bachcole

            Alerting the competition to what one has is very foolish in the business sense.

        • bachcole

          “should” is a yellow flag word.

  • wpj

    Yes, I was getting confused with F8 and F7 having, it seems, already lost F9 (though that, apparently, remains a bone of contention).

  • Snobben

    If Dr Rossi don’t come up witha a real good reson for him to be belived in very soon, i will place him among the greatest scamers in the world

    • Fine. You do that. We will see in a year or two who eats their hat as the saying goes.

  • Snobben

    Ok, you think my comment was wrong and to chalanging aginst Dr Rossi? I think you should consider working for the thrue and not defend a highly posible scamer…. I will spread the word about yor censure on other forums if you contniu on this path

    • Snobben

      Thruth i mean

      • Or even ‘truth’?

        • Snobben

          Jepp, english ain’t my native language…you should try Swedish 🙂

          • US_Citizen71

            Maybe you should try Google translate, it at least doesn’t misspell words or use slang like ain’t.

            • Gerrit

              I see nothing suspicious in a non native speaker using slang words. What you may not know is that in most northern countries english language tv shows are subtitled, thus all those slang words are frequently heard and understood, but grammar mistakes stay.

              • US_Citizen71

                The thing is the expletive that is part of BS is one of the 7 words you can’t use on TV in the US so it wasn’t learned from a TV show. Here is an authority on the subject:

              • Snobben

                That’s right and english expressions like “money talks and bullshit walks” are frequently used in sweden. we often mix in englis words and sentence wen we talk. I don’t think US citizen have been much around the world…

            • Snobben

              It’s not often i have a reason writing in english. I have followed this story from a swedish forum called Energikatalysatorn, i have defended Andre Rossis right to prove what he’s got from that forum for around five years now. But i think Andrea Rossis time is running out. There are no longer any reason for him to slow things down. The break with IH should speed things up and if not that’s because Andrea Rossi have nothing to show the world. I don’t care much what you think about me ore who i am…this is just my opinion.

        • Timar

          It is spelled ‘TRUTH’. Ask georgehants 😉

    • psi2u2

      Just out of curiosity, who is the ‘you’ in this statement?

  • Michael W Wolf

    It is simple. If the ecat can’t produce electricity, it can’t be chained so easily.

    • DrD

      AR also answered in response to a similar question, that he doesn’t do this for “safety reasons”. Even without a E-Cat X (with direct electrical output capabilty) he could have generated electric via a trubine or sterling engine or many of the other lower efficiency techniques.
      I also wondered, if it’s for safety reasons, why he couldn’t buffer the lectricity via a large bank of batteries. I think the answer is, why bother if you have a grid and only need 2%.

  • wpj

    Interesting question

    Dr Rossi,

    Do you use titanium in the QuarkX ?


    Answer was “yes”; no longer any F numbers.

  • Timar

    With sufficient engineering, any COP significantly greater than 1 based on a thermally controlled reaction can very likely be turned into a COP that approaches infinity. It is all about the distribution of heat within the reactor (plus the outer insulation of the reactor) necessary to maintain a stable(!) reaction – the “self sustain mode”. Therefore it seems technically plausible that Rossi may be able to acchieve a COP > 50 after all these years of engineering that went into his reactors and all the design revisions (e.g. “cat & mouse”) he supposedly went through.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I do not assert anything, I‘m just outlining a worst case scenario. Independently of that, exactly such a mismeasurement happened in July 2012 during a presentation of the E-Cat to Swedish investors. See Mats Lewan’s book, 1st edition (print version), p. 238f. Or search
    “The instruments show different” in the E-book.

  • Karl Venter

    When can we expect some ecats Yahooo?

  • Zeddicus23

    This has been discussed many times, but the simple answer as I understand it is that significant electrical power is used to drive the Ecat, while the output is relatively low-grade heat. (This is true BTW for almost all LENR experiments starting with Pons & Fleischmann who used electrolysis.) The efficiency for conversion from heat to electricity is very low (although it increases somewhat at higher temperatures) and so a relatively high COP is needed to close the loop. So far, no one (Celani, Piantelli, Brillouin Energy, P&F, etc.) has been able to do this in part because the COP is too low, and also because in most cases the low operating temperature leads to an even lower efficiency for conversion to electricity thus requiring an even higher COP. On the other hand, it is conceivable that Rossi’s ‘mouse-cat’ benefits from this principle, e.g. the “mouse” provides some of the heat and/or radiation needed for the larger ‘cat’. This is of course assuming that Rossi’s e-cat does in fact operate with the COP that he claims.

  • Omega Z

    Per Rossi, approximately 12KW to 14KW are needed during SSM.

    We don’t know the average length of time of SSM. In the past, he’s said to have maintained an average SSM 75% of the time.

  • giovanniontheweb

    nobody tries to steal an “empty patent”, that is actually a more consistent proof than any approximate “theory”