# A Correction Makes A Difference in Cat and Mouse Discussion

Here’s an important correction, I think, that pertains to the discussion we have been having about the cat and mouse.

On the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi wrote to Joseph Fine:

Our basic module is made by an apparatus in which we have 2 components: an activator, which consumes about 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.

On vortex-l, Patrick Ellul wrote in reference to this post:

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

So, taking into account this correction and rounding the numbers, the way I see it is that the output of the Cat is about 10 times the output of the mouse, and it is turned on about twice as long as the mouse is on, so you are going to get approximately 20 times as much energy out as you get in.

Regarding the activator ‘paying for itself’, I now think that Rossi means that the customer is paying for the input energy anyway (electricity or gas) and it ends up being used in the output mix, and with the E-cat in place that input energy is multiplied by about 20.

That’s my current thinking on the matter — could change with more information.

• artefact

finaly 😉

• mjølner

mice feed it self thru a closed loop
in the mice.Hvith a coop over 1.
Then the mice feed the cat.
coop in the hundreds or infinity when
it has been started up.
greetings fro Norway

• Andre Blum

+1

• Andrew Ma

Safety certification of E-cat requires that when the external power or fuel source is removed E-Cat will safely turns itself off. Rossi also said that when the external power is restored, E-cat will not self start.

• Andre Blum

that is a valid point, but at the same time a very technical one. As we don’t know anything about the mouse at all, it is hard to speculate.

• Andrew Ma

What I said is not a speculation. I quote: “Feb 28, 2010 – That info was wrong. If there is a black out, the E-Cat automatically stops, for lack of current: it is intrinsecally safe. Warm Regards, A.R.”

• KD

Yes. And even E-Cat is heated by gas, it need electricity for controls and pumps.

• Zeddicus Zul Zorander

Again, not sure if this requirement is also needed for a power plant, which is where the tiger e-cat’s would be used, where there are trained technicians and emergency procedures implemented as opposed to a fully fail-save solution for a home product.

Rossi did say that the requirements for an industrial device were much more lax than for home use:

“Rossi went on to explain that the certification process for the domestic E-Cat is different than that of the industrial E-Cat. He explained the reasoning that “When you install the device in an industrial plant, you give it to the certified operators, who have to take a course, and be examined by us and certified by us.

He also indicated that the domestic E-Cats will not be under the daily supervision of professional operators. There will be an instruction book, but he points out that most people don’t bother reading the instructions about anything. Therefore the certification of the domestic E-Cat has a different set of standards. He also stated that once the industrial E-Cat have been in operation and providing statistics, these figures will be useful in aiding certification of the domestic model.”

• Gigawatt

Maybe we should ask Patrick Ellul to post this e-mail or part of it.
Can we trust him? I really hope this is real so we can stop to speculate on COP.

• dzejk

Where is the promised 3rd party report? Forgetaboutit. Whe have so much new and exciting stuff to fantasize about (tigers, lions, …).

• John L

It should be:

ECat: 65% activated + SSM + 35% being activated (getting triggered by the mouse) = 100% ON time

Emouse: 65% is actually off + 35% triggering the Ecat (wake it up from cooling down)

Emouse’s resistor ON time could be less than 35%, may be 15% to get the Emouse excited and does it job

we know it takes hours to get the Ecat to steady state (stabilized) so it can’t be ON 65% then suddenly OFF 35%.

• John L

I don’t think the Emouse is really OFF during 65% but being smaller, it may be very close to actual “OFF”.

• KD

Let take it as for example, mouse is running 75 second and stops and for the next 65 seconds is looking where the cat is.
Mouse is not dead. When the cat come closer and mouse see him it start running again.
The cat don’t give food to mouse. Mouse feed it self and even produce some droppings.:)

Rossi don’t give us precisely, what going on in his E-Cats because competitors are watching him.
It is just general idea what he say.

• Job001

Assume the ecat has NOT been derated to 6.8kWh/h since the amount as modules or reactants required is optional.
Thus we may assume 10kWh/h output as before. Then, we have
output = 10kWh/h = 14.9 x 65% of the time + 0.91kWh/h x 35% of the time
input = 0.91kWh/h x 35% of the time = 0.3185 kWh/h
COP = 10kWh/h /0.3185kWh/h = 31.4

• John L

Your equation is telling me the Ecat is ON 65% then suddenly OFF 35% (Prof. S.Focardi would not said “I want to use a hammer on it” in the past if the reaction could be turned off that fast – unless Rossi has invented new thing). Also your equation suggests there is one extra Emouse heating resistor in the ECat.

• buffalo

so you are saying that the e-cat HAS to be switched off periodicaly otherwise runaway occurs?

• John L

No, I doubt the reaction can be turned off quickly like a square wave or rectangle wave described by the equation above

• Andre Blum

When calculating COP, your calculation is not wrong, per se, but it depends on how you view it. Once more the analogy I posted yesterday:

Suppose we were not talking heat, but money.

Rossi has created a device. You can put a dollar in it and push a button. Immediately(!) a dollar and a dime come out. This has not cost you any money. You keep the dime and again put in the same dollar. The same happens again.

This all is only just the activator. You think you are the happiest man in the world because you are creating free dimes. You keep doing this for 3 minutes.

The fun part is that the next 6 minutes you can take a rest and on the back of the machine it starts spitting out free dollars.

After nine minutes you are stuck with a pile of money and it is your turn for the next 3 minutes.

After a short while you hire an employee to do the work of inserting the dollar bills. You tell him to keep a handsome hourly rate and put the rest on your bank account.

The question is: does this device have a COP of 20? Or does it have a COP of infinity?

BTW: Someone asked Rossi: “are you feeding the activator with dollars coming from the backside of the machine?”. Rossi answers: “No”. Of course not. Why would he. He would have to walk to the back of the machine, while he doesn’t have to. The front gives him back his dollar.

• Carmania

You don’t put a dollar in it and get a dollar and a dime back. That would be true if you put 1 kwh electricity in it and got 1.1 kwh electricity back. But what you do is you put 1 kwh electricity in it and get 1.1 kwh heat back. Not a good deal I would say. If you convert back to electricity you would probably get maximum 0.3 kwh back. Still cannot see the point of this mouse set-up.

• Andre Blum

The point is — we have covered this yesterday — the mouse can run off heat. You do not lose energy in a conversion to electric.

“The source of the activator can be electric power, gas, or any heat source.” (Rossi, may 12)

also:

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.

• Carmania

Hope it is like that 🙂 If so, in practical work, you would only need electricity to start up the e-cat if it has been shut down (for example every 6 months to reload nickel) and a small amount of electricity to run the control systems). Probably giving a COP well above 100.

• Andre Blum

Which is in line with what Rossi says.

is Rossi’s story still confusing? no. Incedible, yes, but confusing, no.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

If the customer is using electricity to heat?

• Pachu

I agree with the calculus in the main post, there is no infinites or zeros, it doesnt matter where you get the input if from the grid or from the e-cat, as explained by Rossi the system has a aprox. COP of 21 measuring in hours.

Yet we dont know how often the system switches between activator and the e-cat, my bet is does in second order maybe more than 1 time per second.

We also dont know yet the energy stored in the materials inside (the catalyst).

• Wini

If that means to get about 7kWh/h of energy E-cat needs 0,315 kWh/h input energy?
Cost per day for this E-cat would be 0,315kWh x 24 (hours) = 7,56 kWh
Cost per month 7,54 kWh x 30 (days) = 226,8 kWh
In cash cost of heating flat of 70 m^2 by E-cat will be about 1,13\$ per day (1 kWh cost 0,15 \$). In month it would be 34\$. I want it!

• Andre Blum

At the center of the discussion I think is this question:

==> What does a COP of 1.1 for the activator mean?

Rossi says: you put 900 Wh/h in, you get 910 Wh/h out.

Many people interpret this as:

you put 900 Wh/h in, this is used as input to the e-cat, and on top of that you get an immediate bonus of 10 Wh/h.

That, however, *for the activator*, is not a COP of 1.1, but a COP of 0.1.

In my view — one that matches Rossi’s COP calculations — this is a wrong interpretation. The interpretation should be:

you put 900 Wh/h in, and immediately get 910 Wh/h out, for you to use (for example, on feeding the activator!). As a bonus, the e-cat gets activated (without consuming the 900 Wh/h) and starts spitting out 10 (or 1) kWh/h for free (COP infinity).

• Gordon Docherty

Forgive my ignorance, but is COP not Co-efficient of Performance, that is, a ratio, of IN : OUT. In that case, the ratio is 1 : 1.1, or 1.1 / 1 or 110% ? The EXTRA energy, or amount over and above what was put in, is indeed 10 Wh/h, but that is not the COP – or, have I got that wrong?

• Andre Blum

you are right about the definition of COP.

The question is more: what is done with the resulting output of the mouse. Many think it needs to be used as input to the e-cat. I think it doesn’t. It just comes out of the mouse as 910Wh/h. The e-cat has an infinite cop, as it doesn’t “consume” or “use” that 900Wh/h.

What it *does* run off, we don’t know, as we don’t understand the e-cat (nor the mouse). I am only saying this interpretation is the one that matches what Rossi is saying about how it works, and about what its COP is.

• All this discussion about COP or not COP.

We should wait for a working reactor first I think, or simply wait for the 3rd party report.

• John L

Your equation is telling me the Ecat is ON 65% then suddenly OFF 35% – more like a rectangle waves in step motor. Is that possible with the Ecat?

• Max Toll

Interesting clarification, still does not answer some important questions in my mind:

1. I would be interested to hear how the COP of 1.02 for the activator is calculated. Even with high precision calorimetry, it is within the margin of error for this type of measurements.

2. The overall cycle of mouse and cat leaves some other important questions about the initiation conditions for the reaction and its stability. The on/off cycle seems to generates very uneven output: 910W for 35% of the time and 10KW for 65% of the time. What are the characteristics of the main eCat reaction and why it cannot be maintained 100% of the time? Does it stop by itself, or there is an explicit control mechanism that brings it down on purpose (e.g. by reducing H pressure or other input signals).

The story is getting very interesting, yet all these new details by AR raise more questions.

• Omega Z

Max

Rossi actually explained the percentages sometime ago about the E-cats.

The Timing is sporadic. The mouse is not on 35% of the time continuous. There is no exact time at all. A minute here. 1 there. And may be off for long or short periods according to whats happening at the moment in the E-cat Reactor. The 35% is just an average over a period of time. You’ll also find that the E-cat Reactor probably doesn’t very much, but stays within a very narrow temperature range whether it’s in SSM or drive mode. It would have to be in order to dependably produce energy for Electrical production. Otherwise it would be nearly useless.

• Carmania

I think Patricks calculation on Vortex must be wrong. The cat must obviously give 10 kwh 100% of the time, while the mouse is “on” 35% of the time (This activator stays in function for the 35% of the operational time), giving the following calculation:

Input (electrical):
0,9 * 35% = 0.315

Output (heat):
(0.99 * 35%)+(10) =10.3465

COP = 10.3185 / 0.315 =32.85

However, I still don’t understand what the mouse is doing except giving slightly more heat (raising COP from 32.75 to 32.85 in the calculation above).

• Peter

What is misleading is the reference to either the activator or the ecat “stays in function for 35% of the operational time”. This easily translates for most to mean that it is “Off” the remaining 65% of the time.

My understanding of this is the time it requires a draw on either electric or heat to keep the internal reaction going. This is is different than “off”.

The same would hold true for the ecat, being that it is still on 100% of the time, but only drawing a boost from the mouse/activator every so often (35% of the time) to regulate and maintain its output heat.

So that means that both mouse and cat are producing heat, 100% of the time… Yes?

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

• John L

Hi Peter,

I think that it may be like this (below) or Rossi is playing with our heads or he needs a holiday

The ECat is activated for 65% of the cycle and as it is coming off SSM (temperature is starting to lower), the Activator kicks in (35% of the cycle)to bring it back to active (and subsequently SSM state)state again then the Activator is actually OFF. So the ECat is not actually in “OFF” state but “cooling OFF” state just after SSM.

ECat is on in active and SSM state = 65% (but not really OFF)+ 35% being triggered = 100%

Activator on = 35% and actually close OFF 65%

The equation becomes: ECAt output always 100% ON (active + SSM + being triggered) plus COP of the mouse for 35% of the cycle

COP = (P2/0)+ ((t1*P1)/(t1*P1/C1))

Since (P2/0) does not make sense

COP = (P2/n)+ ((t1*P1)/(t1*P1/C1))

n = parasitic heat loss

• Peter

Hi John L,

You wrote: “Activator on = 35% and actually close OFF 65%”

Do you mean by this that 65% of the time the activator has lost its reaction and gone cool?

That doesn’t make sense to me, seeing as it would be so easy and fast for the ecat to keep it continually fired up. The mouse too, can be ignited by heat, and I suppose I just assumed the 10KW ecat was running hot enough 100% of the time, regardless of needing a boost or not, that it could keep the mouse running.

Also, the mouse has such a low COP, it is easy to assume it can run much more stable and require far less boosting.

• John L

Peter,
……on…cool…on..cool
ECat ——___——___—— 100%on

………….off..on…off…on
Mouse _____—______—______ 35% on

………….off.on….off..on
Mwire _____–_______–________ maybe 15%on

I think the issue is stability Rossi uses the mouse to keep the cat just excited but not to excite him too much and he may run away. After having triggered the cat, the Mousewire is turned off so that the mouse is cool off and being small, it is easy to control.

• John L

Peter
timing diagram does not align as I wish ! and they should be curved not rectangle waves

• Omega Z

John

The Timing is variable. No precise time settings. The Activator kicks in due to the situation of the moment. The Percentages is just an Average on/off.
According to Rossi, the Reactor may run hours or minutes in SSM.

The Activator, aside from starting it up, Is used to keep the Reactor in the “Sweet Spot” Or Not if you shut it down.

• John L

Variable of course, they have sensors, feeding to a mirocontroller with DSP algorithms

• John L

The diagram does not imply that there is a fixed timing scheme. It is a standard control-engineering practice nowadays to have sensors and micro controllers of course. Nonetheless, the critical moments are hopefully depicted.

• buffalo

from all this information i gather that the ecat reactor HAS to be switched off cyclicly to prevent runaway melts of the nickel catalyst.now imagine this proplem was overcome so that one could ssm as long as you want,here is where the future lies,ssm without the need for cycling on/off/on.i would suggest an imediate investigation into the viability of the high-melting alternative to nickel=*platinum*,expensive yes but maybe will last ten times longer

• Peder

When will the report be published? That is the main thing imo.

• buffalo

[email protected] thats important but out of our control.thers been very few investigations on platinum indicating anomalous heat and i think more has to be done now because platinum is the closest relative to nickel on the periodic table,they are in the same group,right atop each other.

• Chris I

From this, I would make out the overall effective COP being something above 30, not a couple hundred, all the less infinity.

He is always so confusing in how he says things, he seems to have got himself confused too, with the idea of the e-mouse “paying for itself”. Apparently he only means the input energy isn’t lost, it adds to the total thermal output; this has been clear enough from the start.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Compute the COP for the 100 kW Tiger.

• guga

LOL. This is a typical Rossi. I would hope that it is 10 kW, but he mentioned 1 kW HotCat units several times. So I doubt that he really meant 10 kW now. Though he may be working on it.

If I may summarize my current view on the topic:

1. The notion that the activator could feed itself got strong here. I consider this a myth. Otherwise the COP of 1.1 would make no sense, Rossi would speak of SSM for the activator, and he would not emphasize that the energy that is put in is usable for the customer (pay for itself). He also denied that there was back feeding of energy from the Ecat to the activator. I would not exclude that this could happen in the future, but there is no sign that this is state of the art.

2. With the information we have it is simply impossible to calculate if the total COP is closer to 2 or 3 (or 20 or 30 in case of 10 kW). We would need precise data, that we certainly won´t get.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

If you were following “Rossi says” for the last two years the 10 kW unit has been the basic E-Cat, there is no reason for him to change to a 1 kW unit. The COP measurement is now irrelevant it depends on the size of the E-cat he can come up with like the 100 kW Tiger.

• Calaon Andrea

The COP of 21.65 is correct. This means that for 100 units of energy produced you need only 4.6 units of input.
Many heat – electricity conversion systems can pass this 4.6% efficiency. This means that electricity production is only a matter of time.
Above COP values of 20-30 any further growth becomes practically negligible:
with a heat-electricity conversion efficiency of, let say 18%, now the “gain” is 18% – 4.6% = 13.4%. This means that in an electric power plant every 100 units of energy produced by the nuclear process, 13.4 would become electricity.
If the COP were infinite:
100/inf=0%; 18-0 = 18%
The difference between 13.4 and 18 is not that important as improving the efficiency of the heat-electricity conversion above 18%.
It is nuclear energy time!

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Right, and the COP measurement is irrelevant, if “Rossi says” can pull this off power companies are in for a shake up.

• Hampus

If you can somehow make electricity from this Ecat, on could easily charge up a battery that in turn drive the activator. Then you have created a very effective loop =) with infinite cop, well not infinite you still need a couple of grams of nickel.

We still don’t know how he makes the nickel and how much energy is needed in that process. But i guess this would be (energy vise) far superior to anything we have today.

• Andrea Calaon

Actually Rossi answered this question some time ago on his blog saying that the amount of energy needed for the fuel preparation is irrelevant if compared to the nuclear energy that can be extracted. He also declared that the fuel for 1ME for 6 month is worth a few hundred dollars, may be some thousands in this early days.
Regards
Andrea

• Roger Bird

“There are 382,193 people in the U.S. with the first name Andrea.
Statistically the 156th most popular first name.
97.52 percent of people with the first name Andrea are female.”

“There are 29,872 people in the U.S. with the last name Rossi.
Statistically the 1263rd most popular last name.”

“There are 36 people in the U.S. named Andrea Rossi.”

The chances are extremely likely that only one Andrea Rossi in the USA is our hero, THE Andrea Rossi. The other Andrea Rossi’s are soon going to become very famous overnight for no good reason. They are probably all women.

• Omega Z

Hampus

Rossi has maintained that the cost of nickel preparation is negligible as you only need a few grams.

• Greg Leonard

This is quite a puzzle.
AR was very firm that when the activator is ON, the eCat is OFF, and vice versa.
The clear implication is that whatever the activator does, it STOPS the eCat reaction – whilst it heats up the eCat ready to run when the activator goes off.
When the eCat is running in SSM, there is potential for thermal runaway. At that point the activator is switched on to STOP the reaction and let the eCat cool to its normal operating temp.

Looks as though the only way to stop the whole process would be to run the activator and increase the heat exchanger flow to get the eCat below its SSM temp, so when the activator goes off, the whole thing cools down

• Jim Anderson

I read your comment and it made me think about what the activator is doing. If you look at an eCat reaction you need a particular nickel powder heated to the right temperature and hydrogen at the right pressure. When the eCat is turned on the activator starts the reaction. The analogy that comes to mind is a heater with a thermostat function but hydrogen production and pressure regulation are involved if not by the activator then by something else. There is another possibilty for an eCat in SSM to have problems besides thermal runaway. It appears that an eCat can become unstable as it cools. Rossi has made very dramtic improvements in the eCat in terms of stability in SSM. But early on he expressed concern that SSM could be unstable. Celani has reported the possibility of serious instability of LENR reactions at low temperatures and low pressures. Celani is regarded by Rossi as his most serious competion. He is involved in the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project(MFMP). How a lower reaction level could produce instability isn’t clear to me.

• Giuliano Bettini

Typo??????? What typo? Back to March:
“1 kW module composed by 2 stages, an activator and an E-Cat in the same reactor.Is the last generation.”

Andrea Rossi
March 24th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Dear Steven N. Karels:
1- Three
2- No, they were the new generation of Hot Cat, a 1 kW module composed by 2 stages, an activator and an E-Cat in the same reactor. Is the last generation.
3- Hot
Warm Regards,
A.R.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

No, it was a typo, they have always been 10 kW units, why would he switch to a 1 kW unit.

• guga

No, the old ECats were 10 kW units, he said the HotCat units were 1 kW.

He mentioned the 1 kW units many times:
May 12th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
May 12th, 2013 at 5:03 PM
March 25th, 2013 at 8:31 PM
March 24th, 2013 at 10:36 PM
August 10th, 2012 at 12:03 PM

On the other hand, he repeatedly mentioned 10 kW units as quantum for his 1 MW plants (low temperature ECats).

So no typo.

• Andre Blum

To Rossi, it doesn’t matter. As the COP is infinite for both 1 kW and 10 kW.

• guga

If we accept that he takes the activation energy out of the equation. A concept that I don´t like. Because it makes some sense only if your aim is to produce just heat and accept that the HotCat is just a super-efficient heating device.

But most of us are thinking of other applications, especially the production of electricity.

And, again, we have no sign that Rossi has built or is building HotCats that can drive their activator with the energy they produce. It seems to be theoretically possible, but it does not seem to be Rossi´s aim.

I remember quite a while ago he mentioned that he would not get safety certification if the Ecat was not controlled by an external power source. This might be the reason he is not following this path at the moment.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Was he referring to the mouse or the E-cat?

• guga

The ECat, or actually the HotCat:

“The E-Cat, …, works for about the 65% of the operational time, producing about 1 kWh/h without consuming any Wh/h from the grid.”

“In the basic Hot Cat it is about 1 kW”

“the 1 kW modules are very perfectioned”

“they were the new generation of Hot Cat, a 1 kW module composed by 2 stages, an activator and an E-Cat in the same reactor.”

“…we could have as well a 1 kW power Hot Cat and still maintain the same temperature…”

On May 12th, 2013 at 5:03 PM he did mean the activator, my mistake.

• Curbina

This is all about understanding what one is paying for and where the savings come from. If I have to pay for 1 Kw of electric energy to get 20 Kw of thermal energy, then I think the E-cat pays for itself rather quickly, specially if all what one needs is heat. When it comes to E-cats paying themselves for electricity production, we will have to wait a lot more, I’m afraid.

• Iggy Dalrymple

You’re assuming a 70% loss in generating electricity, but keep in mind, conventional production of electricity also suffers a 70% loss, so with a Hot-Tiger, you should still enjoy an approximate 20/1 improvement over gas, coal, or nuke powered generation.

• clovis

Hi everyone.
My take is this, the big cat has to maintain a certain temp if not it will overheat and melt the nickel and shuts down, or not enough heat and it shut down,
So the mouse, is just a small e-cat that holds the larger cat at that particular temp , when you want to turn the big cat off you lower the temp of the E mouse just enough to make the big cat shut down, but the e mouse still retains enough heat to restart the big cat when necessary, if not the E mouse has resistors in it. the e mouse is hooked to the grid for start up power only for the E mouse to use if needed. —- you guys see anything wrong with this scenario.

• John L

That may be Rossi’s logic

• guga

The activator or mouse always uses an external energy source. At least until now it does not seem as if Rossi would or could feed energy back in. So whenever the activator is on, it pulls electricity from the grid (or maybe gas, I don`t know if he might have a two stage gas driven HotCat).

• Andre Blum

What I do not agree with is that we are saying Rossi has the COP calculation wrong. And that it should be 3. or 30. Where he says it is infinite or 200 for practical reasons.

Rossi is the “meister”.

With that I am not saying he is infallible. Nor that he is God. He has made his odd miscalculation, and his typos. But over the two years I have followed him he has not demonstrated any misunderstanding of physics or mathematics. The contrary! He knows his powers from his energies from his currents from his volts, like no-one else. He masters it all without exception. In interviews he talks of complicated concepts with an ease that makes one jealous.

Rossi obviously knows his devices and setups and their concepts much better than we do.

If he says the setup works so and so, and the COP is such and such, history proves we have no right to say it works otherwise or the COP is different.

All we have to do is line up the interpretation of the story with what he says is the COP. I have tried to do that.

The completely other standpoint you can take is to deny that Rossi is the meister. In that case … what are you doing here?

• Mark Saunders

You sound very knowledgeable, can you please explain the terms “Wh/h” and “kWh/h”? I’ve never seen those before.

• Andre Blum

normally, power is in watts (W) or old-style horsepower (hp). A kilowatt is 1000 W, written as kW.

An old style light bulb may have a rating of 40 W.

To calculate the energy taken by the lamp, you multiply the power by the duration the lamp burns. If you leave the lamp burning for one hour, it will consume 40 Wh. If you leave it running 1000 hours, it consumes 40 kWh. a kWh in the US I believe costs about ¢10, so it will cost you \$4 to leave it on that long.

this part most people understand.

power is an instantaneous value. For the lamp this doesn’t matter much, as it is a constant 40 W. They print this value on the box, and you would have an idea what it uses in terms of energy, while in fact you are looking at a power value.

However if you use the lamp with a duty cycle, for example in an iso-flashing on/off setup, you would actually just use only half of the energy. That doesn’t make it a 20 W lamp, though.

The proper way of describing its energy usage is using an energy/time unit. The energy unit is kWh, the time unit is h. So it becomes kWh/h.

Yes, mathematically, the h/h cancels out, so you could write it as kW. This would give you the average power over the duration, in our example 20 Watts. And that is perfectly acceptable. But using the unit in full more clearly indicates what is going on and what you mean, and that it may have varied over time.

• artefact

kWh/h means kilo Watt. It is a bit older but it is still correct. (h / h eliminates itself)

• Roger Bird

I don’t think that it is a typo. I have seen Andrea Rossi say in a video “one kilowatt-hour per hour” (1kWh/h) The hours cancel each other, so in effect it means one kilowatt. But I think that he means that he got one kilowatt-hour of work for in one hour. It would be possible to say that .5 kilowatts for two hours was 1 kilowatt hour. Kilowatt hour is a measure of work. But he means, I think, that he got that much work out of it for one hour.

• Peter Roe

Andre explains kWh/h above. As he says, it is an averaged value for kW, where input or output power varies with time (e.g., due to switching cycles).

Rossi doesn’t give enough detail to establish whether his Wh/h figures are calculated over a long enough time base to include the on/off duty cycles of the activator or the e-cat. If they are then % duty cycle figures do not need to be included in COP calculations.

If the activator is gas fired as some have speculated, it’s difficult to see how accurate figures for i/o could have been calculated (actually the same applies to the output from the activator even if it is electrically heated).

• atanguy

It,s a typo Mark,common 🙂

• Andre Blum

it is not. my elaborate answer is in moderation. kW is a unit of power. kWh/h is a unit of energy per time. Which equals average power, true, but still gives a different impression.

And it is exactly demonstrates the point: a sign that Rossi knows perfectly well what he is talking about.

• Roger Bird

Exactly what you said, Andre.

• Janos

Errare humanum est

——————
Joseph Fine
May 10th, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

Referring to the Tiger prototype, is its volume only about 0.2 m^3 (cu. meters)?

Therefore, ten of these 100 kW modules assembled together (1 MW) would have a volume of only 2 m^3. Is that correct?

Best regards,

Joseph Fine
————-
Andrea Rossi
May 10th, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
1- yes
2- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
————–

0,2 m³ fits into 1 m³ 5 * 5 * 5 = 125 times.

• Andre Blum

no.
0.2 m³ fits into 1 m³ 5 times.

thanks for demonstrating my point.

you calculate (0.2m)³. which equals 0.008m³

• Roger Bird

But five perfect cubes of .2m^3 each will not fit into a cubic meter. 1/5 of a cubic meter is 584.8 centimeters on a side. Since a cubic meter is 1000 centimeters on a side, one can easily see that only one 1/5 of a cubic meter in the form of a perfect cube would fit inside of a cubic meter cube.

Can I have my geek badge now? Or if you’re in England, can I have my boffin badge now?

• Andre Blum

err…… are you kidding?

five perfect cubes of .2m³ will fit in a cubic meter. (but not in a perfect cube of 1m³, maybe that is what you mean)

If you have a perfect cube of .2m³ its sides are not 584cm but 584mm.

a cubic meter is 100 centimeter on a side if it is cubic. not 1000.

• Roger Bird

You’re right. I should have said mm. And about my badges . . .

• Roger Bird

• Andre Blum

🙂

• Peter Roe

Er, to multiply a decimal volume by ten, move the decimal one place to the right. Or to put it another way, 0.2m³ is 200 litres, or one fifth of a cubic metre, so 10 of them would occupy 2m³ – as Dr Fines says.

• Janos

Yes, thanks, my fault, i confused 0,2 m³ with (0,2 m)³.

• Peter Roe

Of course, the actual volume of a 1MW unit based on 100 subunits would be rather larger than 2m³ to allow space for cable tubes or gas burners and exhausts, water coolant flow etc. Perhaps nearer 3m³, which coincidentally is about the same size as a 1MW multi-tube gas boiler of this capacity.

• guga

He takes the activation energy out of the equation with the argument, that the heat can be used by the customer. And every extra energy from the HotCat is then accordingly “free”, or virtually unlimited COP.

If you accept this concept, than near infinite COP is correct. I don´t like it, because I find it misleading and it makes only sense in pure heat producing applications.

One of my comments below is in moderation, so I´ll mention it here again: Rossi explained already quite a long time ago that he would not get safety certification if he does not control the reaction with an external power source. So no, neither his old nor his latest E- or Hot-Cats are self-looped. Which, again, does not mean that it may not be possible. But that is just not what he is doing at the moment.

• Andre Blum

You make good points, and they give reason to rethink some of the positions I have taken.

Rossi *did* say that he is targeting customers with heat applications exclusively, BTW. But, in that case, it is a bit of a sales talk. Not making it untrue.

Leaves me wondering what exactly the cat and mouse look like, and with what the moue if fed. I honestly don’t know.

• Zeddicus Zul Zorander

“Rossi explained already quite a long time ago that he would not get safety certification if he does not control the reaction with an external power source.”

I think that goes for home units, but may not be strictly true for industrial uses of the e-cat e.g. a powerplant.

• guga

Sure, you could be right. I don´t remember if he ever made that clear.
Though, anyway, Rossi never seemed to show ambitions to make a self looped system. That is something that always kept me a cautious concerning his claims. Of course, not unreasonable, he claimed that he was not yet ready to create electricity because of too low temperatures. So let´s see what comes…

• Redford

I think that the COP of 20+ is when the mouse is pumping, but he also made it clear that it’s not pumping all the time. So ultimately, it’s probably more than that on a daily run.

• The error is not yet publicly corrected by Rossi and thus the erroneous data still “stands” on “JONP”.
(btw it would have been strange if COP would have come down under 6!)

Further what is interesting to learn, and which could be asked to Rossi is “what is the smallest time cycle an eCat can run”!
It would be of big value to have the cycle time as small as possible for control reasons, eg better to have .35 minute (or seconds) activation and .65 minute (or seconds) production then .35/.65 hours.
Also a short shutdown cycle would be more practical in emergency situations and perhaps a quick start-up via a standby modus would be a new surprise (or idea 😉 ).

• Omega Z

Syner

The 35%/65% is averages. The actually time is an intermittent process determine by the situation’s in the process. This is something they may or may not gain better control of once they have a full understanding of the process. I don’t see this as a major problem that will delay marketing.

The Start up 4hrs. & Shut down of 4 hrs. of the H-Cat has always been a concern for me. Even the 1 hour start/stop of the LT-Cat.

In the Present Grid system, this wouldn’t be anything they can’t easily deal with. For a smaller Local grid, it starts to be an issue & the smaller the more problematic. For Residential, it starts to be serious. You’ll have the Heat Island effect on steroids similar to what Mark Gibbs referred to in Forbes Mag. A Battery Rack will be an absolute necessity. The Shorter the start times the better. Stops again aren’t that big a deal. Hopefully these Issues are mostly an Engineering problem that can be overcome.

• Janos

The heat input to the activator can be compared to a torch. It ignites one activator, after that the very same torch can be passed on to ignite another activator and so on. Because of the COP of 1,02 – 1,1 this torch doesn’t consume but instead even “grows” a little bit during the process.

One and the same activator can’t loop to himself (yet), but of course the heat it gives back to the heating circuit can be used to turn on other activators (of other E-Cats). So it’s like an avanlanche, one and the same trigger (initial start-up impulse, “torch”) can fire as many E-Cats as there are sleeping.

Presumed that Rossis calculations, estimations and measurements are correct…

• GreenWin

“Jumpin Jack Flash, it’s a gas, gas gas!”

It is very interesting to speculate on the operation of a mouse/cat ignited by natural gas – the recent prototype “Gas-Cat.” Such a device might never need an external electrical power source (assuming e-cat can reach LENR without need for an electro-magnetic field.)

But even WITH a need for EM, a low current, low voltage field can be directly generated from heat via thermionics (PowerChips plc) or thermocouple. Or from a storage system charged by e-cat generator. This all suggests the merger of NG and e-cat technology:

“All the natural gas industry needs is a gizmo in the basement of your house to convert your natural gas into electricity. I have no doubt that within the next 12 to 24 months there’s going to be a technological breakthrough.” David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, The Wall Street Journal (March 26, 2013)

An unlikely alliance between NG and e-cat?? Such strange bedfellows would clearly disrupt the century old, centralized grid.

• lcd

isnt that just the bloom box?

• GreenWin

Yes. Except Bloom is industrial sized SOFC at present. More like the Panasonic PEM Ener-Farm product – 750W electric + 1kW thermal for hot water. Or newer NG microturbines. Or a 10kW hot-cat driving a steam microturbine for 3kWe.

• Roger Bird

\$7,000 for the cheapest microturbine, which would be 25 kilowatts. Way too powerful for me and way too expensive. Not counting the natural gas, it would take me 12.68 years to break even. And with the cost of natural gas, let’s see, carry the 1, hmmm 65,324 years to break even, and this does not count my neighbors even breaking my skull open for running a jet engine in my backyard. (:->)

• GreenWin
• Roger Bird

Interesting. It might work for 3 homes. An installer would need to know what they were doing because the volts would have to be transformed down to 117 volts. There was no mention of noise level. And no mention of price.

• GreenWin

Acoustic Emissions at Full Load Power
Nominal at 10 m (33 ft)
65 dBA

I imagine for single family use, (throttled down) there are sound baffle accessories. A step down transformer and conditioner would be needed for 60CPS 120V.

• Roger Bird

I notice elsewhere that the efficiency goes down the smaller the units are. They also don’t show any advertising picture of home use. I would prefer to pay more than have to deal with my neighbors, and I am not joking.

• Andre Blum

So the hot cat is a double walled cylinder with closed ends, making a kind of a chamber between the double walls.

The mouse may be in its own (actually larger) chamber, in the middle (“heart”) of the cylinder.

In fact the mouse may be the white glowing part of the red hot hot cat we see in the picture. In that newer picture we see the wires going to the center chamber. In the old one they went to the wall chamber.

Opinions?

• Hi Andre,

I believe the glowing hot cat in the picture is a first generation hot cat — the picture was taken over 6 months ago before the cat and mouse setup was conceived.

• I understood that the device that went to 3rd party testing was already a mousecat. The first testing sequence ended already Dec 14. Probably they made the March campaign with the same device as the December one, because the March one was requested by the referees.
Admin: by the way, good that you noticed Patric’s message from vortex. If it was indeed a typo like it seems, it removes the recent mysteries.

• Yes, cited that above — and have also put a question into the JONP for Rossi to confirm.

• guga

But in the interview Rossi says that the HotCat in the leaked picture has a mouse.

• Torbjörn

I belive that the red hot Hot-Cat picture taken 6 months ago (2012-11-20) was a first generation Hot-Cat with 2 heating resistors (the 4 cables that you can see), power consumption 3.5-3.6 kW. Edit: the 4 cables could have been used to a mouse/cat.
http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=558&p=24887#p24887

But I beleve that the cat and mouse setup hade been invented at that time. From an internal test of the Hot-Cat:

The test started: Sept 25th at 08.00 AM
IN THE PRESENT REPORT, WE ARE PRESENTING DATA OBTAINED BY US THROUGH A PARALLEL TEST PERFORMED WITH THE SAME INSTRUMENTATION USED BY SAID THIRD PARTY, ON THE SAME REACTOR, THE SO-CALLED “HOT CAT”.

The calculated COP was 11.7 but could have been as high as 20.
I agree with Pekka, i also beleve that the 3rd party tested a mouse/cat.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot-cat-report/

• Torbjörn

• sparks

The posts by guga down below make a rather airtight case that the hot cat is only a 1 KW unit. Guga shows many dates on which Rossi made that clear. That being the case, the COP is approximately 3 (average output power divided by average input power).

Robert Mockan (where IS he?? We need you, Robert!) also pointed out on many occasions in his posts in the past that a COP of 3 is not enough to make the cat effective for electricity generation, based on needed electrical conversion efficiency versus today’s best technology available for heat-to–electricity conversion. Sorry, I don’t remember the supporting details, but Mockan was never short on details nor analysis.

• Omega Z

sparks

It’s a 2 stage system. The Mouse is rated 1Kw. The Cat is 10Kw.
Patrick’s numbers are reasonably accurate & includes Rossi’s statement of the mouse being paid for. The input feeds through with the output. Not Wasted.

As to Robert Mockan, Most of his complaint was that COP-6 wasn’t high enough to be fully economical & that a COP-10 should be the minimum. His Grip was based on conversion efficiencies which drop at lower scale such as a Home Unit. In the Range of 15% to 25% being only slightly above brake even after allowing for the input energy.

It also appears that the Tiger 100Kw Reactor operates with the 1Kw mouse, Hence a COP>200. Even with a 1/3 conversion would imply a COP>60 Electric. By Using Steven Karels Figures on JONP, Possible COP>250 would indicate a COP>80 Electric.

• sparks

So we now have two schools of “belief,” one that the e-cat is 10 KW, and the other that it is 1 KW, with convincing arguments and multiple citations on both sides. Let’s just wait for the next announcement (and inevitable follow-on typo corrections as needed) to see where the story goes next.

But this recurrent statement that the input power “passes through to the output” is a red herring and serves only to obfuscate understanding. The COP is simply the average output power divided by the average input power. If some of that output power is waste heat from the input to the mouse, so be it. We don’t really care. All we need to do is measure the sustained, average output power from the unit as a black box, and divide that by the average input power over the same sustained time interval. What the black box is doing internally is of no concern in that measurement. Basic engineering measurement.

• Roger Bird

Do you mean to tell me that dark matter unicorns aren’t lapping up the internal energy and dark energy unicorns aren’t pooping out energy into the inner workings of the e-mouse? I guess if it is exactly the same amount of energy it is irrelevant. Eh?

• Guga

I find it pretty clear from all of Rossi’s statements that the HotCat units are 1 kW. The classical Ecat uses 10 kW units. If somebody doubts that he should go throuh Rossi’s posts and present what he thinks is relevant. I’ll be happy if I’m proven wrong.

• sparks

I think you have it right, Guga. Thanks for doing the digging.

• lenrdawn

Does the way Mr. Rossi communicates news about his developments strike anybody as a little odd? No drawings or schematics, no comprehensible prose, no spell-checking, no proof-reading. Just the occasional hint and nonsensical comments. I mean if he would WANT anybody to understand what he is talking about, it’d be relatively easy to do. So I can only conclude that he does NOT want anybody to understand. If he does that because he wants to protect his IP, then the most effective way would be not talking about it at all. But he IS talking – a lot. Thousands of words during the last couple of days on the “tiger” and still nobody has a clue how it is supposed to work or even what it’s supposed to be good for. So what is he up to with a charade like this?

• Andre Blum

In a way it is a good sign.

If it all were an elaborate scam, Rossi would spend much more time making us see the picture as he wants. Talking would be his one and only thing.

Instead, this more gives the impression of the mad professor who sometimes looks up from his work and mutters some words until he is fed up that his audience is not able to keep up with his pace. I like it that way. Adds to his credibility.

• Roger Bird

Sounds like blog commentors the world over. Responsibility for understanding is shifting from the writer to the reader as people get lazier and lazier.

• Shane D.

Lenr,

I think all here, save a few, are struggling with those issues.

• Pachu

Can i suggest a strike on this and jonp forums until the thrid party report be made public ? 😀

• artefact

ColdFusionNow.org

‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological) by Henry H. Bauer

http://coldfusionnow.org/pathological-science-is-not-scientific-misconduct-nor-is-it-pathological-by-henry-h-bauer/

• GreenWin

Prof Bauer is one of the few academics with the courage to accurately critique the present knowledge monopoly system. A must read for LENR supporters.

• artefact
• AB

Hey everybody, read this article on the cold fusion controversy (by J. Rothwell) if you’re in the mood for entertainment. It’s a masterpiece.

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

• Roger Bird

Everything on that page is at least 6 years old, and since I read so slowly (but very, very carefully), I don’t choose to read it.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

+1

• clovis

Hi everyone.
My take is this, the big cat has to maintain a certain temp if not it will overheat and melt the nickel, or not enough heat and it shut down,
So the mouse, is just a small e-cat that holds the larger cat at that particular temp , when you turn the big cat off you lower the temp of the E mouse just enough to make the big cat shut down, but the e mouse still retains enough heat to restart the big cat when necessary. the e mouse is hooked to the grid for start up power only for the E mouse to use if needed. —- you guys see anything wrong with this scenario.

• LENR4you

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

• Glenn

Where did all this talk of X-rays being emitted by the Activator come from? Did Rossi say this?

I’m not trying to cast doubt on what you’re saying, I’m just looking for a reference because I’m trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together, like everyone else here.

• Omega Z

LENR4you

YOU are on the Right Track.
The Mouse is doing More then just providing Heat.
The Heat is necessary, but it’s adding something else in the Mix.

• NJT

As I have stated before, we do not know everything and that is fine, until Mr. Rossie gets his IP protection (here in USA and worldwide) can you blame him for wanting that first? – contact your congressperson and complain about the treatment he and others researching LENR receive from the US Patent Offices and our Department of Energy…

• you can file a chinese patent, or a EU patent. they seems more open, and through convention you will be protected soon.

what make many patents rejected seems mostly that they are not precise enough to allow someone reasonably competent to build the machine.
Rossi’s patent is horrific about that.
Celani, Piantelli, Godes, got their patents. even some unrealistic patent get accepted. they were all precise enough to build something.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

Right, it is possible Rossi was getting pretty close to revealing something he did not want to reveal for trade secret and patent reasons, so he cut off all answers on the subject.

• ah, more logic now…

Quickly thinkin I see two things that the mouse (if not another Rossi red-herring) may do :
– first is providing a dynamic compensation to stabilize the tiger, like adding negative feedback, with some phase-shift, or non-linear feedback, or inertia .
– the second is providing some radiation to activate the reaction

a COP of 1.02 is not worth replacing a resistor with a LENr reactor.

• Damien

Great hypothesis.

I was trying to figure out why he would bother using the mouse at all.
With a COP of 1.02, it wouldn’t be economical to include it in the design purely to provide heat, when it would only be slightly less energy efficient and heaps more space efficient to use a plain heating element.

I think you’re on the right track.

• Steven N. Karels

With the Activator COP of 1.02, it makes little sense to use it instead of an electrical resistance (COP = 1.0) unless there is another reason to do so.

• Ron Stringer

True, but the electrical resistance wasn’t able to make the ecat run in ssm all the time, hence the lowered COP. The activator is doing something the resistance heater wasn’t able to do for some reason.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

+1

• Andre Blum

yes, that is a very interesting question.

• Arnie

I wrote the following comment, but was “spammed”

Dear mr Rossi and all readers: I am sorry to come back to this subject once more, but despite all attempts to explain I am confused.
Mr Rossi wrote:
“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.”

Does the E-Cat really only produce 1kW during SSM? Or is that a typo? In that case:
Operation for 1 hour:
Input 0,35h*900 W=0,315 kWh
Output 0,35h*910 W=0,319 kWh
Output 0,65h*1000W=0,65 kWh
Total output=0,969 kWh
0,969/0,315=3,08
So this gives a COP of only 3,08. This makes no sense, since the first version had a COP of 6.
If the E-Cat output during SSM would be 10 kW, the COP would be 21,7
Kind regards
Jonatan

I was pretty sure it had to be a typo anyway, but then Rossi wrote:

Andrea Rossi
May 14th, 2013 at 6:28 AM
Dear Stefano:
Yes, you got it.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Stefano
May 14th, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi
Thank you for your effort in keeping alive the comunicatikn with your readers. In practice I understand that the system overall consumes gas or grid power for the 35% of the time but that energy is returned in any case to the costumer. And in that time the system has a cop of about 1. In other words the real gain is in the 65% of the time with a large production of energy without consume. Is it correct.

This confirms a COP of about 3 without any room for misunderstandings, I am afraid

• Redford

Nope. As written in the very news you’re commenting, there’s a type. Global output is 10 Kw, not 1. You may want to read the article you’re actually commenting…

• Arnie

That article is based upon an email that we can’t even know for sure exists. Rossis answer in jonp at the other hand is there for everyone to see

• Redforf

I get you but nonetheless, put as it is, the above post makes no sense for an external reader. It reallh serms line you did not read OP. Else you would have directly discussed the validity of the typo explanation.

BTW I hope you paid more attention pn JNOP and Rossi’s posts than uou did here :-/

• Bernie Koppenhofer

If you did ask “If the E-Cat output during SSM would be 10 kW, the COP would be 21,7” and Rossi confirmed, what is the problem,why do you think he confirmed 3COP?

• Arnie

That’s the point, he did not even reply to my question, but confirmed Stefanos question, that implies a COP of about 3.

• Kim

I’m still not confident that the module is
10 Kilowatts.

If it helps he did state that a 100 KW
unit is .2 cubic meter or a cube 2ft3
roughly

That would account for 10 of the 10Kw
Modules

Respect
Kim

• atanguy

Well,at this point I will be happy even with a COP of 3 if it is real,it can only increase in the future.

• Lu

It appears to me that Rossi is avoiding an explicit clarification of whether the reactor is a 1K or a 10K component. There has been plenty of opportunity to do so and clearly Rossi has given mixed messages about whether it is a 1K reactor or 10K reactor.

For 10K all we have is Patrick Ullel’s claim that that Rossi said it was a typo in what appears to be a private email(not saying this is not true) and perhaps the perplexing consequence that the new COP would be less than the old COP. But for 1K we have numerous Rossi statements and readers posting queries 1K with no correction by Rossi. Also for for a Hot Cat the charge is supposed to be about 20 grams but Rossi says his reactor has 2-3 grams which if it scales would make it a 1K reactor.

Also interesting is that Rossi did not provide a COP for his new two component apparatus when the calculation is quite straightforward once the basic performance of the parts are known which he has given out. It looks to me Rossi has misspoke somewhere along the line or he is trying to hide the decrease in COP to 3.

• Omega Z

Lu

The Mouse is 1Kw, The E-Cat is 10Kw, The Hot-Cat is 10Kw, And the New Hot-Cat is 100Kw.
Both the 10Kw & 100Kw Cat Reactors will be activated by the 1Kw Mouse/Activator.

The 10Kw will produce a COP of 20 to 30.
The 100Kw will produce a COP of 200 to 300.

Here is the Real Question. Exactly what does the Mouse Bring to the Table. No pun intended???

I have a Good Idea & My question to Rossi or rather My thoughts on this in My Question to Rossi has apparently Gotten me Banned From JONP. I’ve made several posts on JONP since this 1st went to neverland & now they all go to neverland. Not Moderation. Just GONE…

• Miles

Well said. Apologies for my ignorance, wasn’t the E-Cat “10Kw” supposed to have a COP of 6? Where did the 10Kw come from?

• Lu

I think you have it wrong. Read Rossi’s and my posts more carefully.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

+1

• Gerrit

To me it seems that from day 1 Rossi has had difficulty in controlling the system.

That’s why the “self sustained” mode was always a bit tricky. The COP was always 6, because although it could be higher, the stability would decrease.

The mouse brings stability to the system, that’s all.

It’s either that or Rossi is making the story up as we go.

• Bob

Omega Z, it appears you have it sooo wrong that even Rossi has given up and consigns your posts to the trash can. 🙂

Almost all the things you said here are not what Rossi said.
Me-thinks your wild enthusiasm has got the better of you.
From what ‘Rossi says’ we can deduce the folowing;-

The mouse has a power inpout of 2.5 kilowtts but because it is only on for 35% of the time it averages out over each hour to 900 watts input power.
The ecat was reported as being 10 Kw but all tests showed at best it was 5 Kw.
The hot cat was originally thought to be around 5 Kw but has now been reported by Rossi as being 1 Kw, even though the figures he supplies indicate a power output of 2Kw. (I can’t explain that without being banned)
The new hotcat is inded reported as being a 100Kw unit but this will almost certainly be a pack of 1Kw reactors sufficient to make up the 100Kw. I am certain it will not be a 100Kw single reactor.
The 10Kw, which is actually the 1Kw unit, will have an overall COP the same as the one tested, for which the report appears to have been delayed well past the expectation date, but my guess is now 1.02
The COP for the 100Kw unit will be the same as for the 1Kw unit, because it consists of a number of them. So far, from the numbers given, this is seems to be around 2, but could also be 1.02.

And in reply to the question, ‘What does the mouse bring to the table?’
The COP of the activator (mouse) has been said by Rossi to be 1.02 which is unbelievably accurately defined for a measure which is obtained by thermal radiation measurements.
For a spherical body hanging in a vacuum, well away from all other objects, and using top shelf measuring equipment, I could only just believe it, but for a cylindrical device in a laboratory atmosphere it would be difficult to measure this to an accuracy better than plus or minus 5%. And I would count that as being impressive.
I can only conclude that this figure of a COP of 1.02 was arrived at by way of the results of the third party independent report, either the latest one or the one which was scrapped in November last year. They may well have thrown enough high tech eqipment at it to come up with a measure so closely defined.
What I see now is this 1.02 figure being weaved into the picture by way of saying it is only for the activator and does not apply to the overall reactor. Once that is well established and accepted we might see the release of the report.
It’s worth noting that we never heard a word about the two stage cascaded design until after the shelving of the November report and after the next independent report was completed. I was always puzzled why this information was released when all other information as to the internals of the reactors was strictly off limits.

• Omega Z

Bob

All Rossi’s posts can be found here on a single page.

http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html

The Mouse/Activator is 1Kw.
Depending on E-cat Model. 10Kw/100Kw/Gas/Elec.

Cats are the Reactors. 10Kw, 100Kw

All Cats have their own mouse.
There is no feed back/loop from Cat to Mouse.

Most of what is discussed her at present is within about the 1st 200 posts.

• Bob

As I said in a separate post, that’s the way the conversation is now going in the last 200 posts to the Rossi blog, but that is not how it was prior to the testing.
We will be asked to accept the device which was tested was only the 1kw mouse which has a COP of 1.02
Before the test the conversation was that it was a 3 to 5 kw hotcat under test.
Anyway, we shall see, or not, as the case may be.

• Bob

Rossi clearly stated on his blog more than once that it was a 1Kw reactor.
In response to numerous questions he has replied a number of times that what he wrote is correct.
The original specs of 1kw are still clearly on his blog. He has not changed it.
The 1kw specification is also consistent with the statement that the reactor subject to the independent report, (still not released) was 1Kw.
The only indications that it was anything greater than 1kw came in answer to other peoples posts to his blog asking if it was a typo and did he mean 10kw. I see this as wishful thinking only.
He probably doesn’t read them carefully and just fired off a random answer.
Any reply that it was a typo and the output was 10kw is inconsistent with all his other clear statements and it is inconsistent with what is still reported on his blog.

To keep things clear, only take what Rossi says, not what others say and then he approves, unless what he approves is clearly the same meaning as what he originally said. Anything else ends up in ‘Alice in wonderland’ and since we are already half way down the rabbit hole there is no need to rush the journey.

So, the reactor output is 1 kilowatt.

Furthermore, there have been some wildly high estimates of the COP based on what Rossi didn’t say.

Here’s what Rossi said,
The activator consumes 900Wh/h and produces 910Wh/h.

He said in an earlier post that a test ran for 100 hours and these figures of 35% and 65% were the average over the 100 hours.

On average, the activator is ON for 35% of the time.
during which time the ecat is OFF.
This means that the heating element must have a rating of 900/.35 = 2571 watts, and is only turned ON for 35% of the time which makes the average quantity of energy input equal to 900 Watt-hours in each and every hour of operation.

He also said that the output energy during this ON period is 910Wh/h.
So, considering only the activator, every hour, the ‘bucket’ of energy in is 900 Watt-hours and the bucket of energy out is 910 Watt hours. (I might add, he would need some very accurate measuring equipment to measure radiant energy to that accuracy.)
However, in the same one hour period when the activator is OFF, the ecat produces 1Kwh (1000 watt hours) of energy.
This makes a total energy output for each and every hour, 910 watt hours from the activator PLUS the 1000 watt hours from the ecat.
910 +1000 = 1910 watt hours total energy output divide by total energy input of 900 watt hours = 2.1222
The COP for the overall device is therefore 2.12
Going on what ‘Rossi says’ that’s what it is.

The talk about infinite COPs completely ignores the fact that for every hour of operation you have to plug in 900 watt hours of energy.
If you don’t it stops working. Maybe catastrophically.

You can’t claim you have invented a car which displays infinite efficiencey because you have discovered it rolls down hills. Somewhere in the process , someone had to push it up the hill.

• guga

I think I must have written this post above under the name Bob last night in my sleep, because I agree so much with it. 😉

There is too much wishful thinking going on here.

But I believe exact COP calculations make no sense, we have too little information. The current total HotCat COP seems to be around 2, but might also go towards 3 (depending on how fast this on and off happens).

• Shane D.

Bob,

I even understood that… thanks. By the way, the first hotcat report late last summer by Rossis’ side-kick also showed a COP of 2.2.

What a coincidence.

• andreiko

The main problem with LENR seems to me (on/off) has hopefully Dr. Rossi and his team found a suitable solution for here.

• Daniel

The main problem with the e-cat is that too few people believe in it, and they still may be right unfortunatelly. The ultimate proof is still not after a few years of web discussions. May 2013, should we get the 3rd party report or not? If it is still not here in say October but only “Rossi says proofs”. Will you still believe in it then? Im still a believer but probably not in October with no 3rd party results.

• buffalo

yes this is why i suggested a hunt for alternative to nickel.perhaps tungsten,or platinum,cobalt etc.i suppose rossi has tried these but maybe he missed a spot or observation error.

• Joel C.

renatoestri
May 14th, 2013 at 11:39 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

I try to give a contribute to the debated COP matter about the
Tiger-Activator new configuration.

Should this table resume in numbers the correct interpretation

% Time / COP / Pow In / Pow Out
65% / 200 / Zero / 100KWh
35% / =1 / 100KWh / 100KWh

Thank you very much in advance
renatoestri

Andrea Rossi
May 15th, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Dear Dr Renato Estri:
Perfect. You got exactly the core of the issue.
Thank you. To the readers: please read carefully this comment of Dr Estri: it explains exactly in a short matrix the COP issue.
Warm regards,
A.R.

• Bernie Koppenhofer

+1111111

• guga

Bernie, aren´t you supporting the idea that the HotCat has a high total COP and produces free energy?

I just don´t get why you are so happy about this post. I mean, here it is made clear that you need 100kWh of input for around 300kWh of output. And no word that the put out heat could be used to trigger the reaction.

• sparks

So there it is at last: COP=2.857

Average power in: 100 x .35 = 35 kW
Average power out: 100 x 1 = 100 kW
COP: 100/35 = 2.857

QED.

• Bob

No. The table is showing TOTAL energy in and out. You do not then reduce these amounts by applying the percentage reductions.
If the units quoted were in kilowatts rather than kilowatt-hours then you could apply the percentage to the equation and that would be valid, but kilowatt-hours is a measure of a quantity of energy in much the same way as you would measure a bucket of water.
So the total ‘bucket’ of energy input is 100 kilowatt hours regardless of what the percentage of ‘on time’ was. (that is, how long the tap was turned on)
You cannot say that here is the bucket of water but because I only had the tap turned on for 35% of the time I only have to pay for 35% of it. The bucket has 100 kilowatt-hours in it so you have to pay for ALL of it.
That is, it all has to be included in the equation for the COP calculation. 100Kwhrs in, 200 Kwhrs out -> COP = 2

• sparks

Well, yes, you are correct that they have their units confused again. Their so-called Dr. Estri uses labels “Power in” and “Power Out” and then reports KWH, which is energy. I didn’t notice that — going too fast I guess. Nice catch. How could this Dr. Estri possibly be a PhD and make such a fundamental mistake when constructing this table? And I guess Dr. Rossi was going too fast, just like me, and missed it. So we still have some ambiguity regarding the actual COP, but several data points are favoring a COP in the 2 to 3 range now.

• Bob

With due respect to the few very clever PhD’s, most of them are pretty ordinary people who simply put the time in towards getting the qualification and are no better at arriving at a correct conclusion than the average Joe.
I have seen some seriously and obviously wrong conclusions arrived at by holders of PhD’s. Don’t be intimidated by their letters.

• Roger Bird

I will agree only to the extent that PhDs cannot do perspective changing any better than anyone else, perhaps even less well. Any problem that requires a change in perspective is going to be just as much of a challenge for PhDs as for anyone else, perhaps because PhDs have so much invested in an old perspective.

But most of the PhDs here have changed their perspective to “I don’t know” or “I believe in Rossi” or something like that, so I am happy that they are here.

• sparks

Bob, FWIW in fact I have those same three letters after my name, earned in 1982 in Electrical Engineering, and all I can say in retort to your assertions is … ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! So many times I have made the same point, that is, it sometimes (depending upon the institution) comes down to how long they put in the time and pay the tuition. When I hire, I almost invariably go for the Master’s degreed candidate over the Ph.D. candidate.

• Not being a PhD, I still would like to list here some units to be used in questions to get rational answers:
h = unit of time in hours
(H = unit of inductance in henries)
k = kilos, thousands of
(K = unit of temperature in kelvins)
W = unit of POWER in watts
Wh = unit of ENERGY in watt hours
Getting an answer ‘yes’ after asking whether ‘Pow in’ is ‘100KWh’ won’t help much, as we are witnessing here.

• Roger Bird

They seem right to me. Roger Bird, PhD in Practical Parenting.

• RNBE

The last Rossi’s comment that confirms that the effective overall energy gain (call it COP if preferred) is (65+35)/35 that is about 3:

Andrea Rossi
May 15th, 2013 at 7:44 AM
Dear Dr Renato Estri:
Perfect. You got exactly the core of the issue.
Thank you. To the readers: please read carefully this comment of Dr Estri: it explains exactly in a short matrix the COP issue.
Warm regards,
A.R.

renatoestri
May 14th, 2013 at 11:39 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I try to give a contribute to the debated COP matter about the
Tiger-Activator new configuration.
Should this table resume in numbers the correct interpretation
% Time / COP / Pow In / Pow Out
65% / 200 / Zero / 100KWh
35% / =1 / 100KWh / 100KWh
Thank you very much in advance
renatoestri

• RNBE

In my calculus I supposed that in the matrix “kWh” is a mistake of who wrote the comment and the meaning refers to a power that is “kW”.
If not, being the data “energy”, Bob calculus is those right and the overall COP is just 2.

In any case who continue to speak and to wrote in this Blog of an overall COP of tents or hundreds is just because he want to make a mess.

• Omega Z

COP is the Value of Energy supplied dived into the Power Out in a Specified period of time.
Mouse uses 900 watts-35% of 1 hour period.

In=Total Mouse Input for the hour is 315 watt hours.

Out=10Kw E-cat Power Out 10,000 watts per hour.

O/I=???

Your 65/35 is just the time the mouse is off/on

• Roger Bird

31.746031746 Not bad for pollution free and almost free FOREVER.

• Ron

Everything I have read over the last two years indicates the output is 10KW but that aside, saying the “mouse” control pays for itself is not qualitatively correct for electrical input. The output in heat may be the same but electricity is in a primary useful form while heat used to generate electricity is subject to losses and conversion of maybe 40%. The electric output efficiency would then be 364W/900W which hardly pays for itself. This might be higher if it is a CHP unit.

• Roger Bird

I thought that the mouse was inside of the cat, no visual pun intended.