On the Economics of the Domestic E-Cat

The following is a guest post submitted to E-Cat World by Piero Ferreri, an engineer from Milan, Italy. I am always happy to include posts written by ECW readers. Please feel free to send me anything you would like to be considered for publication here.

While my background is technical, I like to verify that any technical proposition makes good financial sense. So I started asking myself how convenient an E-CAT would be to heat a house, as compared to a normal oil based (or gas based) heating plant.

So the first question was: how much heat do I need, for an average house of say 150 square meters (about 1,500 square feet). The number would very much depend on the quality of the thermal insulation, and on how cold it is outside. Well, I had no clue.

The other day, though, I was in my house in the mountains, which is about that size, and I happened to look at the specs of the burner we have there: it said: thermal output power: 45 KW. Aha! I had a number. This means that 5 home E-CATs of 10 KW each would do the job. Sounded like a lot, but now I could do the math: let say I keep them running in the cold season only (6 months – and forget summer conditioning for a moment). I only need one charge per unit every year. At 50 bucks per charge (Rossi’s words) that means only 250$ per year. Now let’s be fair and add the depreciation of the units: Rossi said a unit should cost less than 1,000 $ and would last 30 years. Add another 2-3,000 $ for the installation + control unit, etc.(?), all in all this only adds about another 250 $ / year of depreciation. Fabulous: 500 $ / year to heat my house in the mountains for an entire winter would be a real bargain!

But wait, I forgot the electricity needed to keep the stuff running!

Let’s see, we have a COP of 6. This means that, on average, we need to spend 1 KWh of electricity to generate 6 KWh of thermal energy. So, my 5 units, with an output power of 50 KW thermal, need 8.33 KW of electric power running for 6 months (which is 4,320 hours). This means 36,000 KWh of electricity. Omygosh! In Italy, where I live, 1 KWh cost about 40 Cents (let’s say $ cents, for the sake of simplicity), and the calculations tell me that I need to spend another 14,400 $ in electricity bills every year. Good grief! Is this “cheap energy for the masses”?

Something had to be wrong. I decided to take the problem from another angle: I know that to keep that house warm in winter we burn about 20 liters of “gasolio” (heating oil) per day. How much energy is that? Some surfing in the web told me that 1 liter of oil generates 8,500 KCalories, and that 1 Kcal = 0.001163 KWh. So, the result is that my 20 liters of oil per day correspond to 198 KWh per day, which means, lo-and-behold, I only need 8.2 KW of thermal power!

Now, may be many people knew this already, but for me it was a surprise. 1 home E-CAT of 10 KW is all we need to heat an average apartment. Evidently my current burner is oversized for the need, or probably the 45KW is the peak power it can handle, and not what I normally use. Whatever. In any case this is good news. Now the calculations tell me that my total cost is 50 $ for one charge, plus 100 $ of depreciation and, uhmmm, still about 2,900 $ of electricity bill (at Italian rates).

Let’s compare it with what I would spend today: if I use my 20 liters / day for 6 months, the heating bill, at 1.5 $ / liter (yes, Italian price), would be around 4,500 $, so an E-CAT would still represent a 33 % saving. But is it really so great? Ater all, if I could just switch from oil to gas, which costs about 30% less than oil, the benefit would simply disappear.

I know that in the US and other countries the cost of electricity is much less than in Europe, so may be the electricity bill would be, what, 1,500 $? Yet, shall I conclude that there would be some saving only where the electricity is cheaper? This sounds almost like a contradiction. Uhmmmm…

It looks like either we have an E-CAT with a MUCH higher COP, reducing dramatically the amount of electricity needed to sustain the reaction, or we must replace the electricity with a different, much cheaper, source of energy.

For example, running the above scenario with the same numbers, but replacing the electricity with heating oil, the calculations tell me that I would need around 4 liter of oil per day to keep the E-CAT running, and, at the current cost of about 1.5 $ per liter, the input energy would cost around 870 $ per winter, a much more competitive proposition (No wonder Rossi has been doing research on oil-driven E-CATs).

I think it would be interesting to know what other followers of this site think of all these considerations, and if they find some fundamental flaw in my assumptions.

Piero Ferreri

  • Pedro

    Great post! Opens your eyes for the reality of free energy!
    Ofcourse to make the comparence correct you would also have to include the cost of depriciation for the oil burner and its maintenance, cleaning the chimney, etc.

  • Bill Hill

    I think you have just confused yourself with too many figures, what you really need is your current running cost for your heating system. This might not be so easy to calculate if for example you use gas for both heating and cooking. I have a gas boiler which is used to heat the water in six radiators, I expect the Rossi device would be a plug-in replacement
    for the boiler and supply all the heat to the radiators and hot water for all the taps. My gas bill would therefore be zero, but my electricity bill would increase to regulate the Rossi device. I would expect the electricity to cost at least one sixth of the price of heating it using electricity alone, because gas boilers are only about 80% efficient in turning gas into heat.

    From what I can tell a Rossi unit should payback it’s installation within 1 to 2 years, compare this to solar panels and you will see the benefit. After that it’s simply a matter of changing the fuel cell, which if run continuously would be every six months, but this is highly unlikely as no one needs the heating on 100% of the time.

    In summary, you can probably cut your heating bill by 70% plus.

    • Omega Z

      Bill Hill

      It’s more complex the that.
      The E-cat takes at least an 1 hour to start & 1 hour to stop. That’s it’s Achilles heal at this time. So in the winter you’d have to run it 24/7. That’s 730 hours @ 1.66Kwh=1218Kwh per month- insert Kwh/cost here. For Piero, that’s 40 centsx1216=$486.40

      That’s 1 E-cat putting out approximately 34,000 Btu. About 22% of what his current system outputs at peek demand. Cycle times are unknown so real numbers are hard to come by.

      With these start up & off times it isn’t even cost effective for a hot water heater. At least not unless your willing to wait an hour or 2 for hot water or have a High efficient holding tank.

      This is a Game changing technology, but it’s got some growing to do before it’s disruptive in the manor many think it is.

      • Bill Hill

        Since Piero didn’t say what his current costs are it’s difficult to make a comparison. Just because it takes 1hr to start up doesn’t mean you have to have it on all the time or even nearly all the time. Conventional systems are thermostatically controlled and go on and off at regular intervals. Taking one hours to shut down is hardly an issue. I concede you might have to wait a while for additional hot water for a bath etc, but it only has to be water at 30 Deg C so it’s not a huge problem. Conventional systems that do run at full output 24/7 would indeed cost a small fortune.

  • Adam Lepczak

    It is just a matter of time before the ecat will be able to generate electricity and feed it back to the grid…

    • Dickyaesta

      I am afraid there won’t be a grid to feed back to, if e-cats take off. The grid won’t buy back one yota of your electricity generated by your e-cat. They will have enough of their own at a much lower price! Sorry to shatter your dream of unforeseen riches ;), but then again your electricity bill will be at the end non-existent and that will be your and my saving, and that is good enough for me.

      • Roger Bird

        In most jurisdictions in the USA, the utility MUST buy back electrical power. However, given that the market rate might be low, riches for all of us may have to wait for one of us to win the lottery and be willing to spread it around. But I can see some very enterprising person buying a bunch of E-Cats and a cheap industrial building and start send the utility a lot of electricity and making some money. Bet on it that someplace someone will do this. But this also drives down the price of electricity.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    If the E-Cat is not economic to produce simple heat, then it surely wouldn’t be economic for producing electricity. Having said that, I don’t think a domestic unit will be offered until Rossi is far down the learning curve. If the E-Cat survives in the industrial market and for long enough to satisfy the safety certifiers, by then the product should be considerably improved. Besides, the first home units will likely be simple water heaters.

    • Deleo77

      This is why I think Rossi needs to get other people involved. Can he really make all of these improvements with a small team in Bologna? Imagine if GE, Siemens or Honeywell had huge R&D teams working to increase the output and reliability of the e-cat. They may be able to speed up development by years. I hope Rossi is doing this with his U.S. partner, but it feels like he is using them for manufacturing and not R&D help. It should be both.

      • Omega Z


        The Teacher is still learning. And I’m certain he has more help then we are aware of. Besides, Most of those with the knowledge in this field are already working on their own projects.

        If the task was simple, it would have been achieved long ago.

  • Richard Hill

    This is a good analysis. I have done similar calculations for Australia, and for the 1 MW offering. I have posted in comments here earlier. There is another alternative to Ing Ferret’s calculations. That is, compare the ecat with a conventional electrically driven “heat pump”. You will find that Rossi has cleverly (or accidently) priced the ecat at just below conventional alternatives. Perhaps that is why the uptake of ecat has been slow. Would you buy an unproven technology for a minor benefit? It is only with the 350 Degree C “hot cat” that there might be a real benefit. And we dont konw Rossi’s pricing for the “hot cat”

    • Omega Z


      The Pricing is NOT by accident.
      There are a lot of up front costs to cover & these are inevitably always paid by the 1st adopters.

      Several things taken into account here.
      Up Front costs.
      Additional R&D Costs for improvement.
      Not freaking out the present system.
      Existing Entities will want to hang on to most of the savings for a while to pay for dismantlement of the old.

      The Costs will gradually come down.
      The Up side is they wont be going up which is undoubtedly where things will go without LENR.

      This isn’t all that different from a New Intel Chip that costs 1 or 2 grand when it comes to market. Eventually drops to $100 or less. Although I think the timeline will be longer.

      Doesn’t matter. All that Matters is that it comes to market. The Rest will follow in time. Many other technologies need to be developed or Greatly improved before it reaches it’s full potential.

      At the present it appears to only be suited for smaller dispersed Grid systems. City/neighborhood level.

      Presently everything is geared for large scale. Small scale generating systems are expensive & not reliable for long term 24/7 use as in Decades. This will undoubtedly change in time.

      Would be nice to see a direct or solid state conversion system at low temps of a couple hundred degrees C.

  • G_Zingh

    Hi. so you’re saying free energy is not free?

    I looked at these web sites:

    and those numbers tell me:
    1 liter of gas oil gives 11.4kWh (and you are paying $1.5/liter)
    So I get price per kWh for Italian homes
    N Gas= 0.07267$
    Gas Oil= 0.13158$
    Electricity= 0.21707$

    So if you want to cut your heating cost in half today switch to N Gas but if you can wait for a N Gas Home Ecat even at a COP of 6 then you would pay about 10% of what you are paying today for heating. So 4,500$ becomes 450$ cost. Now that is getting closer to a free energy savings.

    • Piero

      You’re right, I did not do the last step: use gas instead of oil to feed the e-cat. With that our numbers seem pretty close. You also confirm that using electricity from the grid as input energy is not that exciting, at the current stage of the technology

      • psi

        Very nice analysis.

  • Bob

    I have mentioned a number of times before that heat pumps (reverse cycle air conditioners) with a COP of 3 and above are available off the shelf for about a thousand dollars for 5kw output. They have a COP of about 4 on low power settings but decreases to 3 on full power. They need no annual or six monthly maintenance. They last for about 10 to 15 years with no maintenance at all. They can turned on and off through the day if you want to, and they even turn on and off by themselves when not needed. They are ready to heat or cool within 5 minutes of starting up.
    That’s what the competition is.
    But, that’s not the point.
    The first aeroplane flew about six feet high and only travelled a few hundred feet. Based on that, it’s suitability for taking over the trans-atlantic passenger traffic would have to have been estimated at zero. And the possibility that the inventors could brush up on their design to make it do this was also close to zero, and in fact they did not.
    However, once the idea became well known and accepted, some very clever people got working on it and now we have airliners which can fly hundreds of people to the other side of the world without stopping.
    If it turns out that Rossi has what he says he has, then I don’t see the present stage of development as being anywhere near what the final specifications will be.
    I see the COP being raised into the hundreds for low temperature units around 100 to 120 deg C, and for devices with a lower COP, say around 30, the temperature being reliably up around 600 deg C.

    I say “if” because at this stage I am still reluctant to believe unreservedly at this stage that the device works as claimed.
    I still have a niggling feeling in the back of my mind that there is something wrong with the input power measurement, possibly something to do with the use of the three phase input power rather than a simple single phase input. For a power level of only a few hundred watts up to 1 kilowatt, a three phase input is a bit like delivering the mail with a 20 ton truck. I accept that there can be reasons why this might be done but the use of it could allow for the input of power above that which is being measured.
    I would be much more relaxed on this if the Swedish testing people who did the tests last September and found no excess energy, had been present at the December tests to offer advice on the power measurements. It was the same device version they tested and found no excess power, which is shown glowing orange-hot in that one photo which has gone so far towards convincing me that the thing works. I find that too big an obstacle to ignore.

    • Jim

      I suspect what is really bothering you is that power can possibly come that cheaply. We’ve spent our entire lives with the idea that power costs money, and the concept that it doesn’t have to just seems wrong.

      I expect that 20 years from now, people will forget that we ever had to get power from a central location, or actually pay per KWH.

      • Bob

        I think you will find that even if everything goes the way we hope it will, your power will still not be cheap for a long time to come; 20 tp 30 years at least.
        The cost of maintaining a high pressure-high temperature steam driven turbine driving an electric generator next to your house would be quite expensive on an annual basis even if only for the reason of complying with all the safety regulations for such devices.
        Then comes the maintenance for the e-cat, the pressure vessel and the turbine. They are not cheap and they don’t run forever.
        The first and most effective use will be for home and water heating. At a COP of 6, it is only just viable, so long as all other costs (purchase price, maintenance etc) are kept low. But I see that as the starting point and once established, things will improve from that point.
        The ultimate goal would be a lenr device supplying home heating and hot water, plus some form of solid state direct conversion of heat to electricity with an output of around 10 kilowatts. For home use it would be ok for this to be DC.
        It will certainly come, but all things proceeding normally, it will not be in my lifetime.

    • Piero

      I agree that the technology is just in its infancy. May be Rossi also figured out that he could not fly cross the Atlantic (so to speak) with his invention, when he gave up on the idea to sell his units form Home depot. Personally I’m looking forward for the day the technology will go in the hands of the R&D departments of all the industries around the world.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer


      • Omega Z


        With what little info you’ve given & making some assumptions of my own, It doesn’t look to be cost effective for your purposes.

        When you say 45kw in your mountain home, I assume your talking Electric heat. Obviously this cycles off/on. Otherwise you’d be using around 32,xxx-Kwh per month. $13,xxx a month utility bill. 🙁

        A 10Kw(24/7) E-cat= 1.66Kwh // Approx. 730 hrs. uses 1216Kwh per month times 40 cents=$486.-

        I’m guessing you could get by with 4 E-cats, but that still pops about $1950.- per month.

        With some innovation, A person could probably come up with a system that would cut this by 60% or more, but that would involve Additional cost as in Highly insulated Heat storage & salts. Requiring only 2 E-cats, 1 running continuous, the other intermittent. Still costing $480 to $700 a month depending on average temps. I’m not familiar with your climate norms.

        The biggest problem is the E-cat itself. There’s no Instant on/off. This would make a huge difference. COP above 12 would also help & preferably above 20.

        I’ve thought a lot about this. Think about my situation. Mild compared to yours.
        Electric- 12 cents per/Kwh.
        CHEAP Natural Gas. Comparably by world standards.
        It”s Not Cost effective for me.
        However It would be for some within a few miles of me.
        It all depends on a lot of variables. Each is different.

        Maybe a 2nd. Gen E-cat will work out better.
        Note: If Rossi incorporates the Mouse, Cop will increase, but probably wont make that much difference for as of yet.

        • Piero

          No no, 45kw is rated thermal power of the burner. But I think we are coming to similar conclusions

          • Omega Z

            OK- It’s a geography problem 🙂

            In the U.S. we use the BTU ratings or Ton in AC/heat pumps. Kw sometimes in Electrical heating.
            45Kw translate to just over 150K BTU.

            Anyway, the 2nd Gen E-cat has better prospects according to the info Rossi has mentioned. Still, the on/off is a problem.

            However a dual heat system may work with Gen 2. One E-cat to carry the base load & conventional to carry above that.

            This is actually something Rossi has promoted in the past.

    • Omega Z


    • Omega Z


      I’ll try this again. Last attempt became garbled.

      Heat pumps are temperature dependent. The Colder it gets the lower the COP. Once the Temp drops below 30`F, the COP drops fast. They can go Negative.

      In colder climates in the U.S., Many use a dual heat system. heat pump/Gas Furnace. A Heat pump for a 1500 sq.Ft. house (About 4 Ton) is not cheap. Probably in the range of $3K plus. Just a 30ft. line-set I used to get for $30 is now close to $200.

      Geothermal Heat pumps can obtain COP>5 but will usually average COP=3.5 depending on how they are installed. Even when Temps drop well below freezing. These Systems are quite expensive as they require a Coil field or wells drilled.

      As of the Last few years I’ve seen an upswing in complaints about the functionality/dependability of the Geo units. Just a guess but, This may be because of an increased demand & newly acquainted installers not being up to speed. The learning curve of new technicians. Of Course it could also be New Improved models with glitches yet to be ironed out as with any new & improved system.

      Note: Most techs I’ve known use SEER ratings. Not COP. In Fact many probably don’t even know what that means. They aren’t that technical. SEER is also easier to explain to customer. Usually?

      As for Piero, He needs a good(HONEST) tech with local climate knowledge to calculate it for him. Problem of the E-cats at this time is the Start/Stop times. Hours instead of minutes.

      Sounds as if he already has Electric heat in his mountain home. If E-cats cycled on/off it would be cheaper(MUCH). Otherwise, Probably not. Only a Tech could say for sure.

      • Bob

        @ Omega Z whihc says in part;-
        “Heat pumps are temperature dependent. The Colder it gets the lower the COP. Once the Temp drops below 30`F, the COP drops fast. They can go Negative”
        Yes, You’re right of course.
        I was completely overlooking the fact that there are much colder places in the world than where I live.
        I suggest all those people run away from home and move somewhere warmer. 😉

        • Omega Z

          I thought that may be the case, but posted partly for clarity for those who aren’t aware.

          Anyway I lived in Arizona for a few years. They work great in the winter out there. Of course that’s if the run at All. 🙂

          There was 1 day I actually had to wear a long sleeve shirt.

          Oh- In the summer, we ran the hot water for several minutes waiting for it to cool down.

  • ivanc

    The ecat will be great…. if exists!

    • fortyniner

      First time here ivanc, or have you been away for a while?

    • Roger Bird

      The hunt for evidence will be great…. if it exists!

      • psi

        I recommend cancelling the hunt….yes, ok, the hunt has been cancelled. Why hunt for evidence that does not exist?

        • Roger Bird

          I saw lots of evidence. Sorry that you missed it.

          Are we talking about LENR or AGW. I am talking about LENR. There is evidence for AGW also. I just see the evidence against AGW to be more compelling.

  • evleer

    Good post. Currently, my home is central heated by a very efficient NG burner. Much of the efficiency comes from the burners ability to quickly modulate output power, from zero to 35 KW and anything in between. The heating system combines measurements on the return temperature of the heating water with the actual outdoor temperature to determine how much heating is required, and the burner delivers exactly that.

    The home E-Cat seems to lack the ability to quickly modulate output power. Furthermore, it takes quite long to start the reaction. This means that in its current form, it not economical to use it as a home heating device, at least not in my case.

    However, I am confident that it’s only a matter of time before most of the E-Cats shortcomings are solved. It’s a immature technology and I think that the emerging of the E-Cat HT is proof of a steep learning curve.

    • Omega Z


      The long start up time may be an inherent problem.
      Faster start up may cause a metal stress shock which cause failure in short periods of time.

      Then again, they may devise a new alloy that could handle it.

    • Redford

      OP got the figures entirely wrong by a long shot. See my other posts.

  • Steve H

    I think we will see COP’s in the hundreds or even thousands once a device has been patented and launched. It will not take too long for the serious industrial heavyweights to reverse engineer and improve upon the original.
    Think of Frank Whittle and his first jet engine or the early domestic gas boilers – they were very in-efficient compared to the modern day version.

  • Steve H

    As an addendum to the comment below:-
    My prediction of a COP in the thousands is derived from the data presented recently to the EU in Brussels.

    • Seppo

      They report 3000% COP in one of the experiments but please note that to drop the % sign you also need to drop 2 zeros.

      • fortyniner

        A safe, stable COP of 30 would certainly startle a few industrial and political decision makers who currently discount LENR as a factor in the ‘energy mix’. In public of course, they would just continue as if nothing had happened.

        • Roger Bird

          “In public of course, they would just continue as if nothing had happened.” Everyone continues as if nothing had happened all the time. When I go to the mall, I continue as if nothing had happened. If I see a young lady with an attractive body showing a distracting amount of bosom, I continue as if nothing had happened. If some rich dude’s wife gets cancer, he continues as if nothing had happened. It is extremely rare for people to NOT continue as if nothing had happened. Even when the May 2013 ElForsk test came out, when my son’s friends came to visit, I continued as if nothing had happened. There is no reason to assume a conspiracy just because people continue as if nothing had happened.

          • psi

            The wit and wisdom of Roger Bird strikes again.

          • Roger Bird

            psi, I am extremely flattered. Should I be?

  • robiD

    This kind of calculations had been done in the past on several blogs/sites and similar conclusion had been found: with a COP=6 the economic vantage compared to natural gas is minimal, and in my opinion, for the domestic case it’s unacceptable, think only that you’d need another connection to the grid or a powerful one that the providers make it more expensive.
    In this stage it would need research, research and RESEARCH and not commercialization. In my opinion Rossi is doing the wrong thing. He made a mistake when he withdrawn the research contract with university of Bologna for the E-cat development, because he has neither the competence nor the men nor the instruments to look deeper the phenomenon in order to improve it and get better COPs.
    We have to be realist: at the moment Rossi has got the stability in the reactor, but in November (6 months ago) he still melted reactors. The COP achieved in the Levi report is about 3, yes conservative and for test propose, but useless for commercialization.

    Last year, Piantelli said that it needs minimum 4-5 years before to achieve something of practical use.

    The only player that seems to get useful numbers is Defkalion. They move in the direction of research e.g. by using on Line-Real time
    mass spectrometry in order to study the phenomenon.
    Too bad they stay hidden and unverified, apart from Micheal Nelson pseudo-report, although I would do the same if the COP they claim is true or only if it was half-true because if there were a true independent, reliable and authoritative report that state a COP > 20 it would be a shock for the economy, it would be very hard to think what might happen (nothing good in the short term).

    In any case, independently for the COP, the term “free energy” doesn’t exist and will never exist, we should use “cheap energy” as long as the governments don’t put their hand on it and charge with taxes transforming it in “expensive energy”.

    • fortyniner

      Agreed. I hadn’t read your post when I made essentially the same comments and prediction above.

    • Bill Hill

      As far as I can recall Rossi has never used the term free energy. It has been used by commentators attempting to link LENR with perpetual energy and infinite out devices. LENR is clearly not free energy. You need an Ecat and you need the fuel cell, they both cost money, and the fuel is an ongoing cost.

      • robiD

        I know it very well, Rossi has never said that but I can’t tell the same about many commentators who use the term “free energy” with levity and many patho-skeptick who often use the term “free energy” only to offend the others (you see, I read many times sentences like “The E-Cat doesn’t work because free energy doesn’t exist”).

        • KD

          We already are using free energy as gravity and solar radiation. Also coal and oil are free under the ground.
          The cost is in using it and all kinds of taxation.

          • psi

            But, you are using common sense. When “we” talk about “free energy,” we only mean the kinds we don’t understand yet, not those on which we at present already depend. Free things are too good to be true, ergo we know they do not exist. Especially free “energy.” ) : )

          • Bill Hill

            Please don’t confuse potential with useful and practical. It’s only free if there is no cost of recovery. Constructing solar panels, wind turbines, and digging wells all took energy and the efficiency with which they recover the energy is quite low. Then there is wear and tear and replacement costs. Hardly free in any sense.

    • Omega Z


      Had Rossi went the U of Bologna path, it would be in research in SSM-Infinite.

      Well actually, just 6 months for 1/2 million Euros.
      Best you could expect in 6 months is Yes, It Works, We don’t know why yet. We need more money from Mr. Rossi to continue the research.

      I think Rossi took the Right path. The Research by others will follow & he wont have to pay for it.
      In the mean time he will market products.

      I also think it was 1 or the other financially. He didn’t have the money for both paths. And as I said, the University research is a never ending money pit.

      • Roger Bird

        Even it it is only $60,000 average as one commenter said, it is exactly $60,000 more than nothing. So university researchers love to keep that income flowing JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

  • lenrdawn

    Of all the various Rossi quotes over the years, the ones insisting on a positive but finite COP in combination with a nuclear reaction is probably the least rational. There is no conceivable explanation for an inherent need of external energy input for a process supposed to produce more energy. Not as long as both are in the same form (heat in this case). So IF there really is a maximum COP of 6, then it is only an engineering challenge. We have to ask why he insists. Pride because, not being an engineer, he can’t find a way around it? That would be good because it means it can probably be solved quite easily. The other explanations are far less pleasant.

    • AB

      There is no conceivable explanation for an inherent need of external energy input for a process supposed to produce more energy.

      Do you think there is no conceivable justification for spark plugs in combustion engines as well?

      • lenrdawn

        That is not an analogy. Not even a bad one.

        • AB

          Can you explain why it is a bad analogy?

          • lenrdawn

            A spark plug is used to ignite a gasoline/air mixture in a two stroke or four stroke Otto engine. Not because fuel, once ignited, doesn’t keep burning but because the complex workings of such an engine require the ignition at an exact point in time. IF the plug would consume one sixths of the energy, nobody would use Otto engines – or they’d use them with glow plugs only or the way a Diesotto engine works (without a plug but by injecting the fuel at the right time and using the compression energy to ignite it – much like a Diesel engine). The proper analogy to Rossi’s reactor would be a cup full of gasoline to which you hold a match. The reaction starts and the fuel burns. Since the burning fuel releases more energy than the match you used to start the reaction, you don’t have to use another match every tenth of a second in order to keep the whole thing burning – wouldn’t make any sense. Now lets suppose the fire stops all the time because there is a lot of wind, what you’d do is introducing a shield which keeps the wind from carrying away too much of the released energy in order to keep the reaction going. If the wind was too irregular, you’d use a filament storing enough of the heat to re-ignite the fuel by itself. If your problem is that the cup melts, you’d introduce a cooling system taking away more of the energy. Simple engineering. But nobody in their right mind would solve the problem by using lots of matches. Nobody.

          • AB

            The proper analogy to Rossi’s reactor would be a cup full of gasoline to which you hold a match.

            If this was true, the typical LENR experiment would have a thermal runaway as soon as the reaction starts. That doesn’t seem to be the norm, allthough it can happen.

            I agree that the control mechanism reported by Rossi is strange, but declaring it inconceivable goes too far. We don’t know much about these reactions.

          • lenrdawn

            The difference to “typical” LENR experiments lies in the dimensions. If you look at MFMP, they could theoretically keep their experiment running self-sustained if they insulated the reactors far enough to lose less (or the same) energy than they think they’re gaining. But with the reaction being erratic and just a Watt or two overall excess, that’s rather tricky to do. However Rossi claims several kW and with that it would be more a question of regulating a cooling mechanism rather than insulating the reactor. Precisely regulating cooling mechanisms isn’t exactly a new challenge. There are lots of industrial applications requiring just that and so there are lots of solutions, too.

          • fortyniner

            Perhaps lighting a candle rather than liguid fuel would be a better analogy?

    • AlainCo

      better analogy is comparison with subcritical fission reactor.

      The problem with LENR+ today is that it is hard to find a negative retroaction, and the one found are on different time-scale.
      thus the solution for rossi, or defkalion, is to work by pulse, and wait for negative retroaction on long term, while benefiting from positive retroaction at short term.

      I agree however that there is no intrinsic COP limit, but it is a question of technology… like for a gas furnace which have a finite COP, linked to it’s technology. same for fission critical reactors.

    • fortyniner

      I agree. It does seem strange that the COP of the desktop ‘plumbing fittings’ prototype is still the specified COP for the 1MW LT e-cat. Also that this just happens to be the point at which it becomes worthwhile to use the technology, but that it is below the level where the technology would be disruptive.

      Frankly I don’t believe Rossi’s assertion that this is the maximum ‘safe’ limit and suspect that a couple of years of development must have shown many ways to improve output while retaining stability.

      As to why Rossi is so adamant on this point, I think this probably has to do with minimising opposition from vested interests. He has to tread a fine line between making the 1MW units (just) attractive enough to sell into industry, but not so attractive that the energy cartels, particularly nuclear energy, can see the writing writ large on the wall, and feel it necessary to take drastic action.

      He has hinted at the forces that are already opposing him, and these could be very much larger if it becomes known that even the original technology is capable of completely sweeping away their investments. First he needs to get his pilot plant in place and known across the world – then after a while he can begin announcing ‘improvements’.

      • fortyniner


        As often happens, a few minutes after I posted the above, something else occurred to me that I wanted to add. Unfortunately by this point I had run out of edit time. Is there any chance that you could increase the ‘edit’ time allowed, perhaps just by a minute or so, in order to allow slow-thinking old farts like myself a longer period to completely collect their thoughts, and to actually type what they want to say using 2 fingers (or 1 on a tablet)?

        • AlainCo

          having 5 minute to correct a post is a good things for type, and errors. it also avoid too fast exchanges.

        • Omega Z


          COP of 20 or 30 seems to be implied from Rossi, But just not yet.

          It’s a development that’s come about in the R&D H-Cat.
          Until R&D is done, He just guarantees COP>6. I’m sure it will be incorporated into all the Cats.

          As to Rossi’s Statement-“All Cats will have a mouse.

          Note: 300 watts per hour in. 10K watts out

          • fortyniner


            Yes, that statement was interesting – as well as his recent hint at a 3-stage unit (mouse-cat-tiger). I had assumed that the 2-stage thing applied only to ‘hot cats’ but AR seems to be suggesting that all new LT units will embody the same principle as well, as you say.

            I wonder if that means that the pilot plant being offered by Hydrosfusion will in fact be a COP=30+ experimental variant? That would rock a few boats.

      • lenrdawn

        Yes, Peter, but if you and I figure the claim is bogus – then what are the odds that “the forces opposing him” take it at face value?

        • fortyniner

          If it wasn’t clear to them before that they have a problem, it must be by now I suppose. Possibly just a delaying tactic that has pretty much outlived its usefulness.

          Assuming someone takes up the ‘free offer’ and this is followed by a series of ‘upgrades’ then QED, but if O/P remains at COP=6 after public awareness becomes a fact, then I guess it would have to be taken as a real limit, at least until the IP becomes available and a few thousand new minds address the problem.

    • Roger Bird

      I don’t understand why a PhD in science and many years of experience with technical, engineering, and invention does not qualify one to be an engineer. “Engineer” is not chiseled in stone like MD. I was a software engineer for 20 years without ANY formal software academic credentials.

      • lenrdawn

        Call him whatever you like. He isn’t enough of an engineer to solve this problem, apparently.

        • Omega Z

          Considering all the different disciplines involved with LENR & Where THEY are at-
          And Considering where Rossi is at-
          I suspect it has much less to do with Rossi’s abilities And much more to do with the shear complexity of the Technology.

        • psi

          Wow. Just, wow.

    • Bill Hill

      Who said that the electrical input is used specifically to heat the Ecat to working temperature? In fact this is unlikely. Once the process is ignited the input electricity may be used to act as the “catalyst” and control the output purely for safety reasons.

      • lenrdawn

        Please lay that out to me. How does electricity provided through nothing but a resistance heater act as a “catalyst”? Any if that is true – then why is there such a thing as a gas powered e-cat?

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          I believe the gas-powered E-Cat still requires electric powered controls.

          • lenrdawn

            So? Even if there is some secret RF stuff involved – it must be far, far less than one sixth of the output (otherwise a gas e-cat wouldn’t make any sense).

      • Omega Z


        I would agree that makes perfect sense EXCEPT!
        Rossi uses N/LP Gas for the Gas Cat?
        Both to Activate & Control. just as he does with the Electric.
        I think heat is just part of it.

        Actually, I read something about using heat to counter heat several years ago, but can’t recall exactly what it was about.

    • Guga

      Rossi’s comments that higher COPs claimed by competitors were impossible seemed absurd to me and kept me sceptical about Rossi.

      • KD

        I don’t think Rossi mean it to COP.
        From his statements about his experiments, he got even COP about 200, but it is danger and can destroy the reactor.

      • Roger Bird

        Well, if you thought that he was all-knowing, then, yes, you should be skeptical. If you thought that he was not a competitive businessman, then, yes, you should be skeptical. We are adults now. When other people open their mouths, it’s time to be a little skeptical because they are not all-knowing and because they usually have self-interest.

  • Rob Woudenberg

    I’ve been indicating this already for more than a year, even to Rossi himself.
    Rossi’s business models only will work if he includes a loopback to the e-cat or significantly improves the foreward process. Still a long way to go, unfortunately.

    • fortyniner

      Likewise on this blog, although I haven’t posted on JoNP.

      A greater COP can probably be squeezed out of the LT e-cat with development, and is almost certainly possible using hot cat technology. But as (IMO) domestic use will either not be permitted or will be centrally controlled, ‘metered’ and taxed to bring the cost up to going rates for gas, I’m not sure the issue arises.

  • John L

    This is where the cascaded system, tiger-cat-mouse comes in. Technically its possible to amplify C.O.P this way. I believe, Rossi will
    implement such system plus a precise 3-phase feedback sensing/timing to exploit SSM (if you look at the switching diagram in the report, there is room for such) as much as possible well maintaining a safe individual C.O.P. Overall C.O.P of 11 is very feasible to achieve. He only needs good electrical/control design engineers, else is marginal.

    • zbiges


    • rolando


      • psi

        That sounds good.

    • Hampus

      With this mouse-cat system all you need in the beginning might be a small wind generator or maybe some solar cells.

      Or you can set up this system, ecat after ecat in a line and the last ecat will make electricity that feeds the first ecat.

      Maybe this is why Rossi haven’t come out with the domestic ecat. He knows that much improvement is still to be made and he doesn’t want to deal with all the questions from “normal” people about cop and input power.

      Rossi wants to probebly sell a perfect system, that makes enough electricity to feed itself and can still heat an whole house. A small box that doesn’t need to be refueled for a couple of years and that is small and easy to carry with you. When Rossi achieves direct electricity this dream of a perfect system is not far away. Maybe that’s what he is waiting for.

    • Roger Bird

      Will there be a crank that the homeowner has to turn in an SSM E-Cat? (:->)

      • Thinks4Self

        Why not a simple car alternator and a few parts attached to a stationary bike can build up kilowatts hours in a battery with a little determination and hard work!

    • Steve M

      Rossi is that you?

      • John L

        but that would be his next logical step.
        With the resourceful partner, engineering matter is not difficult to achieve. He may already have a prototype under test. I recall, Rossi explained the Cat-mouse concept very enthusiastically on the radio.

  • zbiges

    Your calculations are good. In this model you described E-cat can be easily compared to the general current of heat pumps. The calculations are the same.

    I think the key to the commercialization of e-cat is … SSM. Only the usage pattern has a chance for true success in the energy market. The result is also very important (in my opinion) the possibility of independence from energy suppliers. This is the true freedom of large monopolies that choke the ordinary people now. It will be a revolution, if it occurs.
    I also think that the further development of E-cat getting SSM should not be very difficult. Mr. Rossi needs a stable COP greater than 6, and then obtain the SSM should be easier.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      What is SSM?

      • Piero

        Self sustained mode

        • Roger Bird

          Dang! I guess I will have to get up earlier if I want to be the first to correct Iggy.

      • zbiges

        SSM – Self-Sustaining Mode.
        Mode in which the e-cat doesn’t need external energy supply to work. It needs only a little heat to the excitation of the reactor.

  • praos

    If eCat is only 30% better than competition, it’s not only more than good enough, but even something that could be expected. Commercialization of ANY invention starts when it offers >0 advantage, whatever small, it’s a general rule. Then this GenI devices supply cash flow for development of GenII ones, and so on and on and on. Just see the history of nukes and coalies, EVs and ICEVs, cars and carts, steamers and sailers, you name it.

    • Redford

      With correct figures, it’s rather 60% off on average in Eurozone. It would pay for the investment in roughly 3 years (depending on your local rate for electricity, installation, etc.). That’s pretty good.

  • daniel maris

    I have never been very convinced of the economics of the domestic E cat.

    Frequently I made the point that this is not free energy, not even v. cheap energy.

    It is however, clean, and potentially very dependable energy that can be located anywhere.

    I think the E Cat will win out in central elecriticity generation and distributed heating systems, replacing oil, gas, nuclear and coal.

    • Redford

      In that case, the figures are all wrong. Italias kWh is rathen in the 20s than in the 40s. See my other posts.

  • Al

    Looking at my own annual usage for a similar sized house in the UK I can quantify the savings pretty exactly: I use about 23000 kWh of gas and around 6000 kWh of electricity. My current provider charges me roughly $0.06 for gas and $0.18 for electricity. Almost all the gas is for central heating and hot water and could therefore be replaced by an ecat: With COP=6 and an electric/gas price ratio of 3:1 my cost will halve. In exact money terms: $1380 for current gas costs vs. $690 for ECat electricity.
    In terms of purchasing cost and servicing: I read somewhere that about 8% of boilers are replaced every year. Current 20kW boilers cost around $1000 so if a 10kW ECat costs around the same this is an easy drop-in replacement at equivalent cost at the time you’d replace it anyway. In terms of sizing: 23000 kWh/year over a 6 month period is 23000/8760*2=5.2kW so 10kW should be enough if it’s running fairly constantly rather than spike/switch off like a gas boiler. There’s an annual service charged at around $100 for a boiler so the ECat looks very similar here.
    I see this as a 3 phased introduction: electrically driven ECat at first, providing heating savings of around half, selling best in countries with low electric/gas price ratios (I saw Sweden at 2:1, US gas by contrast is very cheap and may be a tougher sell). Next, gas driven ECats, which could cut the cost of heating into 1/6 the original value at COP=6. Finally, once hot cats are certified safe they could be attached to Stirling engines or other generators to supply all energy needs, with waste heat supplying all heating needs. The grid at that point would be reduced to mere peak/backup provision.
    Two other points: heat pumps may provide COP>3, however ground source installation is usually a five figure installation. It also requires the warm end to be low temperature so these efficiencies only apply if you have large surface areas like in underfloor heating. Wall radiators typically need to be hotter to create the same ambient temperature.
    The low power of an ECat vs. a traditional boiler can be compensated by installing heat stores, essentially 200-500l tanks of static water with two water coils running through them, one for heating and one for hot water. This could balance out the demands over a day and limit the ECat power to 10kW while still delivering the required heat on the coldest days.

    • mike

      In the northeast US, electricity is about $0.16 or less delivered; we can choose who and what our generation is. I pay $0.072 /kwh for generation and about $0.09/kwh for delivery and taxes for my electricity. Fracked natural gas has dropped electricity costs about $0.01/kwh each year for the last two years. However; many homes in the region, including most of our older big cities like NY and Boston, heat homes/apartment buildings with home heating oil. Thats running close to $4 per gallon +- $0.25. Thus for probably 30 to 50 million Americans, the ECat with these specs would be quite a savings. Sadly geothermal, which I priced out this year, in spite of a 30% Federal tax credit along with other smaller credits from the local utility still made it barely economical. A new oil burner would cost in the $5,000-$10,000 range installed in this area for an average home. I should add that I burned 822 gallons this winter of bio home heating oil and that in my 1985 built house during this rather cold and long winter. My house is a bit larger, at 1900 sq ft, but that is average in the US. I don’t think a single 10kw unit would be effective since in the coldest part of the winter, we can have many days thst it doesn’t get warmer than -5C/20F. Also a concern for me would be power outages. Hurricane Sandy knocked out my power for 8 days. I would need to be sure my gasoline generator could safely power this ECat in the ecent when this happens again form another hurricane or ice storm.

    • Bill Hill

      I don’t think it would really make sense to power up or control an Ecat using gas or oil, and I’m pretty sure that some electricity will be needed to power the control circuits. Electricity is a much more versatile power source in terms of distribution and safety, that’s why most of our power stations are coal or gas fired. To efficiently turn steam into electricity needs the steam to be superheated to around 600 Deg C. That’s probably why much more effort is going into the so called Hot Cat.

  • Roger Bird

    I am confident that LENR+ will do much better than what Piero Ferreri has so kindly outlined:

    Wikipedia: Historic drive of Bertha Benz

    Bertha Benz, married to Karl, chose to publicize the Patent-Motorwagen [the very first internal combustion engine automobile] in a unique manner: She took the Patent-Motorwagen No. 3, supposedly without her husband’s knowledge, and drove it on the first long-distance automobile road trip to demonstrate its feasibility as a means to travel long distances.

    That trip occurred in early August 1888, as the entrepreneurial lady took her sons Eugen and Richard, fifteen and fourteen years old, respectively, on a ride from Mannheim through Heidelberg, and Wiesloch (where she took on ligroin as a fuel at the city pharmacy, making it the first filling station in history), to her maternal hometown of Pforzheim.

    As well as being the driver, Bertha Benz acted as mechanic on the drive, cleaning the carburetor with her hat pin and using a garter to insulate a wire. She refueled at the local pharmacy in Wiesloch and as the brakes wore down, Benz asked a local shoemaker to nail leather on the brake blocks, in doing so, inventing brake lining on the way. After sending a telegram to her husband of the arrival in Pforzheim, she spent the night at her mother’s house and returned home three days later. The trip covered 194 km (121 mi) in total.

    • psi

      That is a hilarious story.

      • Roger Bird

        psi, is English not your first language, otherwise your post implies that it did not happen.


    Off Topic:
    Facebook to Hold Mysterious Product Launch Event on June 20

    I highly doubt this is LENR-related but it is a strange announcement, they do have the money to be the “partner” and potentially the motivation. I think someone said they were standing up a new server farm in Sweden too, so that’s a data point.

    Just FYI.

    • LENR.FTW
    • barty

      Yes, they opened it this week and has an average energy demand of 40 mega watt!
      They would be the PERFECT partner for hydro fusion.
      Just if this plant could generate steam-pressure to power some air-pressure-engined ventilators for cooling it would be a huge saving.

      • Hampus

        The reason Facebook choose just that town Luleå is that they have really cheap hydropower. and because its pretty cold =) computers like the cold.

        • barty

          Yes, they only need ventilators which blow the cold air from outside through the server halls.

          But they should think about the hydro fusion offer 😉

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          And the water that flows through the turbines is icy cold.

        • Roger Bird

          And of course the surrounding towns are positively tropical and their hydropower is much more expensive. (:->)

          • Hampus

            One more reason they choose Luleå is because they very seldom have electrical power outages. They have a very good grid.

  • LENR4you

    Decentralized energy supply in the low power range is possible only (economically) with the Carnot cycle. Rossi has already suggested it. Unfortunately, he has not yet filed a patent application for this purpose.
    In Germany, there is a patent which concerns the connection LENR reactor and Stirling engine. See:
    [EN] Stirling engine device for converting heat energy of hot gas into mechanical work, has cylinder storing operating gases, where heating of operating gases is performed by reaction of reaction metal with reaction gas

    Highly efficient method of converting LENR energy into mechanical energy in decentralized or mobile small systems:

    The embedded LENR NiH Stirling Engine

    The device (100) has a piston (120) mounted and reciprocally moved in front and rearward directions in cylinders through operating gases that is stored in the cylinder. Pressure of the operating gases is temporally predetermined-changed using a temperature controller, and heating of the operating gases is performed by a reaction of a reaction metal with a reaction gas. The reaction metal and reaction gas are provided in a region closer to a closed front surface (114) of the cylinder, where the reaction gas is supplied with the cylinder by a feed line and formed by hydrogen.

  • K

    Remember the comment of Rossi: “turning the tiger into a vegetarian”.
    He was not allowed to produce higher COP without having big trouble…
    He is allowed to do his job, but he must not outperform the competition with some orders of magnitude in order to make this tech not too disruptive for other ongoing economical important energy projects.
    That is why the home-cat is on hold.
    That is why he always states that all technologies must integrate.
    Energy business, small and large, politicians and industry, they all know Rossi.

    Admin, please ask Rossi if you want.

    • Roger Bird

      This is called projection: “Energy business, small and large, politicians and industry, they all know Rossi.” You don’t know that, but you project your own knowledge and/or perspective. Most people are very skeptical still. Even people here in this forum who have access to a lot of evidence are still skeptical. Even I have thoughts of the improbability of it all on rare occasions, and I have been a believer since the May 2013 ElForsk tests.

      • K

        I have contacted numerous politicians about this item, and also some people involved in Biomass and Wind. They knew about this.
        About the skepicism, you are right.

        • Roger Bird

          My Congressgoof didn’t even respond. I like the honesty. I didn’t like being ignored. (:->)

        • psi

          I also have a strong feeling that some — maybe not all — big energy and tech sector players have been watching this for some time under the radar. That is not to say that they believe in Rossi, only that they known who he is and are being briefed on his progress.

  • Stanislas Bauer

    My answer is always the same: “we” ( the world ) need a single unit to test it ! Stop to elaborate strategies before that !

  • TPaign

    In all of the cost comparisons, do not make the mistake of not accounting for the cost of externalities.

  • Udi

    Why do people assume that a COP of 6 is the final figure?
    It is just a temporary figure, with a technology in it’s infant stage.

    And I’m also sure that a self-feeding system will be available in a very short time. There will be no need to be connected to an external electricity or other form power source, all you will need to do is to start the system, and it will run for a year.

  • Jordi Heguilor

    Considering that there is no independent confirmation of the existence of the Domestic E-Cat, speaking about its economics is a bit like discussing the biology of the unicorn.

    • Omega Z

      Actually there was a visitor to Rossi’s that stated he saw the Domestic unit & described it including a simple on/off button operation, But I don’t recall his name off hand.

      However a recent statement by Rossi would conclude this model obsolete as All the E-cat products will have the Mouse/Cat incorporated into them.

      So you are right. Any numbers we toss together would mean squat at this time. But we can have a little fun while were waiting. 🙂

    • Roger Bird

      LOL. But, it is more like 1% similar to discussing the biology of the unicorn. Us believers “know” that LENR, LENR+, and the guts of any E-Cat are real. It doesn’t take much imagination to extend this knowledge to a home unit. And it is an exercise that entertains and may be useful when we want to install one.

      I put “know” in quotes for your sake and to be honest enough to realize that we only know for absolute certainty that we are sitting at our computers looking at a lit screen. I am no less a believer than I was yesterday. (:->) Sorry about that.

      With a unicorn, we “know” exactly zero about such beings or if they even exist, and even the existence of transcendental worlds is only a theory for 99% of the population.

      So the two are not analogous.

  • Roger Bird

    You know the one about knowing when a lawyer is lying, when he moves his lips. You know that Rossi is extremely excited and perhaps hyperbolic, when he moves his lips, or in this case, when his fingers are typing. And why shouldn’t. He should be in fact the most excited businessman and human being in the history of the world. So I personally pardon him if he over states things occasionally or communicates things that take 2 years rather than 2 months to accomplish and other excited communications like that.

    • psi

      I concur.

  • Mike Cheek

    I see an excellent first fit inserting the E-Cat into a power generating utility. You could use it to heat the boiler feedwater, which raises the overall efficiency of the system. The utility already generates electricity and you could direct a small side stream of power back to the ECat. And they already have all the auxiliary support systems someone has rightly noted below is also needed. Such as … demineralized water to feed the Ecat. You have to have special water treatment (RO or ion exchange, what? you didn’t think about it!) for the ECat, other wise it will scale up rather quickly from water hardness. As I see it this could very easily be inserted into this existing system for water heatup. And thereby demonstrate viability of the Ecat.

    Eventually this could also replace the large utility steam boilers. You could generate electricity at a lower cost since fuel costs are so much lower. It would self support. I think you could retrofit an existing utility plant until such time you could build one from scratch.

    Right now, it doesn’t look like a good fit for home grown electricity. I do see a fit where you just need hot water – such as for heating. You can also use heat for refrigeration but this cycle is inherently inefficient – but maybe it could be viable. You don’t have to have an electric generator for the first design release. You would import your electricity off the grid – just realize that you’re multiplying your efforts – import 1 KW you create 6 KW or 10 KW or whatever the final COP is. Electric generator adds to first cost. If I could drop my AC bill to, say, 10% of what it is now (I live on the hot & humid Gulf of Mexico) I would be very happy.

    So I see industrial applications as the first step and first release. Retail later. So it’s not totally free energy. But it could be cheap energy. Cheap green energy will be an enormous boon to the economy. IF, IF, IF what we have read on the internet holds up in a workplace setting. As a chemical engineer I am favorably impressed by the test report released. The writers know about Grashof numbers and all that. This adds validity to their witness, as far as I am concerned.

  • Thinks4Self

    I think the key to home units will be thermoelectric conversion used in a CHP setup. At 20% efficiency of conversion to electricity it is workable. 6kW Ecat 20% conversion = 1.2kW COP of 6 needs 1kW to run leaves 200 watts to do other things with and generates a ton of waste heat. If you cool your thermoelectrics with water you have your complete solution for heating running gridless 200 watts will pump a fair amount of water.

    • Omega Z


      Not good enough, but would be a start.

      I compare it to the Smart Phone.
      Once on the market, Apps quickly became available.

      Once E-cats are available, the after market will fall all over themselves developing the add-on gizmos that will make it all happen.

      Improved E-cats, Improved gizmos.
      20, 30 years from now, they’ll probably have Electric conversions in the 40% range.

      • AlainCo

        that is what defkalion seems to be preparing by funding research and having partnership with many application providers.
        It seems they have tested applications since late 2011. I remember discussion with DGT about various ideas. they were already working on application, while working on improving their reactor. classic for engineers.

    • Roger Bird

      Dear Thinks4Self, I can’t possibly live off of 200 watts. I don’t know about you. However, the COP will eventually do better than 6 and the thermoelectrics may even do a little better and then you toss in a Stirling engine and you have it. I would require about 1.5 kWs.

      • Thinks4Self

        I was thinking the 200 watts would be used for running a water pump to cool the thermoelectrics and pump hot water throughout a house. The idea being a self sustaining heater. I used 6kW just to keep the math easy.

  • psi

    Thanks for the great analysis!

  • Morgan

    if this is what the US government is doing, imagine what Oil companies are doing – http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

    • Linda

      Our government no longer serves us, it serves corporate interests. So we should not expect to see anything that would upset the global system of oligarchs, least of all the oil and power companies.

      We are in denial here. Really. Rossi lives on a short leash, as we all do.

      • Roger Bird

        Please . . .

        When they start to believe Rossi, then I might be the slightest bit concerned.

      • Morgan

        I know everyone around here thinks you are crazy, but I completely agree with your view…

        • fortyniner

          I agree with Linda, too. I have always been puzzled by some commenters who express the naive opinion that the US govt. acts in the interest of the people of America. It has been crystal clear for decades that most Western governments, and in particular the US govt., are completely in the pockets of the transnational money elite.

          • Barry

            90% of Americans want gun background checks and higher taxes for the top 2%. Congress shot down both of those and protected the subsidies to big oil. Wouldn’t it be nice to be a democracy again?

          • Roger Bird

            We never were a democracy. We have always been a constitutional democratic republic. The Founders saw what happened to other pure democracies and decided to give us a structure to keep that sort of thing from happening. In a pure democracy, 51% could vote to exterminate the remaining 49%. Think Red Guard. We currently have the vast majority of scientists who say that LENR is bunk and AGW is true. So much for trusting democracy.

          • Linda

            Roger, right now, 1% are voting to exterminate the 99%. Give me Democracy any day. You can put your Republic where…

        • Fibb

          me too more or less. go Linda!

  • xy

    the article omits some figures present in the context:
    – the expense of buying the gas/oil burner
    – the expense of servicing it
    – all kinds of expense linked to building gas pipe network
    – the externalized expenses of cleaning the air of CO2 (delayed for now)
    – the externalized expenses of military arsenal paid to maintain resources
    – you could value your larger independence
    and stuff like that.

    • Roger Bird

      “- the externalized expenses of cleaning the air of CO2 (delayed for now)” Completely unnecessary since plants and the ocean will take care of that.

  • Omega Z

    Options for Piero

    I think to begin with, a dual heat system will have to be used.
    A single E-cat 24/7 to carry the base load with you primary system becoming a secondary system covering peek demand.

    Rossi has said all E-cats will incorporate the mouse so this would provide better numbers to work with. A Gen-2 E-cat.

    Piero presently has a peek supply of 150K BTU system.
    Using the Gen 2 system, Requires 900 watts 1/3rd of an hour so calculate 300 watt-hour. With an output of 10Kwh/34K BTU.

    Running 24/7, this would figure 730 x .3=218Kwh @ .40 cents Kwh=$87.60 per month for base heat of 34K BTU.

    If this isn’t large enough to cover base heat a second Gen-2 could be added that ran only when needed.

    If a boiler system is already in use, this would be simpler to incorporate, but either way, Installation will probably be costly.

    If or when the E-cat start times can be reduced, Options will improve. Presently they’ll be beneficial for some & not others.

    If enough people can make use of them, Costs for those who can’t will still come down for existing systems.

    Basically, Operating cost wise, I think the Gen-2 would be beneficial for Piero, but only if he’s able to utilize the heat & not have to dump it. But the cost of a duel system may be cost prohibitive as far as payback at this time.

  • wolfgang gaerber

    I think we have to keep in mind that the domestic e-cat is already designed as a commercial product and not as technology demonstration.
    The whole package (sales prices, technical data)is optimized for a specific usecase – thats the upgrade of an existing central heating system running on fossile fuels.
    Maybe the rated COP of 6 is kind of compromise to provide a “non-disruptive” start into a new energy source.
    There are lots of advantages compared with a heatpump.

    PS.: The 45kW system of the author was definitly designed to allow a fast heat-up for weekend usage. The 8kW calculated feels better. BTW such an oversized system might give poor efficiency due to lack of sufficient modulation. Modern gas heaters can modulate the output power between few kW and rated load (16kW would be ok for similar)

  • Redford

    “Omygosh! In Italy, where I live, 1 KWh cost about 40 Cents”

    In France, it’s around 10 Cents. Nuclear Plant For The Win.

    • Redford

      I checked and according to this document, you pay way too high.

      Italian while one of the most expensive, charges typically 20c per kWh.

      It’s the highest with Danemark. Lowest is Bulgaria with 7,8.
      Average europe is 15,8 for electricity, 6.52 for gaz. With a cop of 6, it means eCat heat is 2.6 vs 6.52 for gaz. Note that it’s not insanely low – gaz probably was lower than that decades ago. Still, pretty attractive. Also wait to see Hot Cat made-kWh of electricity price rate =)

      • Redford

        Wow, actually those are 2009 figures. Gas skyrocketed since.
        Latest available charts are for… 2010, and gas already had climbed at 7.1
        If your country makes its electricity out of fossile, both will always be correlated, so I guess it doesn’t matter a lot. eCat is interesting in any case, and gaz cat even more.
        If your country use anything else, eCat is even more interesting.

        Gaz prices will probably rise until eCat becomes a massmarket anyway =)

      • Piero

        The price in italy is actually a funtion of the peak power you ask for. For 3 kw it’s as low as 17c /kwh but for 10 kw it goes up to 40c / kwh

  • Simone

    and what happens if you consider giving the electrical input needed for the E-CAT with a home solar plant? 😀