The Very High COP of the E-Cat

This is a guest post written by Hank Mills

Recently, there has been a lot of talk and discussion about the COP of the E-Cat. The term COP stands for coefficient of performance. Basically, it means how much power you put in compared to how much you get out. With the E-Cat, you are guaranteed to get out six units of power (thermal) for everyone one unit of power (electrical) you put in. This means that a minimum COP of 6 is guaranteed.

A few individuals have been saying that a COP of six is low. However, it is not. A COP of six is actually very high. For decades hot fusion scientists have attempted to build reactors that can exceed a COP of 1.1, and have not been able to do so. They have not been able to do so despite billions of dollars in funding. However, the current models of E-Cat that are soon to be commercialized can produce an average COP of six which is much higher than any attempt at hot fusion has ever been able to produce. In addition, this COP of six can be produced utilizing only tiny amounts of fuel, without producing any nuclear waste, and without producing any radiation that can escape the reactor.

With a COP of six and 600C steam, the E-Cat technology can change the world. A higher COP is not required. Consider the following example.

A one megawatt plants produces one megawatt of output power in the form of steam, while consuming 166 kilowatts of electrical power. With 600C steam a turbine can produce electricity with approximately 45% efficiency or greater. However, to be conservative lets say the efficiency is only 40%. This means that 400 kilowatts of electrical energy is produced. 400 kilowatts of output minus 166 kilowatts of input equals 234 kilowatts of excess power.

Basically, a first generation one megawatt E-Cat can produce 234 kilowatts of excess power. This is enough power to run a small neighborhood of homes. It is also enough power to run a medium sized business or a shopping mall. This power will be produced with almost zero fuel cost (maybe $20 dollars a year), no pollution, no nuclear waste production, and the only cost will be the purchase of the system and maintenance.

The price of the first systems will be economical, but not as low as the price will be once the scale of production is increased. Once they are mass manufactured the price will go down even more. Eventually home E-Cats that can produce electricity will be mass manufactured, and the price will go down to the point that energy will be dirt cheap.

However, a COP of six is not the limit. In the past E-Cats have produced COPs of 200 or more during periods of self sustained operation. During self sustained operation the electrical resistor is turned off, which is what consumes the majority of the input power. The only power consumed is from the radio frequency generators, sensors, and whatever pumps are needed. The result is that a huge amount of output can be produced with very little input.

Right now, an E-Cat cannot run forever in self sustained mode. Every so often power has to be applied in the form of a “drive.” Otherwise, the reactors can become unstable, the nickel powder can melt, and the reactor can go dead. Resolving this is just a matter of engineering and research. I am sure that in future generations of E-Cat the self sustaining periods can be made longer, and the COP will become even higher.

So in fact, the E-Cat can produce a very high COP right now, but only for certain periods of time. Then the COP will go down when an input is applied. This is not a big deal, because the average COP will always be at least six. A few years from now, the average COP may be 10 or 20.

But again, a COP of 10 or 20 is not needed. A COP of 6 is very high.

It is high enough to produce all of the world’s electricity.
It is high enough to desalinize ocean water.
It is high enough to provide all of the world’s heating.
It is high enough to be incorporated in vehicles.
It is high enough to end the energy crisis, and end the use of fossil fuels.

A COP of 6 is high, regardless what the skeptics or competitors say.

Hank Mills

  • Hank, I generally agree with your assessment. A COP of 6 is ABSOLUTELY REVOLUTIONARY! A COP of 6, especially with temperatures of 600c will ABSOLUTELY TRANSFORM THE WORLD!

    Most importantly, this is a “first generation” product. What the technology will look like is unclear, but it will be way beyond the first generation. As an illustration, see

    However, Hank, you said, “Right now, an E-Cat cannot run forever in self sustained mode. Every so often power has to be applied in the form of a “drive.” Otherwise, the reactors can become unstable.” Do you know something that the rest of us don’t? To the best of my knowledge, very little detail has been revealed about the function of Rossi’s technology, including how it responds in “self-sustain mode”.

    • Hank Mills

      My understanding has always been that the E-Cat tends to “run away” in self sustain mode after a period of time. Somehow, the application of heat can restabalize the reactor.

      • Ivan

        Hank, You need to undestand that Mr Rossy is the master of desinformation and Illusion, I will also love to see cop 6, because as Mr Chagas said in this blog it could turn into an infinite cop.
        but we are speculating, there is no solid evidence in Rossi, work.
        How many people in his company, where is the team, seem like a one man band promising gold at the end of the rainbow.

        • jacob

          Ivan, Hank probably knows more than any of us put together,not only has
          Hank witnessed free energy devices running and seen them himself,those
          that know this Ecat technology works do not have to see more evidence,of course there are the late comers like you Ivan ,that have not been involved with free energy,and that makes it hard for you to understand and it may take some time to get your head around it,witnessing free energy first hand is the quickest way to believe.

          • Ivan

            The base of this article is the comment of Rossi in his journal of Phisics, I have also read it, and does not mean prove of any think, I also could say I have a device with cop 100, would you belive it?
            No one should make claims if there is no prove. Rossi could work in secret and show his results when ready, but because he has made public claims, now He shold back them up with solid prove.
            He just act like a scamer.

      • Perhaps nuclear power is produced only if the temperature is high enough and also the local temperature gradient is nonzero. If that is the case, then the nuclear “burn” would naturally get driven to the boundaries of the fuel domain where it would disappear and shut off. The reason it happens is that the temperature gradient tends to go to zero at the centre (as it does e.g. at Earth’s centre) then the nuclear burn also stops at the centre, and the dead zone will spread until it covers the whole fuel. But by resistively heating the middle of the core one can maintain a radial thermal gradient vector field everywhere, resulting in stable “burn”.

        This is only a toy model with no microphysical motivation. But maybe it points out one way of “explaining” the situation with macroscopic quantities.

        • GreenWin

          Sounds reasonable. These nickel systems have the relatively low melting point of the lattice to contend with.

          Reminds me in the early dayz of nuclear fission – the Copenhagen guys thought yeah, we might get a runaway chain-reaction leading to meltdown or explosion. Their solution was to throw a chunk of cobalt in the reactor vessel…

  • Kim

    We are just now beginning. We are in the infancy, but

    COP of 6 is very adequate at 600C.

    I’d be happy if I could keep hot hot in my hot tub.

    We are just beginning to figure out how to micro manage the energy of the atom.

    Lets be satisfied with 6 COP for now, the good stuff
    will come later.

    Its like a wright brothers aircraft compared to a
    Jet Aircraft. Be Patient.

    Besides Andrea Rossi has competition now!


    • Kim, Rossi is shakin’ in his boots!

      • Kim

        That what ya get for taken so long, the
        competition sneaks up on ya.


    • alex

      Seems a bit crack pot to me. Second paragraph in Federation of Light offer letter:

      To participate in this program, we ask those of you who are willing to make certain changes in your household to make their names available to us either telepathically or through posting or commenting throughout your online social networks and we will enter your name into our database for consideration for this advancement in your home.

      • Kim

        Andrea Rossi offers the same deal, but i
        don’t think he has the telepathic option.


      • GreenWin

        Hey, why suffer carpel tunnel typing on keyboards if you can use quantum entanglement to telepathically text your message??

        The politics of this group is interesting. They should not work against AR or any other new energy inventor/scientists. We all want the same thing. And there is plenty of energy to go around. Plenty. Thanks Kim for the heads up. Illuminating.

  • atanguy

    Hank, you seem so affirmative, do you have some inside that we don’t know? 😉

    • Hank Mills

      I have a little bit of inside info, but not a lot. Basically, if you look at the information that is publicly available you will see that there is a huge amount of evidence that the E-Cat works as claimed.

      It has been tested over and over again in 2011. All of the tests proved that a massive amount of heat was produced. Different models of E-Cats were tested, different scientists participated in the tests, and different kinds of tests were performed.

      It was tested privately multiple times by the DOE, the DOD, Ampenergo, and Defkalion before 2011. These test confirmed the device worked.

      Also, the device has been tested privately in tests that were not disclosed.

      • atanguy

        “It was tested privately multiple times by the DOE, the DOD”
        When was that? Any names of labs or individuals?

      • Ivan

        Hank, I fully disagree, I seen and read all reports in the internet about the ecat, and no test seems independent or profesionally done. a bit of vapor in an open system does not prove nothing, even Profesor Giuseppe Levi requested a closed system test with no steam, you just have to circulate water faster. this has never been done.

        • MikkaMakka

          What if an E-cat or other LENR device can store energy put into it PRIOR a public demonstration and releases it during the testing? Was this possibility ruled out? (I wish it to be the other way, yet the question is bugging me.)

        • Bigwilly

          Well stated Ivan,

          I am not mean spirited skeptic. But that is all that has happened is some puffs of steam.

          I have no more reason to believe Rossi’s latest claims of “6 COP” as I would to reading anonymous bathroom wall claims.

          They are only writing and it is easy to make a text based break through.

          I hope we are wrong though. I truly do.


  • Francisco das Chagas

    Any device with a COP of just 2, in terms of ELECTRICITY, is a “Holy Grail”.

    But the output needs to be ELECTRICITY.

    Just think: if I have a device that puts out 2 times more ELECTRIC energy than the ELECTRIC energy needed to put the device to work, I can use half of the ELECTRIC output to feed the input power of AN EXACTLY EQUAL DEVICE, and the other half of the output to feed A THIRD DEVICE, ALSO EXACTLY EQUAL TO THE FIRST ONE!

    That means: if devices A, B and C are equal, and have an ELECTRICAL COP of 2, then, the output of A is enough to power the input of B and C.

    This way, with the same energy input of “X” on A, I can have “2X” output from B and “2X” output from C, with a total output of “4X”. So, the COP that was 2, becomes a COP of 4!

    And we can use that “4X” output to feed four other equal devices, D, E, F and G.

    D, E, F and G will give a total output of “8X”. So, COP 2 becomes COP 8!

    And there you go…

    In the end, you may have 1024 devices being powered by 512 devices, that are powered by 256, that are powered by 128, etcetera, until you have just ONE device in the base of all the system. COP 1024.

    I guess you understand that any device with a COP of 2, that can be replicated, is equal to INFINITE COP.


    • Francisco das Chagas

      Remember: if the output is ELECTRICITY, there is NOTHING in the world that can prevent using the output of one device as input to the other two devices.

      You may use a battery, an inversor, or any other thing between the two devices, but in the end, the ELECTRICITY produced by the first device SURELY can be used to power the second device. Nothing in the world can prevent it.

      If one E-Cat produces 400 kilowatts of electrical energy, it can EASILY be the power source for TWO E-Cats, since two E-cats only need 332 kilowatts of input power.

      One E-Cat can power two E-Cats.

      Two E-Cats can power four E-Cats.

      Four E-Cats can power eight E-Cats.

      Eight E-Cats can power sixteen E-Cats

      Get it? You can easily build a “chain of E-cats”, with just ONE E-Cat, with an input of 166 kilowatts, being the ultimate power source for 16 E-Cats, producing a grand total of 6400 kilowatts (400 x 16).

      It’s the “miracle of the multiplication of energy”. Or call it any other name you want.

      • daniel maris

        Saying kilowatts means nothing in this context…KWs for a second or for an hour?

        • Ged

          KW is a unit power and by definition a KJ per second. The time domain is already in the unit.

          Total energy out is a completely different thing, and what you are asking about–that would be calculated based on the total Watts produced over the life span of the device until its fuel is depleted.

    • Francisco das Chagas

      One more idea…

      When you have devices D, E, F and G giving a total output of 8X, you may take X from it, and use to feed the input of the FIRST device, and use 7X to power 7 other devices.

      In this case, you will have a CLOSED LOOP system, a self-sustained sytem, with ZERO input power.

      D, E, F and G can power A, and can power H, I, J, K, L, M and N.

      ZERO input power, and H, I, J, K, L, M and N producing 14X.

      COP = infinity.

  • Francisco das Chagas

    Sorry. I think it was some kind of glitch of the browser.

    Now I can see the comments.


  • This might be a bit off topic but I heard a story about the decline of the Blue Fin Tuna and it dovetailed with my thoughts about the desert that the Sea of Cortez and other fisheries have become due to over fishing and trawling and the need for reefs/habitat/old-ships and such that might provide such shelter that could become nurseries for future sholes of fry and the thought came to my mind of the soon to be useless oil tankers. What do YOU think?

    • Omega Z

      Over half the World doesn’t have Electricity run to their homes Or indoor plumbing.

      My point is people write things off to quickly. Tankers will be around for quite awhile.

      On the other hand. I probably wouldn’t want to invest in a new tanker that takes at least 20 years to pay for itself.

  • Jeff

    The effective COP is 0 until somebody can buy one.

    • John

      Given the amount of time I waste on this website, COP may even be negative.

      • Ivan

        I see wisdom in this comment.
        A couple of fanatics beliving a scamer does not make COP 6.
        With Rossi background, he better get an independent test fast.

        • Casey

          Why independent test?. Spend money and time for it?. Since he know for sure his reactors is working and what he need is obtain proper certifications and setup mass production.
          Especially that he already got tens of thousands pre-orders willing to buy his devices.

  • When Hank talks about the declining price of E-Cats in the future, he makes perfect sense because he is invoking the law of supply and demand: greater demand=higher price, declining demand=lower price. However, there is no reason for Rossi to be a creature of the market forces that may envelop the E-Cat. In any case, demand will not be slaked off for at least a decade, in all likelihod, especially if Rossi can deliver electricity as well as ot water with the home kits. Every home on Earth would clamor to have one, and that’s a lot homes and a lot of demand. Rossi’s first-year output of a projected 1 million units (which is a pipe dream, really) would not even begin to nmeet demand. Moreover, I believe it will take Rossi a minimum of 3 years to produce 1 million units that meet specs. Hanks Mills paints a very lovely picture of our future, but he is an incurable optimist, I think. Realistically, we’ll be lucky to see any of the promised time frames actually be met. Rossi, in fact, could get beaten to the market by the hydrino reactors that have not had multiple independent validations. I just hope when the day arrives that there’s a lot of qualified competition out there!

    • That should have been:

      Rossi, in fact, could get beaten to the market by the hydrino reactors that have *now* had multiple independent validations (see

      • Or Defkalion, or Brillouin, or a dark horse.

      • Casey

        Three years ago thy had independent validations of 1kW and 50kW devices. So far nothing is on the market. Same is with the hydrinos. Did they collected any amount by so many years of testing?. Or it exists only in computer simulations.:)
        They signed fictitious contracts for producing thousands MegaWatts of energy and nothing was produced so far.
        What BLP announced is, that their devices produce couple Watts of energy and their goal is to build 100Watts device at the end of 2012. But it is theirs gaol, but not that they will build it.

  • John

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    • Rossi’s claims are not all that extraordinary. The really extraordinary claims are made by a significant group of top scientists from top institutions. See this.

    • Tom

      They don’t if they go straight to mass production.

    • Hank Mills

      No they do not. Extraordinary claims only require normal evidence. Those saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence are trying to put a double standard on exotic technologies.

      For example, if they went to buy a car with an internal combustion engine they would be satisfied that it ran if they were able to drive it down the street. If they were buying a cold fusion powered car they would inspect the area the engine should be (would see nothing is there) and demand to drive it 10,000 miles without refueling. When they got a flat tire they would say that the car did not use cold fusion as a power source.

      • Barry

        “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Didn’t I hear A. Rossi make that same statement.

    • all claims need evidences.
      ordinary, extraordinary, fraud, consensusl, heretic…
      normally extraordinary, heretic, claims are hard to explain, and simpler hypothesis often succeed better to occam razor…
      no need to have a rule. good theory can defend themselves without help.

      about LENR, the extraordinary claim were the LENR exist at COP>1… if hot fusion succeed at that level they would make a show on TV.

      I have no proof about hot fusion COP, no good calorimetry that can be understood by a kid. Rossi demo were easier to understand, and the protocol of Defkalion (that they keep in their pocket) is the only undiscussable one.

      LENR today is no more breaking any basic physical law, it is probably a simple nuclear reaction in crystal or surface context, where we don’t master yet the QM computation, as superconduction saga explain, as semiconductor history shows.

      Celani at CERN conference have proposed a decision tree, and explain how the alternative hypothesis don’t work …
      LENR at high power density, usable, works, no other hypothesis is acceptable.

      fraud, errors, uselessness, need proofs too.
      normally if the claims are extraordinary, and the experiment are loose, it is easy to find a simple alternative explanation.
      for LENR it is not. occam razor says that LENR works.

      the most funny is the cognitive dissonant explanation that deniers use.

      one day they say that LENR is fraud, then that it is not usable, … in fact they cannot accept the fact that LENR works and that rationally it is a huge disruptive revolution, because knowing that in theory LENR works imply that with good engineer work (which is a question of time only) we will obtain a huge energy source.
      They repeat obsolete arguments, that moreover are pathologic (failure of one experiment does not prevent other to works, if done better.), but at the same time , facing the new data they just minimize them…
      even if LENr is a small effect it is a huge revolution in science, in quantum mechanic, and with engineering work, in industry.

      the worst bad reasoning is that because many experiments failed, mean that it is unsure.
      this reasoning is bad science, pathologic.
      in fact one good experiment, is enough to kill the hypothesis that LENR-effect does not exist.

      If I cannot make a plane to fly (because I’m incompetent or ignoring plan engineering) this does not deny the work of Wright Brother or Airbus .

      I resume:
      – LENR is not magic, not even breaking modern science
      – LENR effect is proved since 1993 NASA GRC results, at high power density. replicated by SPAWAR, Iwamura. with coherent results from Celani, Piantelli, Mills…
      – experiment failures does not break the credibility of LENR since we clearly don’t understand the needed condition. what could kill the credibility is that absolutely all numerous successful experiment are victim of credible identified mistake, of fraud, or of clear looseness…

      • georgehants

        Must say that occam’s razor is another totally ridiculous scientific “opinion” tool that fool’s the unthinking, if as often, it is used to distort the Truth.
        By the razor then Newtons gravity would still hold as it is far simpler than Einstein.
        UFO’s need the same Evidence as Fire, they either are or thy are not, but as with many esoteric subjects which cannot be measured with a voltmeter, science cannot handle the difficulty with objectivity.
        Look at the problems with “proven” Cold Fusion.
        Much of science is a “expert opinion” joke.
        Only the TRUTH counts and for that you follow, with joy, the Evidence.

        • daniel maris

          I agree George – I have never liked the Occam’s Razor principle…it has all the dangers of a razor to the throat as far as finding the truth goes.

          A far better principle is “advance warily unless you see the path ahead”.

  • Alexvs

    The so called self sustain mode / self sustain period is just the time in which the lattice of Ni, Pd, Pt pumps out the energy that has been pumped previously. Measured over a time longer than the ignition time + self sustain time the resulting COP is < 1. Sorry but the reality is so cruel.

    • Alexvs

      Realize that Ni, Pd, Pt as well as Hg have a very peculiar stable isotope spectrum.

    • Alexvs

      In the rare ocassions I have posted I tried to make clear only that evidence is something different from Mr. Rossi’s sayings. It is valid for Defkalion et altri.

      • Alexvs

        What does FUD mean?

        • Methusela

          Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

        • Alexvs

          To Methusela: Thanks and again: It was not my intention.

          • hightech

            Isnt this from psn

            1.“No nuclear reactions occur during the process.” This contradicts his earlier claims, and it contradicts what other researchers are finding and reporting in similar set-ups. If he was not lying to Jim Stokes, then he has been lying to all the rest of us.

            2.“There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation.” This contradicts earlier claims, and it contradicts what other researchers are finding and reporting in similar set-ups. Such a measurement is a key signal that the technology is nuclear, and valid as claimed. When I was at the October 28, 2011 test in Bologna, I talked to the guy making background radiation readings for the test, and he said that gamma radiation had been measured more than a year ago from the E-Cat when Rossi still allowed the reactor to be open. Since then it has been shielded, and no radiation has been detected coming from the unit during operation. Defkalion’s 3rd party testing presently under way in Greece includes the detection of gamma radiation as evidence of the nuclear events taking place. Maybe according to Stokes, gamma radiation doesn’t count as “nuclear”. At least from a regulatory point of view, it is essentially benign at low levels.

            3.“Currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas.” This contradicts Rossi’s public claims of establishing manufacturing in the US; and it contradicts his claims of the technology being tested by UL (a US company), mentioned in the next sentence. How could they test it if they are not “using” it? Considering his intention to manufacture in the U.S., if indeed nothing is happening yet (which is not how he has portrayed this publicly), he should have replied “not yet, but let’s stay in touch.”

    • Robert Mockan

      That was called the “battery” hypothesis. It was never proven because researchers could not find any way to explain how some of the materials that generated heat released more than was input into them. Some of it could result from physical chemistry effects, that includes some exothermic processes, but the balance could not.

  • Tom

    It’s so frustrating to be on the cusp of unlimited energy and politicians are still squabbling about where to get more coal from! We still lack the evidence to put all our eggs in the cold fusion basket but could they at least acknowledge it and maybe put some funding behind it?! We could be living in Utopia in 5 years if we could all get on the same page.

    • dragon

      Utopia comes with a lot of people. A LOT OF PEOPLE.
      With unlimited energy we can get to 50-100 Billion humans on this shrinking Planet in a matter of 200 years. How we gonna solve that? Hunger Games?

      • jacob

        once utopia happens ,dragon why do you think people would want a lot of children,we would be so happy with the world and be a big happy family and raising kids is a lot of work .

        • dragon

          Trust me, with low prices and less work… people will want kids. Lots of them.
          Only the most urban bunch will reduce the number of the kids they want. The rest of the planet will want kids.

          This is the Malthusian catastrophe theory. This equation is unsolvable if we have only one planet to play with.

        • GreenWin

          You guys are way off mark. Global statistics demonstrate over and over again that increased prosperity REDUCES birth rates. Why? Because the cost of raising children at higher standards of living is prohibitive. College tuition is not going down – even if energy is free.

          The global elite engineered the growth of China specifically to limit its population growth. And it’s working. Population experts predict China will have 400 Million LESS births by century end. Due to prosperity cost of living.

          • dragon

            I guess One Child Policy has nothing to due with it… hmmm.

      • Tom

        With unlimited energy our population will continue to expand and maybe even thrive. With limited energy our population will still expand and inevitably collapse. Energy wont save us from ourselves but it will allow us to utilise our land and resources more efficiently. The only weapon we have to combat over population is education.

        • dragon

          I am pro-kids making. For me the solution to the malthusian problem should be access to huge space habitats (as depicted by Asimov) or terra-forming planets. All our tech should go at accelerated speed towards these 2 solutions. And I mean that we need both of them at the same time.

          • Tom

            That’s the ultimate dream I reckon. One step at a time though. I’d like to see our multiplicity slowed until we KNOW we can provide the space.

      • Ged

        That will never happen. Population growth curves do not work that way, they are logarithmic. So, for every doubling of time, our population will NOT double once we hit the “saturating” phase (also known as the stationary phase of a population, when growth rate levels off to zero and the population simply maintains itself with minor fluctuations). What you get is a diminishing returns effect. Usually this is limited by the “size” of the growth space or a limiting nutrient, but is NOT due to a loss or lack of that factor, as that results in population die off, not stationary phase.

        Clean, fresh water is the limiting resource for humans, along with population density. But interestingly enough, with higher amounts of available energy and education, the human population curve quickly enters stationary phase.

        From the current human population growth curve, we will enter stationary phase at about 9 billion. After that, the human population on Earth will sit perpetually at 9 billion barring any disasters. We will never go to 50 or 100 billion, period!

        Now, once we start colonizing space, then our total population will increase, but on Earth it’ll stay plateaued.

        • jacob

          what happens if space is already colonized ,according to my research ,the moon has a mining colony ,supported by mother ships from Venus
          as far as I know Ged,we have already reached your saturation level of over 9 billion on under in planet earth.
          read,’ the genesis of a new space age’ free download ,its all over the internet.

        • Omega Z

          Most developed countries populations are technically nearing population peeks or going into decline. Only immigration from less developed countries are feeding population growth in the developed countries.

          Without immigrants the U.S. population would be in decline. 2.2 births per household equals zero growth. Last U.S. Census report is about 2.0 or less.
          Had there been zero immigration into the U.S for the past 30 years the population would have peeked & be officially in decline.

          According to the U.S. Census Bureau – First generation Immigrants have similar births per household as the country they came from. Second Generation drops to the U.S. Norm.

          Russia is also at that point & most of Europe. Frances population is made up of about 30% immigrants.

          Japans Population has peeked & is dropping as of their last census.

          The reports I’ve read leads me to the conclusion that in developed countries a type of selfishness of sorts is involved.

          Genetic Instinct is to pass on genes. Having 1 or 2 children satisfies this instinct.

          With prosperity comes things to do & places to see. Few people want to drag a dozen kids to Disney or wherever.
          This isn’t just opinion. I’ve heard many young couples make this very statement in their own words.

      • Barry

        Dragon,I think it was Newsweek that did an article about the population growth leveling off around the year 2050 at ten billion people. There were many factors and grafts that were quite eye opening. It was quite hopeful to read because I always thought of the population growing exponentially.
        For me three parts to a hopeful future are: 1 A leveling population. 2 An energy revolution. 3 An economic revolution. A fourth, mass communication has already been realized. The last is raising the awareness and education of the planet, giving us a chance to have the conversation were are now having.
        I know there are all kinds of negatives, but before the Newsweek article and before realizing the resurgence of Cold Fusion this year, the future seemed quite bleak.

  • Alexvs

    Extraordinary (any) claims require evidence. So, without adjectives. Such claims are not new. Paneth and Peters (german chemists) published as early as 1926 an article giving evidence of ambient temperature nuclear reactions. Lack of theoretical explanation makes very difficult to replicate the experiments. Some experiments were successful, others were not. But what keep all of us hopeful is that under certain circumstances LENR works. I am convinced of it. Maybe Mr. Rossi et altri have achieved sometimes good results, but not knowing what they are doing, not knowing what they are seeing, not having thoroughly researched and tried to understood the phenomena they can do no other than trying to attract attention and money.

    • Alexvs

      This said I add that reflexions about COP = 6 being revolutionary are correct. Even COP = 2 would be all right. With COP > 1 anyone can write a big book about the question where everything is true expect the first paragraph.

    • Frank

      You should also mention that Paneth published a second article a few months later, where he explained the flaws in his test-setup, which let him initially (wrongly) assume that transmution ( H -> He ) occured in his experiment.
      Here a link to the article:
      It’s a good example to see how likely even real good scientists may be mistaken, and how careful you should be with your interpretation of measurements.

      • Alexvs

        I agree with you. If you read the original article you can see how they describe the experiments, how they have made the measurements and how they expose the facts without going further than their own observations.

  • Filip

    The level of COP is just not the only parameter.
    How big is the device? How expensive or cheap is it to make? It’s the relationship between the amount of excess energy compaired to the size and the price. If you have a 0,1Kw device size of a football field with a COP of 200: it’s low.
    If it has the size of a matchbox(and easy and cheap to produce): it’s infinite high.

  • Perhaps it could be interresting to build “tandem” thermic units. 1 single unit would drive 4 to 6 single units ?

  • Filip

    How high is the COP of a nuclear plant? (fission)
    Or is that also COP < 1?

  • Per

    Differ between COP high enough for efficient generation of heat or electricity and the actual obtainable COP.

    Rossi has reported values in the range up to 200 so, if this is obtainable, the present day value of COP=6 is LOW.

    This is good news (a low COP) and does not in any way take away the usefulness of the E-cat today.

  • daniel maris

    Interesting – no, fascinating – if true…It’s the “if true” bit that’s the problem. If Rossi really has this device, he could be doing a lot more simple things to convince the world, that would not involve him divulging and commercial secrets.

    Maybe he is a contrarian, or simply not interested in convincing the rest of us. But the rest of us retain the right not to be convinced until he stumps up a lot more information.

    I will say that this article does make a lot of sense in terms of what we know about LENR, or think we do. One hopes it reflects the reality of Rossi. If this is the real Rossi, then the guy deserves a Nobel prize.

  • Guru

    My analysis is that Rossi in last version of E-Cat achieved higher number of CoP then 6. For business purposes, he is talking about 6, however it is actually higher. Of course Hank Mills is right: CoP 6 is satisfactory good.

  • Frank

    From Rossi’s blog:
    Andrea Rossi
    May 29th, 2012 at 4:58 PM
    Dear Hank Mills:
    Basically I agree with you.
    About 50% of the time goes self sustained in our tests.
    Warm Regards,

    So, if he claims a total COP of 6 and 50% of the time the e-cat is in self substained mode, then this means that when the e-cat is in non self subsatined mode, it works only with a COP of 3, which is only half of what he has ‘demonstrated’ to Krivit
    BTW: I love to watch that video 🙂

    I agree, a total COP of 6 AND temperature up to 600 Degree C (otherwise a good heat pump would also do) still would be fantastic – but shouldn’t the inconsistencies of Rossi’s ‘fantastic’ claims (it is just ‘Rossi says’ anyway) give you something to think about? 
    Remember, he started with COPs in the range of several hundreds (see page 4 , table 1 of the Rossi-Forcadi Paper)
    So, what numbers to believe finally? 0?

    • Francisco das Chagas

      If Rossi can use an E-Cat to produce DOUBLE the ELECTRIC ENERGY that is required to to run an E-Cat, then we have INFINITE COP.

      The output of one E-Cat is used as input for two E-Cats.

      The output of two E-Cats is used as input for four E-Cats.

      The output of four E-Cats is used as input for eight E-Cats.

      It can be used to build an INFINITE CHAIN OF E-CATS.

      Even better:

      The output of one E-Cat is used as input for two E-Cats.

      The output of two E-Cats is used as input for three new E-Cats, and for the first E-Cat (the one that gives the input power for the two E-cats).

      Then, you have a closed loop system, with no external power needed.

      Then, the output of three E-Cats is used as input for six E-Cats.

      The output of six E-Cats is used as input for twelve E-Cats.

      Now you can build an infinite chain of E-Cats without any need for any external power!

    • Matt S

      Not sure I understand, but could it be a top COP of 12 but the total is 6 due to the 50% self sustain?

      • Casey

        It mean that COP might be higher than the COP6. With further research it might change other things.

  • andreiko

    COP:E-CAT 6

    6-1=5x(6-1)=25x(6-1)=125 ect.. E-CAT in serie

    18-3=15 E-cat parallel (Rekenen maar)

  • georgehants

    Hank, many of us on the page are fair skeptical optimists that will give Rossi and any scientist every chance to show their case without abuse and irrational denial.
    At this time it must be fair to say that Rossi et al have not proven beyond reasonable doubt to the general population that he has a working cop6 device.
    Is it not fair therefore to begin every report with “if genuine”.
    If a report is shown with total belief then we must fairly put up with the total skeptics saying Rossi et al are frauds.

    • georgehants

      Science must learn the difference between Opinion and Facts.
      Science is full of “expert opinions” that fools the unthinking, but science demands Evidence on any subject and the way to find Evidence on any subject in not OPINION but do the bloody Research.

      • QC-JYM

        That reminds me of an old Riehle machine I was using for material testing (900kN of force). There was a tiny plate on it saying: A test is worth a thousand experts opinions.


      • While the “bloody research” into exactly what Ing. Rossi has has not been done, the “bloody research” into LENR has — by real scientists. Here is a partial annotated list.

        • georgehants

          Bruce, luckily in every subject there are the Rebels willing to follow Evidence and not religious opinion of the higher priests.
          It is fair to say that the establishment is not exactly rushing to put in cash and research the subject.
          As with many subjects the scientific congregation follow the Dogma they are dictated to.

        • GreenWin

          Bruce your link doesn’t seem to work. I think you meant this one:

  • Francisco das Chagas

    The truth is:

    COP 6 in thermal energy can be turned into COP 2 in terms of ELECTRICAL ENERGY.


    How can someone DARE to say that INFINITE COP is “low”?

  • Cathelin

    All these COP evaluations and considerations appear to be irrelevant because they do not include the total amount of “burned” energy source, while one still doesn’t know the nature of it.

    When the nature of the energy source is well known and can be quantified, COP calculations do mean something.


    1. Is it correct and useful to calculate the COP of an existing nuclear fission plant when the amount of nuclear energy burned is not included?

    2. Is it correct and useful to calculate the COP of a lawn-mower engine started with and controlled by human muscle power if you do not include the amount of gas burnt?

  • If Rossi can say that the COP absolutely cannot go higher than 6 then it implies that a there has come about a hardening of the theoretical foundation that LENR is resting upon. One would need an absolute understanding of the process to say the COP maxes out at 6. I doubt they have a that firm grip on the theory.

    • Casey

      He don’t say it cannot go higher. He set COP6 for safety reason.

  • Henk

    A very high cop is a bit misleading. A device of a certain size which has high COP but still has a very little power output is useless.

    An improvement in development would rather be if we get smaller E-cats with larger power output.

    For this probably more research has to be done.

  • Casey

    What is confusing in COP=6?, it is using different terms of electric energy input, and heat energy output. 1kW electric is not equal 1kW of heat.

    I think it is used just for general explanation. Electricity is used not only to start and continue safe process in the reactor. But also to keep pumps and all controls working.

    As Rossi in previous statements said. At time of development and testings the COP was many times higher.
    But to keep it safe and to obtain proper certifications he limited it to COP6. Now if he obtained higher and stable working temperatures the COP might be different.
    It need to be understood, that the E-Cat technology is still in process of developing and with every day of testing might come new better solutions.

    As Rossi say. He don’t care about prove to some sceptics, waste money and time, because ready for sale on the market product will prove itself.

  • Henk

    Does the large increasement of temperature, also make the E-cat smaller and cheaper to produce?

  • A proven COP of 1.1 would be fantastic news. A promise of COP 6 is worthless. A competing assurance of 10 or 20 is just as inconsequential.

  • hydroman

    Another good Rossi quote!

    Andrea Rossi

    March 24th, 2012 at 9:06 AM

    Dear “Barney” (or, better, Giovanni Cesaretti):
    Thank you for this comment of yours, which gives me the chance to answer to all the stupidities that some imbeciles, like your friend B., have put around, after tips got from some puppeteers.
    Here are the answers:
    1- I confirm that we are manufactiring a production line to make 1 million pcs per year
    2- in this process we had all the permissions so far necessary from the competent Authorities, and to say that we have been stopped is totally false
    3- it is totally false, as the puppet said, I am losing my collaborators: actually, I didn’t lose one, while they increase by the day
    4- where the factory is in construction is confidential, and the reason for which is confidential is that we want to work in peace, without hurdles are put by puppeteers and puppets like the Snake or B., just to give a paradigmatic example, full time paid, to try to stop us, from their puppeteers
    5- you say that to maintain confidential such a factory is impossible: obviously, you understand nothing of making a factory. Ask to somebody able to make a factory and get information to improve your knowledge of the matter.
    6- conserve this comment of mine: if within 16 months we will not have in operation this factory, I will pay you pizza and bier.
    Say hello to your friend B.
    Warm Regards,

  • GreenWin

    Looks more and more like the once-ivory towers are crumbling and the elite manipulators are confronted by powers greater than themselves.

    This is a fascinating turning point for the human race. The old overseers will be picking up their soccer balls and leaving the field. Pouting and foot stomping ’cause someone spoiled their games. Imagine though, the children in India, East Africa, who will have enough to eat – and fresh water – and light to learn by…

    A better game is afoot.

  • Bård Havre

    A comment on cascading Ecats.
    The energy input in each Ecat is for the most part used to keep the device at the proper operating temperature. A minor part is powering the controls. Consequently, part of the heating can be supplied by heat output, with a suitable, efficient heat exhanger (molten metal, like sodium) the temperature loss between the cats can be held low, so most of the high grade electric output can be used for other purposes. Self sustained mode is thus possible.

    • Interesting idea!

    • jacob

      Bard Havre, great thinking,one E-Cat to run 6 ?
      suddenly enough to power a plane and train and little steamer car.

      Andreiko, what will be the math on that? in dutch,friesien or english ?

      Thank you in advance.

  • Brad Arnold

    I am mystified why people are so obsessed about COP in the E-Cat. As long as the E-Cat can produce heat hot enough to create dry steam to power a standard turbine like in a coal-fired power plant, then it can supply it’s own electricity plus have the majority of electricity left over, thus achieving an infinate COP. Gosh, there metrics that people judge LENR are so obtuse.

    • GreenWin

      Well said.

  • Filip

    On the internet you can find simple waterpumps with a COP of 6, so did Rossi invent the waterpump?

    • Filip

      I mean heatpump.