How Does the E-Cat Pay For Itself?

There has been a flurry of Q & As on the Journal of Nuclear Physics since Andrea Rossi started to describe some more details about the ‘cat and mouse’ configuration of the new hot cat. Rossi has given similar results a number of times, and yet there still seems to be some confusion about how he gets to the ‘100-200 COP’ calculation. Here are three different attempts to explain from Rossi:

It’s simple: if the COP of the activator is >1, whatever the number, it gives heat that repays for itself, besides activating the E-Cat. The economy of the system is: the Activator consumes 1, yields 1.x as heat to the Customer AND activates the E-Cat: the E-Cat consumes nothing from the grid , gives its energy to the Customer.

while the E-Cat is turned on, no other source of energy comes to the system. When the Mouse is turned on, the E-Cat is turned off and in this phase the Activator draws energy from the heat source. When the E-Cat is turned on ( about 65% of the operational time) the denominator is zero, no energy comes from any source to heat the Activator and the E-Cat, while the E-Cat is turned off ( about 35% of the operational time) the activator draws energy from the heat source, but at the same time produces for the Customer an amount of heat that is equal or more than the energy consumed, so that it is pays the energy that consumes by itself.

Our basic module is made by an apparatus in which we have 2 components: an activator, which consumes abour 900 Wh/h and produces about 910 Wh/h of heat. This heat activates the E-Cat and then goes to the utilization by the Customer, so that its cost is paid back by itself. This activator stays in function for the 35% of the operational time of the syspem of the apparatus. The E-Cat, activated by the heat of the Activator, works for about the 65% of the operational time, producing about 1 kWh/h without consuming any Wh/h from the grid. Combining these modules we can make E-Cats of 1 kW , 10 kW, 100 kW, 1 MW , respectively, of power.

The key question here is how does the activator ‘pay for itself’, when it is has a COP of only just above 1? Is the energy required to control the ‘Cat’ so small as to be almost insignificant — and the rest of the heat is passed through to the output of the system?

UPDATE: Thanks to reader Glenn for providing this image to go along with our conversation. He is asking for critiques, so please feel free to comment!

• Andre Blum

Once more Frank’s latest question and Rossi’s answer:

=========

Dear Andrea,

You say that the denominator is zero. Does this mean that there is no external energy coming into the mouse and cat setup? In other words, is the new configuration self-looping — the cat providing all the energy that the mouse needs?

Thank you very much,

Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi
May 12th, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Dear Frank Acland:
while the E-Cat is turned on, no other source of energy comes to the system. When the Mouse is turned on, the E-Cat is turned off and in this phase the Activator draws energy from the heat source. When the E-Cat is turned on ( about 65% of the operational time) the denominator is zero, no energy comes from any source to heat the Activator and the E-Cat, while the E-Cat is turned off ( about 35% of the operational time) the activator draws energy from the heat source, but at the same time produces for the Customer an amount of heat that is equal or more than the energy consumed, so that irt is pays the energy that consumes by itself.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

========

I am reading this more or less as a “yes”.

So far, we had assumed the activator used electricity. This appears not to necessarily be the case. Instead, it can use heat. And that makes sense, as we only use the electricity to heat up a resistor.

Rossi’s answer is more elaborate, probably because in practice it is more elaborate than that. In situations where the e-Cat is used for (industrial) heat, the e-cat adds its heat to the general “pool of heat”. (It may or may not be the only device adding heat to that pool). The activator draws from that pool, but as it has a COP >= 1, this heat will eventually return to the pool, thus, as Rossi says, the activator is ‘paying for itself’, and his COP calculations hold.

[ BTW: The funny thing (I am guessing) is that in a heat application the story might still hold if the activator *did* require electricity. We know that conversion from heat to electricity is inefficient, but as long as all inefficiency is usable heat, you don’t care. ?? I may be wrong about this ]

• HarryD

Repeating from your “soliciting questions” topic

Further more you could ask -how the payback would be- if there will -not- be a drop in price for 1MW unit when mass production starts.
The current 1,5 million is to my opinion way to high when one takes in account that creating 1 MW high value (500 C and 100 bar) steam from natural gas costs around 35 euro in Netherlands and the low grade steam (120 C) is under 10 euro.

With ROI limited only to the energy produced (without even taking in account the price of energy to be fed and maintenance)it would take 1.500.000/35= approx 43.000 hrs. to produce the energy equivalent of 1,5 million which translates to over 5 years when taking an online time of 8.000 hrs. per year.

This 5+ years is to much for general business practice and thus it is hoped that Rossi reduces the price a lot.
When Rossi would charge 1500 eur. per 10kW unit installed the price would drop to 150.000 eur. for a 1 MW unit and THEN it becomes a market breaktrough very quickly!

Remember Rossi communicated a price of around 600 dollar for 10kW domestic unit, which would make 1500 for industrial version fair…..
I guess the market will be waiting for pricedrop and else there will be no revolution, and it would be doubtfull how much units are going to be selled except for some pilots that may be planned but would that be the 5.000 1 MW plants that can be configurated out of production capacity of 500.000 10kW units (last downscaled estimate from Rossi comming from previously mentioned 1 million units per year).

Frank I think this is an interesting case you can ask Rossi about or even start an topic on

• Peter Roe

Sorry Admin – I can’t make Rossi’s words add up, so I’ll have to leave your key question hanging for others to have a go at. I commented (probably too much) in the previous thread and can’t really add anything much to that. The only rationalisation I can come up with is that Rossi is not allowed to mention certain critical things that would make sense of what he has been saying. If this is the case he should probably revert to ‘confidential’ and leave it at that.

• NJT

I agree Peter, like the “secret sauce” Mr. Rossie is likely not revealing everything to the world just yet. We must be patient, as hard as that is for all of us here on the edge of our seats for the past two or three years…

• guga

To stay with this analogy, the problem is, we are discussing the “secret sauce”, but we don´t even know if it tastes as good as we were told.

• Andre Blum

“the Activator draws energy from the heat source”

and

“consumes abour 900 Wh/h and produces about 910 Wh/h of heat”

Rossi clearly answers the activator runs off heat (not electricity). Then, if the (thermal) COP of the activator is >= 1, and that heat adds to the heat pool, what more is there to understand? The activator pays for itself, just as Rossi says.

• miau

“the E-Cat consumes nothing from the grid”

this seems to imply that the energy the activator utilizes comes from the grid.

if the activator only consumes electricity (or gas or else) when the system is first started and then he “pays for itself” then all the talks about COP by rossi and others start making sense.

mmm, maybe you found the explanation. 🙂 rossi may think to have described the issue with clarity but it isn’t so…

• Gigawatt

Andre,
the big problem is that Rossi is referring to a 1 kW Ecat…so if the device gives 1 kW for 65% of time, even if it is in Self Sustained Mode, it has drawn 0,9 kW for 35% giving 0,91 kW…in numers
COP = (energy output)/(energy inPut) = (0,91*0,35 + 1*0,65)/(0,9*0,35) = 3,075
I Really hope Rossi made a typo and it is 10 kW instead of 1 kW but i think the 100 – 200 COP device is only a dream
Unfortunately he wrote on his blog that he will not answer any other questions…

• Andre Blum

The key to understanding is:

when you say “it has drawn 0.9 kW”, the verb ‘drawing’ is not appropriate.

The activator itself is a LENR device, and it produces heat, slightly more than it ‘draws’. Therefore, as a system, the activator does not draw, but it produces, although not as efficiently as the e-cat itself.

So Rossi is right about the fact that you can take it out of the equation. It pays for itself.

• guga

Take into account the “leaked” pictures of the two stage HotCat. We see electric wires and nothing else going towards the device. So I assume the only way the activator can get its input is electric. Seems like the complete system produces 3W of heat for every 1W of electricity. How can you take this 1W electric out of the equation?

• Andre Blum

Answer 1: like I said, it seems that in a real industrial setup, different from this experimental rack setup, the activator lenr device is not fed with electricity but directly with heat that is available from the e-cat or otherwise. that heat does not get consumed by the activator, in fact it is slightly heated up. (COP > 1)

Answer 2: I am not sure the hot cat setup in the rack actually deploys the cat and mouse technique.

Answer 3: Even if the activator needs electricity and the e-cat is hot enough to produce electricity quite efficiently (50%?) and for only 35% of the time, wouldn’t that in itself add up to a net positive result (.35*2 = .7 ==> 70% of produced heat to completely pay for the input, so infinite COP) , even more so in a heat application, where all heat from the *in*efficiency is just usable?

• I think you are right, Andre — I don’t think the leaked hot cat photo was of a two stage cat and mouse.

• guga

Rossi said in the interview concerning the leaked picture: “making that test we wanted to learn what happens if we leave the self sustaining mode go ahead without driving it with the electric resistances, with what we call the mouse”

So the picture does show a mouse and cat system and the mouse uses electricity.

• Andre Blum

better forget that third answer. The math is not right, as the 70% heat needs to be produced in only 65% of the time.

• guga

I don´t see evidence or clear statements that there is a mouse that does not use electricity. Definitely there are “mice” using electricity in his experiments, as he said on the interview.

With such a low total COP it would be difficult though maybe not impossible to reach real self sustained mode by feeding electricity back. Though that is not what Rossi describes, and I guess what disturbs some people here the same way as me is that he describes this high COP of the Ecat, ignoring that the activation needs very similar amounts of energy. These numbers seem useless.

• Andre Blum

Any heat source!

Dear Pekka Janhunen:
Please read the answer I gave to Steven N. Karels few minutes ago. The source of the activator can be electric power, gas, or any heat source.
And again congratulations for your very smart ESTCube-1.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Gigawatt

Andre,
even if the activator pays for itself when you calculate the COP you should take in account the energy produced by the device (activator + Ecat) respect to the energy consumed by the device. I am not saying the device is COP <1 i am only saying that, considering the numbers Rossi gave, the overall COP is far from being in the order of hundreds (it is true if you only consider the ecat in self sustained) I hope Rossi made a typo or confused the numbers

• artefact

We might have taken the wrong way when we read “consumes”. It seems to consume the apparatus own heat and give that heat again to the output. The activator works in stelth mode one could say.

• guga

I would be happy if I could believe that, but I see no sign that this is fact. Consider the pictures of HotCats. They don´t show any fancy heat pumps that would enable re-heating the activator with remaining heat after the Ecat has stopped operating.

• artefact

Would it need that when the activator is in the same havy metal device? The activator starts when the e-cat stops. The activator is at that time hot enough. Then the activator uses heat to produce maybe H- for the e-cat and heat for itself.

• KD

The HotCat was send to USA Partner not as a product marked ready, but for testing and study.
It don’t have to look as we want it to see.

• Andre Blum

Andrea Rossi
May 13th, 2013 at 8:05 AM
Warm Regards,
A.R.

===

I agree his answer is clear.

• buffalo

the heat delivered by the ecat bulk can easily be converted to some electrical energy for the mouse so we may easily close the loop using a rechargable battery i think.

• We should stop thinking in term of COP, especially for detail of operation (it is only interesting on average to know if this device is useful).

The proposed system is not far from what Defkalion described, but with different time-scale.

The mouse is more or less a good resistor… it heat the tiger reactor until that reactor get to work. then the reactor produce heat and the mouse can sleep. some energy is consumed by pumps, fans, and control… like on a nuclear reactor or a gas boiler.
After some time, the tiger get inactive and need a new activation…

Defkalion Hyperion does the same, with two phase.
First you heat the reactor… (let us say you are using a puppy to warm the wolf). when the wolf is awake, you whip the wolf with spark and it produce heat for few minutes. When the wolf get less active, you whip it again…

It an also be the same for burning wet wood (in sub-critical mode) :
– you warm the wet wood with a gas flame
– when dry and hot enough you blow some air with a hair drier (or a gas flame) so it start burning with flame.
– when the flame get weaker because the wood is wet, you blow more air again…

this is typically the control you have to use when the reactor is super-critical at short term, and slowly became sub-critical…

you did not know but your barbecue is not so different from an e-cat or a fission reactor… it have a COP, critical, super-critical, or sub-critical modes, and can be used as an energy source, unlike a heat pump …

• Shane D.

I see it that way also Alain. Although I can’t figure the COPs, to me as a lay person the process is this:

Two ecats of similiar size; one called the activator at 900W while the workhorse ecat rated at 1000W. External thermal/ electric source starts the activator ecat, which then uses it’s heat to jumpstart the workhorse ecat, which then cycles off for the period the ungoverned ecat is producing overunity energy.

Software detects ecat need for rest cycle and then reactivates activator ecat which provides its smaller excess while larger ecat takes a rest.

Question others are asking is: why the need for the activator ecat when a good heater would provide the same fuction?

My question: does the activator also run in SSM, as do all ecats, after it is started? If so then I could see the much higher COPs Rossi is talking about. After initial startup, everything then would be overunity. If activator has to always be connected to external source then that would not make much sense.

Again, thanks for the simple description.

• I don’t see the COP clearly either… Explanation are not clear, and anyway as you notice the mouse with a COP of 1.1 is strange…

Either Rossi is fooling competitors, of keeping one interesting idea : that the mouse and the cat play together a funny stable game…
It is known that one problem with Rossi LENR is that it is not easily stable. Typically instability may be caused by negative gain, by strong phase shift… maybe is the mouse compensating the cat instability, with it’s own dynamic characteristics…

Dunno, and that is not our business… a COP above 3 at 350C is already enough to be an autonomous energy source… 6 at 350 is nice and efficient. More is only slightly better…

the problem with rossi is that he use strange language, answering people who don’t speak engineer official language.

I admit, me neither here… not an easy job without equations and drawings. anyway not so important.

question is whether hydrofusion and aldo proia still support Rossi, and when an installation get public.
The 3rd party report will be a non event, because believers will accept it, and skeptical will deny…

today the question are no more that e-cat is working or not, but how well, how stable, how efficiently, how fast, how easy…

• RNBE

I fully agree with AlainCo, people should stop to talk about a COP that couldn’t be a clear parameter as we have seen up to now.

I’ld like to put on the table a suggestion in order to evaluate correctly the E-Cat performances, we should consider only the energy production along a fixed long time period (a lot of hours, days, week,…) and compare it with the EXTERNAL energy consumption consumed during the same time.

To prevent confusion, I suggest also to express the input and output energy in Joule, MegaJoule, GigaJoule and so on.

(non-SI units of measurement of energy as “kWh”, very often used on JoNP, can be converted in Joule taking into account that 1kWh corresponds to 3.6MJ).

In particular I’ld like to suggest to anyone writing a comment asking something on JoNP on energy argument, to follow this suggestion, an example:
“how many Joules of energy the E-Cat produces in total in a period of 100 hours of continuos working?”
and
“What about the overall EXTERNAL energy (electricty, gas or whatever) consumed by the system during this working period, how many MegaJoules?”

Any energy balance can be calculated after from those data and if you want can calculate overall COP of the system.

I thank in advance to all those will adopt this more clear way to exchange useful information on JoNP.

• Calaon Andrea

Taking the latest data from Rossi:

Energy entering the apparatus during a cycle (activation + work) scaled to 1 second (for simplicity):
time_activator[s] x Activator_Power[kW]
0.35[s] x 0.9[kW] = 0.315 [kJ]

Energy flowing out of the apparatus during the same cycle:
time_activator[s] x Power_Activator[kW] x (Activator_COP-1) +
time_cat[s] x Cat_Power[kW]
0.35[s] x 0.9[kW] x (910/900-1) +
0.65[s] x 1.0[kW] = 0.6535[kJ]

Therefore the COP = Energy Out/ Energy In = 2.07
This is not an interesting COP!

Only if the Cat_Power is much greater than the Activator_Power the COP can grow.

Regards

• lenrdawn

If all the mouse is producing is heat and all the e-cat is producing is heat, then it doesn’t make much sense either way. As with his previous machines, regulation by adjusting the flow of coolant should be all that’s required to keep the thing going and keep it from running away. So either this is needlessly complicated or it is missing some crucial part (in which case discussing the rest of it is pointless) or it is a diversion from something more important.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

“all the mouse is producing is heat and all the e-cat is producing is heat, then it doesn’t make much sense either way” A free heat source is not valuable?

• lenrdawn

Of course it is. My point is that you shouldn’t need a machine providing heat for a machine that produces much more heat.

• artefact

Rossi said the to work differently. The activator produces heat but also does something else. Otherwise it would not be different. ( produce h or h- or x-rays or other things)

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Oh, I see what you mean, but the mouse does more than create heat.

• lenrdawn

So whatever the mouse is producing in addition to heat must be a) essential and b) substituted by an electrically driven device in all the other e-cat models. Since all we ever saw in the other models was a resistance heater, it must also be very small, easy to hide and probably not requiring any kind of control. It is also not mentioned in Rossi’s patent application.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Right, it is called a trade secret.

• Kim

One of the confusing items to remember about
Andrea Ross’s Hot Cat system is that it can
use Electrical Power to Produce Thermal Power.

Or it can use Thermal Power to Produce Thermal
Power.

Once you have Thermal Power There is a 70% penalty to change back to electrical power.

If it costs \$1.00 dollar of electricity to
activate to make thermal power, you may have
just made 2 or three times more thermal power
output, but if you don’t need the thermal power
and need to convert back to electrical power
to pay for the input electrical power it becomes
difficult to break even as I see it.

Respect
Kim

• Bernie Koppenhofer

That is why Rossi is selling his low temp e-cat as a heat source

• Andre Blum

“The key question here is how does the activator ‘pay for itself’, when it is has a COP of only just above 1?”

I find this question odd. It looks to me like some of us have forgotten what COP of 1 means. It means errr… exactly that: a device that pays for itself. If slightly above that, even better: its net effect is to slightly produce.

So I am now confused. What is the question?

You seem to forget that the activator is a LENR device itself. It is like a (not too efficient) e-Cat.

Rossi is right that it is good to take it out of the equation, and you are left with an e-cat device that has infinate COP, although it cannot run 100% of the time, but only 65%.

• artefact

at least I thought the activator draws the energy from the grid. If I read the posts abouve again I think this is not the case.
This leaves a total cop of 100 – 200 if all the energy for the activator can be fed from the e-cat generated heat after this gets switched of. But I don’t know what the “heat source” is. Maybe it is a mix of rest heat and heat from a heating element.

• Kim

I agree because he talks about 900 watts
for the activator 35% of the time.

Now he is saying that the activator is
powered from the E-cat itself.

Its a conundrum.

Respect
Kim

• Bernie Koppenhofer

+1

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Could it be we have a lot of newbies on this site and have not followed “Rossi says” and the E-Cat? It is clear to me what Rossi is saying, the mouse is running 35% of the time consuming power off the grid, creating heat, that heat pays for the power consumed and also activates the E-Cat, which also creates heat 65% of the time, and does not use any power from the grid. The COP measurement becomes irrelevant at this point.

• guga

Depending on how we exactly interpret what Rossi says, we get heat from an electric input with a COP of 2 or 3. That is nice, but why all this talk about near infinite?

I guess most people here are waiting for the holy grail, electricity production. A self feeding system running off the grid would also be the ultimate proof. With a COP of just 2 to 3, this does not seem impossible but much more difficult. You would need very efficient electricity generation and still would loose most of the electricity for reactivation. You would need quite big devices to get out a little bit of electricity, which would increase prices. Of course at least you would have a lot of heat.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Yes, Rossi too is reaching for electricity production, and he seems a little frustrated because he can’t get there, but this new system should make it a lot easier.

• It seems to me that both stages of the device run in self sustaining mode (SSM) 65% of the time and need additional energy input 35% of the time. Both stages output 100% of their rated energy at all times. The mouse provides 100% of the energy needed to stabilizer the cat. 35% of the time the mouse draws current or heat in the case of the gas cat the other 65% of the time it runs in SSM. The extra heat of the mouse not needed to stabilize the cat is used to help generate a small portion of the total heat of the system. The older E-CATS provided continuous heat and I doubt the newer one would only provide heat 65% of the time. Such a system would produce a significantly higher COP consistent with Rossi’s claims.

• E-dog

A couple of helpful hints for Rossi’s Public Relations episodes.

Maybe it would be more helpful for us native English speakers if Rossi explained in Italian and we had an expert translate it to English?

OR..

Like any good engineer.. do away with words, give us a sketch and some numbers.

Just trying to further the cause..

• Bernie Koppenhofer

We are lucky Rossi is telling us anything in any language.

• Bob

Right from the very beginning, various people wrote in to the Rossi blog and made the proposition that during the self sustain mode, the COP of the e-cat could be taken as infinite since no energy was being supplied to it and yet energy was being taken from it. On all occasions he seemed to have trouble with the concept and always simply replied that the device had a COP or 6.
From these latest announcements it appears he has finally grasped the concept and is claiming an infinite COP during what is in effect, the self sustain mode.
I see this whole tactic of considering the device as two separate sub-systems and claiming different COPs for each section for varying amounts of time is nothing more than more smoke and mirrors. It’s totally irrelevant to the end user. They only need to know the overall energy in and energy out. That is, the overall COP. I would assume from all the confusion of words, he will still only be claiming an overall COP of 6 which, keeping in mind we still have no third party report, remains unverified. My firm opinion is still an overall COP of 1 or very slightly over.

• Andre Blum

incorrect. The activator lends energy and pays back with a slight interest. That is a new concept in this cat & mouse setup.

• KD

There are some other questions.
How long are the periods of 35%/65%, ON & OFF. In seconds, minuts or else.
How the E-Cat is activated by mouse. Just heating it up or something else. Maybe the gamma radiation, RF or electrically energized.

das Krsko, Slovenia
. .
Abstract
Description of a ﬁctional device, cylindrical in shape, for starting a low energy nuclear reaction. Using an environment of hydrogen and nickel characteristics, similar to one in an E-Cat. Imagining hydrogen molecule as a spring resonant system and simply using frequency and power of electricity as a catalyst.
.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Electrical catalyst.pdf

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Electrical catalyst.zip
.
References
[1] Rossi, A. and Focardi, S.: A new energy source from nuclear fusion
(online). March, 2010. (Cited 29.04.2012) Available at http://journal-ofnuclear-
physics.com

[2] Bettini, G.: How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted
into copper?(online). April, 2011. (Cited 29.04.2012) Available at
http://journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

• Peter

Why is this hard to understand?

Step 1. Electricity ignites a small fire.
Step 2. The small fire then ignites a big fire.

Step 3. If small fire goes out reignite with electricity or by big fire.
Step 3a. If e-cat is cold, repeat Step 1.
Step 3b. If e-cat is hot, reignite small fire from big fire.

This sounds very simple to me. COP aside, having more than one way to reignite the mouse means you only draw from the grid if absolutely necessary.

I’m sure this is oversimplified, but still, it seems to me this is the basics of what Rossi is saying.

• Kim

One thing is for sure and that is Uncle
Rossi keeps his Cats well fed!

Respect
Kim

• Shane D.

Peter,

Good simplification. Alain did the same below in a few more words, and then made a good analogy to the DGT hyperion operating system.

I’m wondering if the activator ecat (900W), once triggered by an external thermal or resistive source also operates in SSM? That would account for the higher COPs Rossi is takling about.

Afterall it is just another ecat rated only 100W less then the other ecat which is at 1000W. But then again, why would this activator ecat not have the same 6 COP as all other ecats before? Why just 1.1 COP? Governed down maybe?

Again, thanks laying out the basics.

• artefact

I think Rossi said the two work differently. We often heared that LENR+ consists of more then one process. I guess Rossi has seperated these like DGT did. For example now the activator could be good in the production of H- (Piantelli..) and the cat could be optised to only do the “reaction”.

• lenrdawn

“This sounds very simple to me.”

So why would you have to re-ignite the big fire once it is burning?

• Peter

@lenrdawn
I would guess the only reason to reignite the big fire would be maintenance or maybe the unit was otherwise switched off.
There would still have to be times when a recharge of nickel is necessary. And in testing, there could be many reasons to shut a unit off, ergo… testing.

• lenrdawn

If testing and maintenance would be the only reason, nobody would think twice but build a cheap, reliable resistance heater into it (and certainly nobody would talk about COP if all it took was a kWh every six months or so to start it back up again).

• Felix Fervens

Would love to see Rossi or anyone else claiming a significant COP run his device on a closed loop for a clear demonstration.

Dear Eng. Rossi, please hook an off-the-shelf steam turbine to your Hot Cat and show it in closed-loop operation, perhaps also powering some obvious load like a bank of lights.

“Runaway reaction” should not be an issue. How does your Hot Cat know the output of an attached generator from a wall socket?

• Bernie Koppenhofer

• Redford

“The key question here is how does the activator ‘pay for itself’, when it is has a COP of only just above 1? ”

I think the answer is in the question : by having a COP above one. Or else you’ll have to define what you understand by “pay for itself”.

From what I get the mouse take power on the grid to start the cat, then none, as it the conjunction of both allow for the ensemble to restart the reaction without taking from the grid.

• Alp

Oririgally, Rossi said the electrical heater in every ecat was needed “for safety”. How does that affect the tiger configuration?

• Pachu

Has anybody asked or know how often are the switchs between activator and the e-cat? minutes, hours, days range?

COP is still very relevant you measure energy at the plug in the wall and then in the e-cat exit (pipe?) for several cycles of switchings (days) between activator and e-cat, this never can be 0 in the denominator.

I dont like how Rossi draw the system for measuring, plus remember energy is stored in the interior of each one, active materias hold energy that must be accounted because you need to know how was stored (naturally, artificially).

• Andre Blum

Can somebody with a better thermodynamics background please comment on this question:

Conversion from heat to electric can only be done with certain efficiency. We have covered that topic very often in the past. The inefficiency is because there is ‘waste heat’. This is usually considered a loss.

However, when your eventual goal is heat anyway — and you need the electricity just as a helping hand in the process — can the total of electric energy + thermal energy be considered to be lossless?

I am trying to figure out if it really matters if the activator needs 900Wh/h of electric or thermal power. If its COP is 1, it doesn’t ‘use up’ any energy, no matter in what form, and the energy source is just the ‘heat source’ that the e-cat supplies into.

Probably this is just too simple?

• lenrdawn

Not sure my thermodynamics background is better than yours but I think that is essentially correct. Thermoelectric devices harvest the energy from temperature differences (in this case between the reactor and the coolant or a primary and secondary coolant flow or a heat exchanger and a pre-heater for the coolant or whatever) so the energy wouldn’t be lost, afaics. Given the cost of TEDs, I’d question the usefulness though. If the e-cat is supposed to produce electricity via a steam turbine, it’ll probably much simpler and cheaper to simply take the required power from that. (Just to be clear – the overall temperature output would of course be less than if there was no TED – by the amount of energy you converted to electricity plus whatever losses you may have).

• Lu

It appears to me that this Tiger prototype configuration the COP is about 2: ~1KW input and ~2 KW output over the cycle and is based on what Rossi said about energy consumed and produced. What is possibly significant in all of this is he now has away to make one component run entirely in SSM.

The only thing I can think of that makes this a significant development given that the implied COP is low is if the activator can similarly affect multiple reactors. So for a configuration of 1 activator and 10 reactors one would get a cop of 10, given that this is even possible.

Also interesting although I’m not sure if relevant is something Rossi said earlier in his interview: the charge for the activator is .5g and is different from the charge of 2-3g for the reactor. Just throwing this out there.

• Andre Blum

I initially had the same thought, but it wasn’t the case:

Andre Blum
May 13th, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Dear Mr Rossi,

Does every Cat need its own mouse? Or can a squeak of a mouse awaken several cats?
If so, does it need to squeak louder, or just as loud as with one cat?

Best regards,
Andre Blum

Andrea Rossi
May 13th, 2013 at 8:02 AM
Dear Andre Blum:
Every E-Cat has an Activator.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Lu

Thanks!

• Lu

Karl-Henrik Malmqvist
May 13th, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Hello Mr Rossi,
The intersting[sic] number is the combined COP of the actuator and the E-cat over a full cycle.
You say the input to the actuator is 900 Wh/h during 35% of the cycle that is 900×0,35 =315 Wh/h as a cycle average. During the same time the output from the actuator is 910 Wh/h that is 318.5 Wh/h as a cycle average.

The output from the E-cat is 1000 Wh/h during 65% of the cycle, which gives a cycle average of 650 Wh/h.

The total output divided by the input is then (318.5 + 650)/ 315 = 3.07

On the single stage E-Cat the COP was around 6 but with the actuator the COP during a cycle is only 3.

Did you sacrifice COP for stability and higher temperature in order to get a better electric COP when a turbine is involved?

Best Regards,
Karl-Henrik Malmqvist

Andrea Rossi
May 13th, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Dear Karl-Henrik Malmqvist:
Warm Regards,
A.R.

***
Hard to understand why Mr Malqmvist is not correct.

I made a mistake as well in my above comment about the COP of 2 with the units and I now feel the COP is 3 based on what Rossi has said. Time to go back and re-read…

• Lu

From Vortex (although I don’t see the mentioned correction on the Rossi says blogs):

Patrick Ellul Mon, 13 May 2013 18:36:41 -0700

I thought he might have done a typo, and mean 10 kWh/h so I emailed him to

He confirmed that it was a typo, and he meant 10kWh/h for the ecat, just
like it has always been.

If that is the case:

0.91 * 35% of the time = 0.3185 kWh/h
*10* * 65% of the time = 6.5 kWh/h

total output = 6.8185 kWh/h
input = 0.9 * 35% of the time = 0.315 kWh/h

COP = 21.65

****

Although he talks about making outputs of 1KW so I’m not 100% sure.

• Andre Blum

I apologize for hogging this forum today. Let me know if my contributions are not helping.

Suppose we were not talking kilowatt.hours but dollars. And suppose you had a device called \$cat that worked like this:

– you give the device \$1 on Monday, \$1 on Tuesday and \$1 on Wednesday.
– the device returns \$7 at the end of Sunday.

I am sure we would all agree that we would call the efficiency of this device 7/3 = 2.33 (or we would call it a 133% interest).

Now, suppose that the \$1 inserted on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday do not return at the end of the week but on the day itself. Or actually, you are free to spend them on buying bread, a car, etc (the goals you would typically have with money). And on Thursday through Sunday, free money would flow in your direction, to spend as an extra. Would you still call the efficiency 2.33?

More or less the same is happening with the cat & mouse.

I am saying there is something to say for presenting the COP of the e-cat separate from the activator.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Andre Blum…Enjoy your posts keep them coming, it is my opinion your interpretation is correct. Many of the problems arise because none of us know exactly what is going on in any of the Rossi devises.

• Does this exchange indicate that the power for the activator is coming from the E-Cat? When I first read this I thought he meant that the heat (or electricity) from the e-cat was being used to power the activator.

Tom Conover
May 12th, 2013 at 4:37 PM
Dear Andrea,

The actuator would pay for itself if the turbine mounted on the 350C Tiger accepted the thermal output of the actuator as a source of thermal energy that is used to create the steam to spin the turbine. That would make the actuator “cost” equal to zero, if the energy from the turbine is used to power the Tiger.

If so, may I be the first to congratulate you on achieving the dream of Tesla?

Sincerely,

Tom Conover

Andrea Rossi
May 12th, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Dear Tom Conover,
Yes, you got it, but the same is valid even without production of electric energy, because the heat made by the activator is usable too as such.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Andre Blum

excellent!

• This prompted me to send the question to the JONP about whether the E-Cat was self-looping. Rossi didn’t say yes, or no — he just gave answer #2 above.

• Pachu

I still dont get it, can anybody (who understand it) make a diagram ?

The actuator is a boiler (?) for a turbine, that makes electricity (?), that electricity is the input of the e-tiger (?) and the output of the tiger?

ugh

• Andre Blum

he confirms once again that the actuator does not (necessarily) need electric input, but can work off a heat source, like the e-cat.

If that is the case, as I argued before, as long as the heat of the actuator itself is net positive (COP > 1), it can be taken out of the equation.

I imagine the mouse as a tiny reactor with a resistor (only necessary for when the system is cold) and some kind of heat exchanger through which water or oil, heated by the e-cat is led, when available.

Every 1 kW e-cat has its own e-mouse ‘built in’. These 1 kW reactors are not big. 10 of these form a 10 kW unit; 100 of these form an e-tiger.

• guga

“he confirms once again that the actuator does not (necessarily) need electric input, but can work off a heat source, like the e-cat.”

I don`t think that this interpretation of above comment is possible. Rossi writes “the heat made by the activator is usable too as such”. Which means that you can of course use the heat of the activator (for whatever), but he does not say that the activator can be driven by the Ecat itself.

Also, while Rossi did repeatedly write about the Ecat in SSM, I don`t remember a single comment where he describes that the SSM could work in SSM. I very much doubt interpretations in this thread that the activator could be driven by its own or the Ecats heat. We would wish so, but Rossi did not say so.

• guga

Sorry, I meant I don`t remember a single comment where he describes that the ACTIVATOR could work in SSM.

• Andre Blum

“[…] the same is valid even without production of electric energy, because […] heat […] is usable too as such.”

==> He says it can be driven by heat instead of electricity. Disagree?

==> Now, normally, being too much used to every day electric and thermal devices, I would say you would need an external heat source for this. That is: best case the heat for the activator would come from the e-cat. But Rossi is always one step ahead. As its COP is slightly greater than 1, you could even use the activator’s own heat. It is a free device!

There is very little confusing to this statement, IMHO. Incredible, but not confusing.

“I very much doubt interpretations in this thread that the activator could be driven by its own or the Ecats heat. We would wish so, but Rossi did not say so.”

He did! Exactly in this post he did!

• guga

” “[…] the same is valid even without production of electric energy, because […] heat […] is usable too as such.”

==> He says it can be driven by heat instead of electricity. Disagree?”

My interpretation of Rossi`s comment is that he is again writing about the fact that the heat from the activator is not lost but can be used by the customer (for generation of electricity or just to be used as heat). He emphasized this before. And this is what he means again. He does not mean that the electricity could drive the activator (which would not work anyway with a COP of 1.1) or that the heat from the activator would drive the activator. He also never mentioned SSM for the activator, while he did so for the Ecat.

• Andre Blum

Within the context, I find that an unlikely interpretation.

Rossi writes this sentence in answer to Tom Conovers question, which is (solely!) about how to drive the actuator , and whether it can be done for free.

He answers yes and he adds that it can be done directly with heat from the activator.

There is no reason to assume he is suddenly talking about *general* reusability of the heat generated.

• guga

I think my interpretation is correct. 😉

Rossi`s, especially his yes and no answers, are often problematic, because you may not know which part of the question he means exactly.
Also, the fact that not enough electricity can be generated for a loop back makes me believe that Rossi did not try to say that the activator is driven by itself. That would mean SSM.

Also, if the activator could drive itself, why would Rossi say it has a COP of 1.02 to 1.1? He would say that the COP is basically infinite, as he says for the Ecat. But he does not.

Anyway, I believe the two of us will not be able to agree on this point without further information.

• Andre Blum

thanks guga. good exchange!

• G_Zingh

“He did! Exactly in this post he did!”

Sorry he didn’t. IMHO
The Activator is driven by heat from a Resistor or from Natural Gas.

The Ecat can’t drive the Activator because the purpose of the Activator is to shut off when the ecat gets too excited. So you would have us believe that the hotter the Ecat gets the hotter the Activator also gets and then it explodes and that is how it pays for itself.

When Rossi says “I would say: since the Activator pays for itself, being its COP ~1.02” I think he means because the COP is 1 then it pays for itself.

• Andre Blum

“The source of the activator can be electric power, gas, or any heat source.”

• G_Zingh

Of course no one knows for sure what the answer is.

• guga

This is again one of Rossi`s very un-exact statements that leaves room for a lot of interpretation. I don`t believe that he really means that you can get as much electricity out of the activator energy output as you out in. He just means that you get the equivalent of heat to the electricity you put in. Otherwise the COP would need to be far beyond the 1.1 it has.

And, again, in his interview Rossi said that the activator is driven electrically.

• Andre Blum

1. Please point out to me what is un-exact in the statement.

2. About the interview, you can read it the way I did with the implicit “but instead” added, in which case the sentence also makes much more sense:

“making that test we wanted to learn what happens if we leave the self sustaining mode go ahead without driving it with the electric resistances, [_but_instead_] with what we call the mouse”

That is: “with what we call the mouse” belongs to “go ahead”.

put otherwise, without driving it with the electric resistenses could be put within parentheses:

“making that test we wanted to learn what happens if we leave the self sustaining mode go ahead (without driving it with the electric resistances) with what we call the mouse”

• guga

Unexact is that electricity generated from a heat producing device with a COP of 1.1 can not be used to drive the device (it is just not efficient enough). So if he says yes, he does not mean the impossible, he just means that the energy you put into the activator is not lost. The yes is simply not a good answer to the question posted, but that is not uncommon for Rossi`s answers. He may not have a lot of time to read questions carefully.

I can`t exclude your interpretation of the interview as a possibility, though I would say it is speculation as it is not what he said. Also, there are electric wires going into the HotCat on the picture. Obviously they are used to heat the activator. I don`t see any other heat source in the picture.

• Andre Blum

see my top post. Rossi has literally said it runs off heat. In that case it *can* run off a COP 1.1.

• sparks

Rossi’s description is too convoluted, attempting to separate the operations into two regimes, one when the activator is being “charged,” and the other when the cat is self-sustaining. I think the only reason he does this is because the activator needs external energy, so Rossi wants to be able to describe a very high or even “infinite” COP when there is no external energy applied.

The problem is, that’s almost as bad as claiming that you have constructed a flywheel that has achieved perpetual motion, err, except during those times every minute or so that you have to spin it up. (Let me hasten to say, Rossi’s case is better than that, because he actually is getting a net energy output — rather than input — from his system.)

It would be much simpler to just speak in terms of AVERAGE COP. The average COP that Rossi is describing appears to be just around 3 (as poster gigawatt points out). Here’s a notional analysis for a 1 KW e-cat, based on Rossi’s statements, and one that could be validated with simple measurement of power input and power output from the e-cat system, treated merely as a black box:

POWER OUTPUT (continuous): 1 KW
POWER INPUT (35% duty cycle): 0.9 KW

POWER OUTPUT PER HOUR: 1 KWH
POWER INPUT PER HOUR: 0.9 x 0.35 = 0.315 KWH

COP: 1 / 0.315 = 3.17

Granted, these are just rough ballpark figures.

• “POWER INPUT (35% duty cycle): 0.9 KW”. Power (0.9 kW) from what? Rossi says “in this phase the Activator draws energy from the heat source”. If this heat source is the resistors (mains power), the COP is modest. If most of this heat source is the E-Cat, the COP can be huge. Daisy chaining, finally?

• sparks

Good question, and one that I asked myself as well. The answer Rossi provides is obscure, and every understanding of the value of what he has developed hides inside this obscurity — the so-called “heat source.” So, the point I attempted to make above, expressed differently here, is that if the activator was tapping internal heat, rather than external heat, why would Rossi even bother to single it out?

Seppo, we are singing from the same sheet music.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

YES!

• clovis

hi, guys,
yep, the way i see it is it’s like two e-cats one small and one large, the smaller of the two is a starter for the larger one, they are both heat exchanger, only now it takes less energy from the grid, and uses it own heat instead, very smart,i learned a long time ago that you could obtain a gain in energy, of a given device, by simply reducing it’s losses in eddy currents,air friction,material on material friction,and there are others, although, some may not apply to the cat, but yes it’s all good science.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

+1

• Omega Z

I haven’t read all the posts, but would propose this.

We had some confusion before on this specific topic.
100 minutes. Activator runs 35% of the time. Cat runs 65% of the time.
Not 35 minutes activator then 65 minutes Cat as Some think according to their posts about the Cat Temp dropping during the time it is off.

The Activator works at Intermittent periods through out the process.
Could be 1 min Mouse, 2 Minute Cat. What ever triggers the alternating on/off periods is Intermittent. So I would propose the Cat stays pretty much at it’s specified Temp. (AVERAGE On/Off is 35%/65%.) Temp Stable.

High COP based on 100 minutes. This isn’t accurate, Just a Ball Park Figure to give an Idea whats going on.
1Kw Activator input- .910Kw. Less then 1Kw
Activates the 100Kw Cat.— 100Kw
So Now you have
35 minutes in .910Kw.
65 minutes out 100Kwh/h

So within that 100 minutes you have used less then 1Kw
& Produced 200Kw
COP>200
These percentages are Variable & the results are approximate but should be what Rossi is trying to convey.

Note that even during the Off Periods, the Cat would still be close to temp and even with the Activator on you will still be receiving COP+XX & explains Steven Karels Approximate Max COP-250.

• Bob

I wouldn’t expect the output of one reactor would produce the output of 100kw. It would be very difficult to dissipate that amount of energy by way of thermal radiation from the core without running over the maximum temperature limit of the internals.
From what Rossi said earlier I think each reactor only puts out one kilowatt. I see the total of 100kw being the combined output of 100 of these reactors, all in the one case. That would account for the quoted weight of 200 kilograms and the output of 100kw.

• Omega Z

Bob

If that were the situation, you would end up with COP200 plus. Incidentally, this would be 1Kwe producing about 200 Kwh converted to Electric would be COP>60 Electric output.

To Note that I think the Confusion here is 2 topics entwined. The 1 causing most of the confusion is the discussion of the Mouse paying for it’s self or near zero cost.

This near Zero could be easily explained in a couple ways.
If your using less then 1Kw to produce in excess of 200Kw, Percentage wise your down to less then 1/2 a percent Energy cost over Energy output. Technically that’s getting pretty close to free.

With a few batteries, an Inverter?, Tiger, Turbine, & Generator you could set this up anywhere in the world. Grid power would no longer be a necessity to fire it up.

• Thinks4Self

What I think he is trying to communicate is that 65% of the time the system is in SSM. 35% of the time the activator uses energy but has a COP of 1.1

• Glenn

In the hope of making things easier to comprehend for the visual thinkers among us, I’ve drawn a diagram representing my current understanding of the system based on what I’ve read of Rossi’s comments.

This is a hypothetical 5kW unit formed from the combination of 5 1kW e-Cats.

http://s13.postimg.org/6zer4kg7b/5k_WCat_And_Mouse_Design.jpg

Anyone with a superior understanding than mine, please critique.

• Andre Blum

yes. nice picture, and much in line with how I see it.

After analysis of his postings I now understand that the activator can indeed run off heat, and even better: the activator can heat *itself*. That is what COP > 1 implies and Rossi explicitly names that as a possibility:

“even without production of electric energy, because the heat made by the activator is usable too as such”

So you might want to draw red loopback lines at the activator units themselves. The external heating should then only be required for kickstarting a cold or cooled off system.

• Andre Blum

like, for example, this:

http://s22.postimg.org/lhszl90gx/5k_WCat_And_Mouse_Design_andre.png

not sure if there really should be a line from activator to e-cat. I am not sure if this is about the heat at all. Some people suggested it is necessary for other reasons (x-ray? etc).

and not even sure if we need the feedback line from heat output to heat source.

Maybe we should come up with a consensus image and post the link on the JONP for AR’s comment.

In my opinion I am not sure about the heat source, or the electrical resistors separated out from the activators. Rossi said the mice are bigger than the cats because they have resistors built into them.

• Andre Blum

I would like to suggest the presence of only one combined heat source and heat output. Let’s call it the heat pool. Let’s say it is a container of superheated steam.

the activators I would maybe draw inside the 1 kW e-Cat box. Not only inside the dashed line box.

I agree with the resistors. They should be in the activator. They are not used when there is enough heat available from the heat pool. They are like the glow plugs in a diesel engine.

This is in line what Rossi said in the interview:

“making that test we wanted to learn what happens if we leave the self sustaining mode go ahead without driving it with the electric resistances with what we call the mouse”

at least if you read it like I do, with parentheses:

“making that test we wanted to learn what happens if we leave the self sustaining mode go ahead (without driving it with the electric resistances) with what we call the mouse”

• Barry

On behalf of the rigth-brainers, thanks Glenn and Andre.

• GreenWin

More on how Distributed Energy Resources (ostensibly solar) will cause utilities, and Investor Owned Utilities especially – to adapt or die:

“Faced with the prospect of having their revenue streams from generation, transmission and distribution slowly leak away as more distributed renewable power joins the grid, it appears most of the IOUs would rather fight than switch.”

What this scenario gets wrong is, DERs will not need to “join the grid” – anymore than a refrigerator owner would need to keep paying for ice deliveries. We can be sure that LENR devices will not be allowed to sell their excess back to the grid. But once you’ve bought and paid for an LENR device – you would need only a micro-grid. A group of neighbors/businesses linked by a simple backup/UPS network guaranteeing constant power, even if one or two nodes (home or business) fail.

So much simpler than the behemoth “not-so-smart” grid and all its two way surveillance gadgetry.

• Chris the 2nd

Lots of crossed wires here aren’t there?

My understanding is that the activator needs an energy source to start, whether electrical resistor or gas heater either way it’s heat according to Rossi.

Once started, unless the ECAT gets too cold, the ECAT is running hot enough that it can be used as the heat source for the activator when it needs to be restarted.

This leads to a situation where the ECAT can be used to power it’s own activator until the fuel runs out.

This seems like a too good to be true situation, so this is going in the believe it when I see it bracket.

• Glenn

If I have a coal boiler, I provide it a small initial energy for ignition, and then the boiler keeps itself burning on it’s own heat, while producing a net output, until the fuel runs out or the system gets too cold to sustain combustion, whichever happens first.

The eCat system is just like the coal boiler or any other form of reactor, the only real difference is the fuel.

Is Rossi’s reactor for real? I’m staying agnostic for now. I’m hopeful, cautiously optimistic, but unconvinced. Either way I’m enjoying following the story.

• AB

The activators in the picture can’t be individually turned on or off if they’re all connected to the same heat source.

This is a serious flaw as maintenance or failure of a single unit would require shutting down of the whole plant.

• Glenn

Maybe the individual connections to the heat source are broken and re-established by a control system.

• AB

I’m no engineer, but I believe breaking the connection between the heat output and the heat input would involve mechanical work. If the heat is transmitted via a liquid, then the flow must be interrupted. You’d definitely want to automate this process and then it gets complicated. If the mechanics fail, you’ve got a plant that’s hard to shut down (power failure = no automation).

No, the sensible approach would be to heat each activator via an electrical resistance. Then it’s easy to automate and shut down.

• Jouni Tuomela

The sad thing seems to be that if you want 1 MW of heat, you have to have 1 MW of power available to supply to the device. Only that you need it only 35% of the time.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Right, and all the heat from the E-Cat, 65% of the time, is free!

• Andre Blum

I think many of us, including myself, have not paid close enough attention when he was so clearly stating that the activator (mouse) did not require electricity. I have been on a quest to find support for that today. Besides circumstantial evidence I now found a literal reference on JONP, when he said to Pekka and Steven Karels (yesterday, may 12):

“The source of the activator can be electric power, gas, or any heat source.”

That, combined with the fact that he says the mouse COP is >1, and an initial misuderstanding of what that meant, confirms the picture we crafted together as the answer to Admin’s question as to how the activator can pay for itself — and in fact, incredible enough — provide its own heat.

It was laid out pretty clear by Rossi, but we were (at least I was) pretty deaf.

does anyone disagree at this point?

• Roger Bird

Here is something that won’t get better because of LENR. I went to “The Joint — a chiropractic place” for a chiropractic adjustment and they would not serve me because I am more than 64 years old. This is because of some technicality in Obamacare. This is the fault of all of you political science retards that think that just because something is good that some government should do it, with other people’s money of course. The Joint is a big company, so I hope that all of you people will not use their services and perhaps even contact them to tell them what bags of human excrement they are.

How is this relevant? Because so many of you are older, and because all of you are human beings, although I am not all that sure about the patho-skeptics. (:->)

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Rog…..come on that is not true….”would not serve me because I am more than 64 years old. This is because of some technicality in Obamacare” send me the part of law that says that, [email protected].

• Omega Z

Bernie

This falls under Cost/Benefit. Something the average person isn’t consciously aware of most of the time.
It’s just going to be More Pronounced then in the past. It’s not new & is a World wide practice.
A Simple Example is you don’t do heart transplant on someone who is dying of cancer in a short time.
Their Lowering the Bar.

• Roger Bird

Bernie, are you calling me a liar?

Bernie, it is not responsibility to untangle their confusion and cruelty and read their minds and go look for some technicality in their tons (literally) of regulations. It is their responsibility to serve me. They didn’t. Their reason that they told me had something to do with Medicare eligibility.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

I am not an engineer, but many engineer types on this site and JONP have asked Rossi why he could not recirculate the heat to make the system self contained. I think “Rossi says” he has done just that, almost.

• clovis

Hi, Bernie
there is so much wound up in your statement, i feel that it self sustains (ss) with a few caveats, nickel is consumed through transmutation into copper, and produces a tremendous amount of heat,-output,over unity but not quite ss just yet, ways are being explored in order, to really close the loop, maybe if a different forum of matter was used instead of nickel, key Dr. Rossi’s marmalade consensus, but with that problem solved you could somehow capture the h4 that is released in the transmutation phase and loop it back in, for a super charger when needed,lol, heck floor it. lets get this party started, i’m getting old,–smile- i feel that Dr. rossi has thing well under control, steady as she goes, everything moving along as planned. i am personally glad that Dr.R is in control of the new fire, no ordinary man can hold the fire,and he has already said that god was guiding his hands, he said something to the effect that if he wanted to do it some other way that, that god would show him his error, so to me it seem that god is going to make a change in the world,about time , we have gotten it in one hell of a mess,lol
god said that no power can stand against him, -smile, so hold on to your set we’re in for a ruff ride at the start, but there is soon to be a new world where ignorance and injustice is left behind. and then good times ahead,the lord will be with us and we will be receiving all of his blessings, what a wonderful time that will be, all things are possible through him, sorry for the sirmon, just got m juices flowing,, if you can understand any of this i will be glad,.smile

• M a r i o

Eng Rossi could recirculate the heat to make the device self sustaining or self running ; but for SAFETY reason one cannot use the heat feedback of the E-Cat to stabilize the same E-cat because in case of trouble it would be incontrollable. No way to pass the safetey certification.

• New Q & A from the JONP that has a bearing on the question at hand.

1)The mouse / cat system is in closed loop? in the sense that the mouse is back-fed by (part of) the energy produced by the cat?
2)If not, you’ll work on this in the future?

Rossi:
1- no
2- I do not know

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Is the heat being used my the activator?

• clovis

Bernie, I think that is correct.
I think that it will use resistors only after,the cat has been shut down and for first time startup, energy can come from reserve electric energy instead of grid power and then it would truly be decoupled and ss so to speak,.
but heck I’d just be taking a guess.

• Omega Z

No

Rossi says it does not feed back.
I think what Rossi alludes to is the Energy used by the Activator feeds all the way through as useable heat in the output. AKA, Not Wasted.

As far as cost, Using 900 watts to produce in excess of 200Kw would calculate to Less then a Half a Percent of the output.

Or Consider getting \$2 dollars worth of heat for less then half a cent. Negligible/Near Zero cost per unit of energy.

• G_Zingh

I am pretty sure the 900w number refers to the 1kW cat not the 200kW cat.

• Peter Roe

He confirmed 1 activator to each module, so that right. However, apparently each moule outputs 10kW, not 1kW, according to Rossi’s latest ‘correction’.

• buffalo

can somebody please remind me why an ecat begins to lose power after a while in the first place.if this was a nuke reaction wouldnt it be completely self sustaining??

• Kim

Similar to a pharmaceutical drug.

you have a onset,peak,duration.

Onset occurs at 68c.
Peaks at 350c (known stability point)
Duration at 350c (plateaus)
Then falls back to 68c to start again.

Why? How? What?
Many theories and good ones at that
but nothing solid yet.

Very stable if controlled at proper points
with software.

Respect
Kim

• Shane D.

Sounds like you are referring to my Viagra, up until your comment about “not solid yet”. So far works every time.

Can’t see where the “software” comes in though.

Take care,

A happy customer

• clovis

HI, Buffalo
Good question,I’m not sure that it does lose power after a while.
The only reason i can think of to shut down would be to change reactors, every 6 months i think it was,

• Shane D.

If I have Dr. Storms right, I think it has to do with those nuclear active sites (crevases actually) he describes.

There are only so many, depending on quality of material, along with surface preparation, and those particular sites seem to get worn out after a time.

• buffalo

i was also thinking along these lines however it doesnt explain the need to reboot the reaction as those active sites would be permanently destroyed after round 1.perhaps the other guys have it right here who say it is designed to not to have a ‘runaway reaction’

• G_Zingh

I think it starts to power down in ssm because it is engineered to do so otherwise the reaction cannot be controlled. The purpose of the Activator is to bring the ecat to a point it ss but not so much that the reaction feeds on itself. My understanding is that there is no way to cool the ecat other than the ecat cools itself by powering itself down for 35% of the cycle.

• artefact

Maybe:
Some time ago Rossi had the problem of runaway if he did not control the reaction good enough.
At that time there was no 2 stage design. So one reactor had to produce h (or h- ) and do the reaction to get the power out of atoms. The reactor got hotter more h got produced and the reactor got even hotter if it could not be made stable. -> runaway.
Now with the 2 stage design it is a lot safer I would think. The activator produces h, the e-cat uses it and gets colder until it is used up. Then the activator needs again to be started.

• Dickyaesta

Is it only me or has anybody else the feeling we are almost there?! Reading the expertise of the posts the ultimate days one would say so…. Thanks guys.

• What if

Where is the test?

• LENR4you

The main task of the activater-cat is to produce a sorte of X-rays for the hot-ecat to trigger the reaction!
LENR4you

• Karl

I can’t read Rossi other than he has created the perfect energy supply. It is not exactly a perpetum mobile per definition but very very close. You just need to recharge the Cat (and possibly the mouse) perhaps once every 6 month. Under this time span his mechanism is virtually running by itself producing the selected energy, 1, 10, 100, 1000 kWh (depending on the type of the Cat) every hour for 6 month.

You just turn it on, by activating the activator (mouse) which does not seem to need any external energy. After the Cat is on and operate in ssm the activator could stop or at least it is being activated again at the end of the ssm of the Cat to control the Cat. Now the activator controls the Cat until the Cat is stable and start to run in ssm mode again.
The Cat is producing high energy during all the repeated cycles.

It seems that Rossi has created a mouse (activator) that handle all control of the Cat:s energy production that does not need any external energy to start and at least operate during the required time period to reduce the power of the Cat at the end of the ssm of the Cat. The intriguing new mechanism seems to be the mouse that makes all this to happen. If this is the case the terminology of a certain COP seems from now on irrelevant.

• lenrdawn

A. Rossi:

“I made what I wrote read by a 13 years old middle school girl, and she understood perfectly.”

Unfortunately a 13 year old is never around when you need one. Rossi is playing games here. Having read through it several times and reading the comments on this site and JONP, I can’t make any sense of it without resorting to wild and inconsistent speculation and neither, apparently, can anybody else. No wonder the patent office rejected him so far. What else can they do when the only people in the world who know what he means are himself and a 13 year old middle school girl. 😉

• Peter Roe

🙂

• Al

From Patrick Ellul over on Vortex:

I thought he might have done a typo, and mean 10 kWh/h so I emailed him to ask.

He confirmed that it was a typo, and he meant 10kWh/h for the ecat, just
like it has always been.

If that is the case:

0.91 * 35% of the time = 0.3185 kWh/h
*10* * 65% of the time = 6.5 kWh/h

total output = 6.8185 kWh/h
input = 0.9 * 35% of the time = 0.315 kWh/h

COP = 21.65

_______

Rossi has mostly focused on the share of time spent in each mode, what matters equally much is the energy ratio. The critical question therefore is how small you can make the activator relative to the ssm module. So far we don’t have full clarity.

• Peter Roe

Goalposts moving again. Rossi has had plenty of time to realise that many of the questions he has been asked relate to the apparently small difference between input (wherever this comes from) and output, and the 1kW figure has been repeated in several places. There are still many open questions about start-up requirements and the nature of the ‘heat source’, and many contradictions with things he has said before. Perhaps Rossi can get the 13-yesr old schoolgirl to explain exactly how this thing is supposed to work, as he is certainly making a hash of it himself.

From a practical POV it is just a ‘black box’, and any speculation seems a bit futile if we try to base this on Rossi’s incomplete and ever-shifting answers, as the ‘facts’ will have changed by tomorrow. All that matters is how much power needs to go in (even if just initially) and how much heat comes out – which remains to be seen if or when a device based on this concept actually goes into production.

• M a r i o

Patrick Ellul The average output of E-cat is 10kw/h per hour, considering the on time plus the off time.
During the on time (1/3 of the time, let’s say 10 minutes on 30 minutes, the temperature of the E-cat does not decrease to zero centigrades, but few degrees.
Similarly, during the off time (65% of the cycle, let’s say 20 minites on 30 minutes), the temperature does not rise of hundreds degrees. Of course there is a fluctuation, but in the order of tens of degrees. Therefore the E-cat COP has to be calculated on the average of 10Kwh/h. Then you have to add The COP of the activator. But the only electric energy used by the device (Activator + 10 kw E-Cat)is that of the activator.

• buffalo

perhaps by regulating pressure the reaction dies but no significant amount of h2 would be ‘used up’ ever.all h2 content remains same always.

• Nicholas Payne

Whats all this “h/h” stuff. Does it do anything except add to the confusion? Can’t it just be dropped on the grounds that it is “redundancy/redundancy”?