Rossi: The Stakes for the E-Cat Validation in Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

I’ve often wondered the exact reason why the long term validation tests that are currently being done with the E-Cat are of such great importance to Andrea Rossi’s work. I would have thought that Rossi and his team don’t really need to prove to themselves that the ‘Rossi effect’ is real, and especially take six months or more to do that. And if, as Rossi has said, they are not concerned with silencing the skeptics, why go through this exercise?

I asked Rossi about this topic on the Journal of Nuclear Physics yesterday, asking whether the purpose of this test was for internal R&D purposes, or for an external audience, and this was his response:

“The R&D and validation work in course is necessary to improve our science, to improve our theoretical interpretation of the so called Rossi Effect, to verify the positivity of the same effect in order to decide and define the Investments ( if any) necessary for the industrialization in large and international scale.
Hundreds of million dollars cannot be invested without a precise and validated background. As I said, joking: we are not here to sharpen the tips of the skyscrapers”.

Not sure I quite get the joke, but it seems to me that one of the most important goals connected with this validation report is for Rossi and Cherokee to be able to attract investment money so they can industrialize the production of their technology — on an international scale, as AR puts it.

In my opinion, nothing less than a rock solid report showing unquestionable excess energy in useful quantities would suffice to induce big time investors to part with hundreds of millions of dollars to put behind the E-Cat. Rossi said recently that the exact nature of how that investing will be structured has not yet been decided yet — that they are waiting until after the report has been released to determine that.

So there’s a lot resting on this report — I know there’s been some concern about the possibility of ‘negative’ results, but Andrea Rossi sounded a little more optimistic yesterday when he explained, “I hope the results will be positive, but my duty as a scientist is to say that until the work is not finished, the possibility of negative results must be considered not impossible.”

  • George N

    Cherokee IPO???

    • If an IPO were to happen I think it’d probably be Industrial Heat and not Cherokee.

      From what I can tell though an IPO is not their near- or mid-term strategy, They should be able to raise plenty of money from angels and other organizations.

  • Kim

    Rossi: The Stakes for the E-Cat Validation in Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

    Translation:

    Rossi: The Stakes for the Slave Free Energy Validation in Hundreds of Millions of Slave Dollars

    Respect
    Kim

    • theBuckWheat

      What worthless snark.

    • bachcole

      Doesn’t seem very respectful to me.

  • Kim

    Rossi: The Stakes for the E-Cat Validation in Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

    Translation:

    Rossi: The Stakes for the Slave Free Energy Validation in Hundreds of Millions of Slave Dollars

    Respect
    Kim

    • theBuckWheat

      What worthless snark.

    • bachcole

      Doesn’t seem very respectful to me.

  • Publius

    I am a little doubtful Rossi has enough control of his reaction to be commercially useful. He has certainly piqued a lot of interest, but control and getting at least 10X is going to be mandatory for investors at this point.

  • Publius

    I am a little doubtful Rossi has enough control of his reaction to be commercially useful. He has certainly piqued a lot of interest, but control and getting at least 10X is going to be mandatory for investors at this point.

    • MasterBlaster7

      Oh now you’re an expert with that 10x statement. Haha…yah I saw that you tube video, too. Around these parts, for the last few years, we have been calling it the COP. COP 6 has been standard yammering about the hot cat. But, that’s pretty irrelevant. Rossi had been experimenting with a COP up to 200….in stress testing. COP of 10 with a carnot efficiency of 33% is about 2 to 1 energy out with a steam turbine. But, I bet you could squeeze a carnot of 40% with modern steam turbines. I bet you could get away with a COP of 7 or 8. Point is…getting the COP up shouldn’t be a problem and/or barrier to overcome.

    • Freethinker

      Funny. 🙂

      You are free to doubt. But serving your doubt to the rest of us with a “fact” that investors would require a COP of 10 is ridiculous. Please troll elsewere.

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    Curious when is this report due?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    “Validation” probably refers to an activity where they run lots of reactors with somewhat different parametres and evaluate their performance and durability, the goal being to come up with a reasonably optimal model which can then be put to serial production. So it’s more product development than validation. But it’s validation in the sense that the prototype that they consider making into serial production must be validated.

    I have heard the phrase “sharpening the tips of skyscrapers” somewhere, probably in Finnish. A skyscraper scrapes the sky, in Finnish we call them “cloud drawers”. Skyscrapers look like pencils pointing towards clouds when viewed from the side. Logically, if one would sharpen them, they would scrape the sky better and be better skyscrapers. The phrase refers to some activity which sounds exciting but which is embarrassingly worthless, perhaps even crazy. A bit like the recent Cern colloquium.

    • Oceans2014

      “sharpening the tips of skyscrapers” = making them higher – is where the term comes from, everyone wants to build a higher tower just for points nothing more.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    “Validation” probably refers to an activity where they run lots of reactors with somewhat different parametres and evaluate their performance and durability, the goal being to come up with a reasonably optimal model which can then be put to serial production. So it’s more product development than validation. But it’s validation in the sense that the prototype that they consider making into serial production must be validated.

    I have heard the phrase “sharpening the tips of skyscrapers” somewhere, probably in Finnish. A skyscraper scrapes the sky, in Finnish we call them “cloud drawers”. Skyscrapers look like pencils pointing towards clouds when viewed from the side. Logically, if one would sharpen them, they would scrape the sky better and be better skyscrapers. The phrase refers to some activity which sounds exciting but which is embarrassingly worthless, perhaps even crazy. A bit like the recent Cern colloquium.

  • Argon

    I agree with Pubius. Propably some doubts Rossi has shown recently, are not so much related to effect itself, but merely to validation results reaching levels required by world scale industrialisation of Rossi effect. That is COP >10, stability, cost reflectivity (vs. Chinese prod) reliability etc. that investors probably are concerned.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe you should explore the borders of the device you put on the market. Is it stable all the time, does it produce what I claim, are there any safety issues, etc.? With regards to the competitors it is still a huge risk to put something new on the market. If they can make something better then you may loose your investment. Therefore you should also look for future development potentials to mitigate this risk. I assume that is what Rossi et al. are doing and we have to wait…..

  • Allan Shura

    Defkalion has put on their website they are developing R 6 technology with controls and want to commercialize in the 3rd quarter 2014.

    • Sanjeev

      “Several
      third party independent tests from international organizations, universities
      and teams are expected to present their results thus verifying our recent
      technological and scientific breakthroughs. ”

      Thats good but what happened to the last plan of going public and road shows etc ?

      • LENR G

        Our problem is that the normal process of commercializing new advanced technology looks a lot like how a scam operates. Lots of excited promises followed by setbacks and course corrections. Dates come and go. It’s damn hard to tell the difference.

        So we look for 3rd party verification. Defkalion has just a smidge of that (Nelson report) — even less than BlackLight — so the announcement of multiple independent test reports from international orgs and universities is promising. If it actually happens. A couple of positive reports from respected teams would be a pretty big deal.

        One thing that does seem pretty clear is that Defkalion has been struggling with resources and financing from the start. They would be wise to partner up with someone like Rossi did.

        • NCkhawk

          Instead they claim 3 labs and a broad new batch of supporting research with less than 9 months to expected commercialization. They are not doing anything to restore their credibility from the last batch of momentum they established to go public on. We need to find out the name of their underwriter if they even had one.

          • LENR G

            They may still have plans to go public. We should give them a chance to explain themselves.

            I agree though that they are all over the place wrt to setting expectations. One explanation is that we are being manipulated as marks in a con game. Another explanation is that they suck at it.

          • Fortyniner

            They may need some new ‘marks’ if that’s the case. I doubt there is a single person on this forum (or probably anywhere else) who would hand over the proverbial bent penny without some much better evidence of a potentially marketable product.

            Your final sentence seems more likely. It may be that rather like Rossi in earlier days, they tend to present hopes and extrapolations as fact, then later find there is a problem and change tack, falsifying earlier exaggerated claims. Not very professional, but then they are primarily inventors and you can’t be good at everything. Mills/BLP have fewer excuses, given their resources.

          • LENR G

            If it weren’t for Nelson, Kim and their previous relationship with Rossi I don’t think I’d take them very seriously due to their spastic behavior. I can forgive some of it as growing pains, but they’ve been consistently misleading about where they are in development and what’s going to happen next.

            A 3rd party validation akin to the Magnificent Seven would get me off the fence and into their camp. Supposedly that’s coming. We’ll see. Or maybe this promise is BS too.

            I hope someday someone on the inside writes a tell-all book about all this, scam or not.

          • NCkhawk

            According to a knowledgeable and highly reliable source who spoke to Dr. Kim at ICCF-18 last summer, Defkalion has never let Dr Kim have direct access to the reactors or raw test data. They have fed him everything. That may have changed since then but I think it would be moot after all the doubts Defkalion created with the flaws (whether mistaken or they got busted) in their calorimetry set-up.

          • LENR G

            I know Kim didn’t do an independent test, but his trust in them is still an interesting data point (to me at least). Nelson on the other hand did get up close and personal to the reactor and found nothing amiss.

          • NCkhawk

            Somebody found something very amiss with their July 2013 calorimetry and it was obviously a show stopper – thus their new and improved 2014 reset. I believe that Nelson’s visit was prior to the test last summer.

          • psi2u2

            Mr_ZZZ puleeze. This possibility has been discussed and debating extensively all over the internet, including on Frank’s site, for several years now. Are you familiar with the previous report of the tests on the “hot cat”? Are you telling us that that report was a “charade”? If so, please provide details of your analysis, as many technically well informed persons have already analyzed that report and have been unable to find substantive flaws in it. Thanks.

          • NCkhawk

            At best, they are behaving like amateurs and this is not helping the CF sector at all. It is ridiculous that they are trying to operate from so many labs. How are they going to keep their research straight if they cannot even keep their story straight. Questionable judgement at best. They need to stick to their 1/20 update promise and attempt to restore some confidence in their story.

          • LENR G

            While there is plenty to criticize about them, multiple labs is not high on my list of things they’re doing wrong. In a way it’s kind of smart to make sure, internally, that your results are reproducible and you’re not fooling yourself somehow.

            If Defkalion were an investment scam I wouldn’t expect them to have a multiple lab setup. What would be the point? Scammers would seek to minimize outlays while maximizing outside interest. You could do that with one fake lab, contriving a convincing demo, and bribing someone to publish a fake validation report.

          • NCkhawk

            I continue to hope that Defkalion has something real but I have always thought that they moved to Canada to try and take advantage of the country’s generous green R&D funding resources and their lax penny stock IPO standards.

  • Allan Shura

    Defkalion has put on their website they are developing R 6 technology with controls and want to commercialize in the 3rd quarter 2014.

    • Sanjeev

      “Several
      third party independent tests from international organizations, universities
      and teams are expected to present their results thus verifying our recent
      technological and scientific breakthroughs. ”

      Thats good but what happened to the last plan of going public and road shows etc ?

      • Our problem is that the normal process of commercializing new advanced technology looks a lot like how a scam operates. Lots of excited promises followed by setbacks and course corrections. Dates come and go. It’s damn hard to tell the difference.

        So we look for 3rd party verification. Defkalion has just a smidge of that (Nelson report) — even less than BlackLight — so the announcement of multiple independent test reports from international orgs and universities is promising. If it actually happens. A couple of positive reports from respected teams would be a pretty big deal.

        One thing that does seem pretty clear is that Defkalion has been struggling with resources and financing from the start. They would be wise to partner up with someone like Rossi did.

        • NCkhawk

          Instead they claim 3 labs and a broad new batch of supporting research with less than 9 months to expected commercialization. They are not doing anything to restore their credibility from the last batch of momentum they established to go public on. We need to find out the name of their underwriter if they even had one.

          • They may still have plans to go public. We should give them a chance to explain themselves.

            I agree though that they are all over the place wrt to setting expectations. One explanation is that we are being manipulated as marks in a con game. Another explanation is that they suck at it.

          • They may need some new ‘marks’ if that’s the case. I doubt there is a single person on this forum who would hand over the proverbial bent penny without some much better evidence of a potentially marketable product.

            Your final sentence (“Another explanation is that they suck at it.”) seems more likely. It may be that rather like Rossi in earlier days, they tend to present hopes and extrapolations as fact, then later find there is a problem and change tack, falsifying earlier exaggerated claims. Not very professional, but then they are primarily inventors and you can’t be good at everything. Mills/BLP have fewer excuses, given their resources.

          • If it weren’t for Nelson, Kim and their previous relationship with Rossi I don’t think I’d take them very seriously due to their spastic behavior. I can forgive some of it as growing pains, but they’ve been consistently misleading about where they are in development and what’s going to happen next.

            A 3rd party validation akin to the Magnificent Seven would get me off the fence and into their camp. Supposedly that’s coming. We’ll see. Or maybe this promise is BS too.

            I hope someday someone on the inside writes a tell-all book about all this, scam or not.

          • NCkhawk

            According to a knowledgeable and highly reliable source who spoke to Dr. Kim at ICCF-18 last summer, Defkalion has never let Dr Kim have direct access to the reactors or raw test data. They have fed him everything. That may have changed since then but I think it would be moot after all the doubts Defkalion created with the flaws (whether mistaken or they got busted) in their calorimetry set-up.

          • I know Kim didn’t do an independent test, but his trust in them is still an interesting data point (to me at least). Nelson on the other hand did get up close and personal to the reactor and found nothing amiss.

          • NCkhawk

            Somebody found something very amiss with their July 2013 calorimetry and it was obviously a show stopper – thus their new and improved 2014 reset. I believe that Nelson’s visit was prior to the test last summer.

          • NCkhawk

            At best, they are behaving like amateurs and this is not helping the CF sector at all. It is ridiculous that they are trying to operate from so many labs. How are they going to keep their research straight if they cannot even keep their story straight. Questionable judgement at best. They need to stick to their 1/20 update promise and attempt to restore some confidence in their story.

          • While there is plenty to criticize about them, multiple labs is not high on my list of things they’re doing wrong. In a way it’s kind of smart to make sure, internally, that your results are reproducible and you’re not fooling yourself somehow.

            If Defkalion were an investment scam I wouldn’t expect them to have a multiple lab setup. What would be the point? Scammers would seek to minimize outlays while maximizing outside interest. You could do that with one fake lab, contriving a convincing demo, and bribing someone to publish a fake validation report.

          • NCkhawk

            I continue to hope that Defkalion has something real but I have always thought that they moved to Canada to try and take advantage of the country’s generous green R&D funding resources and their lax penny stock IPO standards.

  • Omega Z

    As many of us have determined sometime ago And
    As to McKubre interview- To really be commercially useful, COP>10 is required.

    Rossi on results Positive or Negative???
    COP10 Money Pours in.

    According to Rossi, COP increases with temp increases.
    According to Rossi posts is working on very high temps to obtain 1100`C Stabilized.

  • Omega Z

    As many of us have determined sometime ago And
    As to McKubre interview- To really be commercially useful, COP>10 is required.

    Rossi on results Positive or Negative???
    COP10 Money Pours in.

    According to Rossi, COP increases with temp increases.
    According to Rossi posts is working on very high temps to obtain 1100`C Stabilized.

  • Mr. Moho

    Did anybody notice that there has been a status update in the DGT home page?
    http://defkalion-energy.com/

    January 16, 2014

    We are pleased to announce that our timetable for 2014 is as follows:

    Currently we are developing our R 6 technology in our three laboratories. We are doing this using robust calorimetric methods, without the use of water coolant, based on both positive and negative experiences we have gained.

    Concurrently we are finalizing the heat management and control electronic subsystems for the final pre-industrial prototype.

    Several third party independent tests from international organizations, universities and teams are expected to present their results thus verifying our recent technological and scientific breakthroughs.

    Accordingly we expect the commercialization of our technologies in the 3rd quarter of 2014. For further inquiries please contact us through our offices

    Worryingly, there’s no mention of the January 20th date anymore:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20131230123241/http://defkalion-energy.com/

    • LENR G

      3Q commercialization preceded by presentation of 3rd party independent test results from multiple parties.

      Not the big bang I was hoping for but still pretty good.

      I wonder if we’ll get some details about R6 soon.

    • NCkhawk

      What does this say about the last reactor rev? These guys were going to try and go public from that “success” and have never said anything to the contrary. These actions go a long way towards confirming that they are not playing with a competent deck. They act like their previous activities and statements must just fade away. They must think that their general following is just plain dumb.

    • Finnish Engineer

      That is funny. No nuclear reaction machine can be commersialed in few months like Rossi’s R&D have stated. The system must be validated properly, gain rights to market the product from officials and safety standards and all. It is totally impossible what they state in their website. Seem’s so greekish ideals like all arabic world, you get idea you want to sell it right a away. That does not work in civil world.

  • LENR G

    If an IPO were to happen I think it’d probably be Industrial Heat and not Cherokee.

    From what I can tell though an IPO is not their near- or mid-term strategy, They should be able to raise plenty of money from angels and other organizations.

  • Alex Shenderov

    According to E-cat specs on their website, it’s a water heater at 1,500 kg/hr, plugged into the grid at 167kW: http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw/ecat-1mw-technical-data

    1,500 kg/hr=0.42kg/s, and with specific heat capacity 4.2kJ/kg*K for water, 167 kW will suffice to heat that much water from almost freezing (1C) to almost boiling (96C). I repeat, the power you get from the grid is plenty sufficient to meet the claimed performance of E-cat water heater. It does not NEED a 1 MW heat output to do its VERY MODEST job. You can buy 167 kW worth of water heater(s) for about $60K, not $1.5M.

  • Alex Shenderov

    Furthermore, the listed operating costs ($1/MWh) at listed thermal output (1MW) amount to $1/hr, which is much less than what the 167 kW input power costs in an hour.

  • Alex Shenderov

    Furthermore, the listed operating costs ($1/MWh) at listed thermal output (1MW) amount to $1/hr, which is much less than what the 167 kW input power costs in an hour.

  • theBuckWheat

    Not only do we need rock solid reports of sufficient energy creation, but until the underlying physics is thoroughly understood, we will need millions of device-hours of operating experience so we can be assured there are no regions in the operating envelope that produce undue amounts of ionizing radiation or threaten runaway characteristics. Having said that, I expect that a commercially viable LENR technology will be as important an advance for humanity as the steam engine was. And we don’t have just the Rossi device, but at least three others in the wings as well.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Still better than a Uranium Elephant – and we let those charge about every day! Joking aside, repurposing of old fossil stations and equipping of new smaller units – nuclear without the fuss – would be the quickest way forward to test out LENR systems on a large scale, just as Rossi, Defkalion and Brillouin have all identified. Also good though would be smaller plants powering (space?) planes, ships and/or submarines – small units that could be jettisoned at the touch of a button, as it were, where units went outside of their “amber limits” – at least for the first few years until the risks of not using an LENR system outweighed the risks of sticking with what is currently used (e.g. sticking with explosive Gas for heating and sometimes demolishing homes and apartment blocks)

  • theBuckWheat

    Not only do we need rock solid reports of sufficient energy creation, but until the underlying physics is thoroughly understood, we will need millions of device-hours of operating experience so we can be assured there are no regions in the operating envelope that produce undue amounts of ionizing radiation or threaten runaway characteristics. Having said that, I expect that a commercially viable LENR technology will be as important an advance for humanity as the steam engine was. And we don’t have just the Rossi device, but at least three others in the wings as well.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Still better than a Uranium Elephant – and we let those charge about every day! Joking aside, repurposing of old fossil stations and equipping of new smaller units – nuclear without the fuss – would be the quickest way forward to test out LENR systems on a large scale, just as Rossi, Defkalion and Brillouin have all identified. Also good though would be smaller plants powering (space?) planes, ships and/or submarines – small units that could be jettisoned at the touch of a button, as it were, where units went outside of their “amber limits” – at least for the first few years until the risks of not using an LENR system outweighed the risks of sticking with what is currently used (e.g. sticking with explosive Gas for heating and sometimes demolishing homes and apartment blocks)

  • Oceans2014

    The Pros over at Vortex-l are only speaking of the eCat – they know the game, they are not interested in BlackLightPower, that speaks volumes. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/

  • bachcole

    I can assure you that the audience investors already know about these tests and are awaiting results. These tests are not for some dude sitting in a cafe in St. Louis reading the Wall Street Journal. It is entirely possible that the audience investors visit the test site now and then and check things out.

    • Mr_ZZZ

      I disagree. This charade is setup to lure naive people to invest in a non functional fraud.

      • NCkhawk

        Mr. ZZZ – If you’re referencing Defkalion then I think that your position is entirely possible. If you’re talking about Rossi – his project is being resourced and managed by competent investors / responsible value-creators. My guess is that Rossi’s work will continue to be funded as long as progress is being made and contractual agreements are being followed.

      • psi2u2

        Mr_ZZZ puleeze. This possibility has been discussed and debating extensively all over the internet, including on Frank’s site, for several years now. Are you familiar with the previous report of the tests on the “hot cat”? Are you telling us that that report was a “charade”? If so, please provide details of your analysis, as many technically well informed persons have already analyzed that report and have been unable to find substantive flaws in it. Thanks.

        • Mr_ZZZ

          I have tried to answer but the Moderator delete every negative comments to Mr. Rossi’s invention. I haven’t followed this in detail but I don’t think that is necessary to understand the fraud. If this invention was real it would have been so sensational that it would be on the front page of every newspaper and discussed in every corner of the scientific community. So far all testing has been under the control of Rossi. It’s a long time since Rossi delivered working devices. Why don’t we get any reports on them? Ask youself. I think the answer is obvious.

  • clovis ray

    hi, guys,
    Thank you, again Dr.Rossi for keeping your information flowing, as much as possible, i, we know what your plan is, and how you are implementing it, everything in it’s time and place, for already stated purposes, please understand our dilemma as well , we have followed this ground breaking discovery, from the very beginning with all it;s up and downs and twists and turns.
    And how anxious we all are to see it in operation doing real work, and we hope to be rewarded with the truth, facts,and results, we trust you but we also need validation, which you said is forthcoming, we all wait with baited breath, for your final report, on who your partner is and how your device can do such remarkable things,—clovis

  • clovis ray

    hi, guys,
    Thank you, again Dr.Rossi for keeping your information flowing, as much as possible, i, we know what your plan is, and how you are implementing it, everything in it’s time and place, for already stated purposes, please understand our dilemma as well , we have followed this ground breaking discovery, from the very beginning with all it;s up and downs and twists and turns.
    And how anxious we all are to see it in operation doing real work, and we hope to be rewarded with the truth, facts,and results, we trust you but we also need validation, which you said is forthcoming, we all wait with baited breath, for your final report, on who your partner is and how your device can do such remarkable things,—clovis

  • NCkhawk

    Mr. ZZZ – If you’re referencing Defkalion then I think that your position is entirely possible. If you’re talking about Rossi – his project is being resourced and managed by competent investors / responsible value-creators. My guess is that Rossi’s work will continue to be funded as long as progress is being made and contractual agreements are being followed.

  • Video and PDF from the CERN presentation yesterday.
    If hope E-catworld can take on the job to summon up the information from these documents.

    http://www.drboblog.com/cern-cold-fusion/

  • Brad Arnold

    It ought to be obvious that Rossi is having control issues with his E-Cat. The third party validation of the E-Cat HT reactor had the first trial end in meltdown. Of course Rossi and company must must must be sure that their LENR reactors don’t melt down over the long term, otherwise they are only building a castle on a foundation of sand.

  • Alex Shenderov

    My previous comment did not survive moderation – apparently there was something impolite about my question. I wonder what it was.

    The question was, if ECAT really does produce 1MW of heat, where does that heat go?

    The data is either from ECAT product specs or otherwise publicly available. The data is: water boiling temperature, 100C; freezing temperature, 0C; specific heat capacity, 4.2 kJ/(kg*K); ECAT water flowrate, 1,500 rg/hr; 1hr=3,600s. So the heat required is 1,500/3,600*4.2*95=166kW (assuming water comes in at 4C and leaves at 99C, 99-4=95). 167 kW is the stated electric, from-the-grid power consumption of ECAT. Electic water heaters are nearly 100% effective (their heating elements are immersed in water, so the ohmic heat has nowhere else to go).

    So, again, if ECAT really does produce 1MW of heat, where does that heat go?

    The other question is about pricing. A 4.5kW tankless water heater is obtainable for $250, and 40 of them (40*4.5kW=180kW, so the heat transferred to water is the same as for ECAT) – for $10k . Ecat is offered at $1.5M. Why?

  • Alex Shenderov

    My previous comment did not survive moderation – apparently there was something impolite about my question. I wonder what it was.

    The question was, if ECAT really does produce 1MW of heat, where does that heat go?

    The data is either from ECAT product specs or otherwise publicly available. The data is: water boiling temperature, 100C; freezing temperature, 0C; specific heat capacity, 4.2 kJ/(kg*K); ECAT water flowrate, 1,500 rg/hr; 1hr=3,600s. So the heat required is 1,500/3,600*4.2*95=166kW (assuming water comes in at 4C and leaves at 99C, 99-4=95). 167 kW is the stated electric, from-the-grid power consumption of ECAT. Electic water heaters are nearly 100% effective (their heating elements are immersed in water, so the ohmic heat has nowhere else to go).

    So, again, if ECAT really does produce 1MW of heat, where does that heat go?

    The other question is about pricing. A 4.5kW tankless water heater is obtainable for $250, and 40 of them (40*4.5kW=180kW, so the heat transferred to water is the same as for ECAT) – for $10k . Ecat is offered at $1.5M. Why?