An E-Cat Report Outlook (Guest Post)

The following post was submitted by Rick Allen.

It appears that in the near future a team of scientists from across the world will be releasing a report detailing an extended six month test of the E-Cat. The exact contents and conclusion of the report are unknown. No one can be certain of the test methods used or what analysis may have been performed on the “charge” or nickel powder. However, what we already know about the Energy Catalyzer can give us clues about what to expect. Unless something dramatic and unforeseen occurred during the test period or an outside force has interfered – which is unlikely – the report will probably be the most important document produced in the history of cold fusion or LENR research.

The previous report, produced by many of the same scientists working on the upcoming report, utilized a method by which the output of the Hot Cat version of the E-Cat was calculated by measuring the surface temperature of the reactor. After attaining this information with the use of an infrared camera, the scientists were able to determine that significant excess heat was produced – even using conservative estimates.

In the much anticipated upcoming report, similar test methods will most likely be described. But other methods of testing may have also been utilized. Although there is no evidence of this, reviewers may have requested traditional water based calorimetry to be performed. This could be a very good thing, providing an additional verification of excess heat.

When it comes to the results that will be discussed in the report, they will most likely be very positive. This means, in my opinion, a high COP that would represent a technology with the potential to be immediately utilized by industry. There is currently debate on internet forums and websites about what level of COP (power in vs. power out) is required for an industrially viable LENR technology.

Because the Hot Cat is capable of producing very high temperatures, a COP of 6 (six) which Rossi has often described as his minimum goal would be sufficient. Such a high COP combined with high temperatures – capable of producing super critical steam – could allow the E-Cat to be used with high efficiency turbine generators and closed looped. I think a COP of 6 is probably the bare minimum we can expect from this report. If they ran the reactor at higher temperatures (which yields a greater COP) than the previous test, the COP should be higher.

The COP in this test may also be higher due to the fact the “mouse and cat” E-Cat was utilized. My understanding is that in this setup, the mouse, or inner reactor is heated with resistances powered by electrical input. The mouse heats up and stimulates reactions in the cat or outer layer of the device. This setup is supposed to allow for greater stability and COP. Combined with higher temperatures, I think a COP of ten or higher is likely – although in unverified internet rumors a COP of up to 18 has been mentioned.

I think a low COP of two or three is very unlikely. But if the scientists involved only ran the E-Cat at a low temperature and then intentionally made the lowest possible estimates (removing any heat production a single reviewer questioned) of output, it could turn out to be the case. This would not be a disaster for Industrial Heat, of course. We already know the technology can produce a near infinite COP in self sustain mode. In one torture test described by Rossi, an E-Cat with no input produced up to a megawatt of power for a period of seconds while rising from one thousand to two thousand degrees Celsius. The only barrier preventing the COP from being so high in ordinary, long term operation is stability. If there are still issues regarding how high the COP can be without the reactor going out of control, they will quickly be resolved when this technology hits the mainstream.

We can also expect the report to include an analysis of the powder used in the E-Cat. The fuel, a mixture of several different elements including nickel, hydrogen, and perhaps lithium, is the key to producing a working E-Cat. Replication is a critical element of the scientific method, and the scientists involved in this report will hopefully seek to find out how the device works and can be replicated. I hope they not only performed tests to determine the elemental and isotopic composition of the “charge” in both the “mouse” and the “cat”, but also used advanced microscopy to determine the particle size and surface geometry of the nickel. Since we know the size of the powder (micron range) and tubercles are both vital to making the technology work, I hope this information is provided in the report.

To summarize, here are a list of aspects of the E-Cat that I expect will be confirmed in the upcoming report.

1) High Temperature Operation – Temperatures high enough to produce super critical steam.

2) High COP – More than enough energy out than in to allow for close looping.

3) Endurance – Long term operation (many months) without the need for adding fuel.

4) Safety – No radiation and no nuclear waste found.

5) Stability – The capability to run for long periods of time without going out of control or melting down.

6) Cost Effectiveness – The amount of fuel used compared to the power output will be small.

There are also other issues that may be discussed in the report. For example, does the “mouse” and “cat” configuration allow for the output of the device to be throttled up and down quickly, how well does the metal used for the reactor walls hold up against wear and tear, does the output decline at all over a period of months due to fuel degradation or consumption, etc. In addition, we may learn more about the mysterious electrostatic charge that may have been discovered on the inside of the reactor.

For now, all we can do is wait until the report is published. I think the outlook for the report is good, however. The chance of the results being negative is small, and the probability of the results being positive are high.

Rick Allen

  • Good post.

    I’ve got a page set up for assessing the report that covers many of the same issues:
    http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html

    Is there anything you’d like to see me add to it?

    • Broncobet

      LENR G What a cool job you did with that presentation, very well done!! I will be a little excited if the NYT or some mainstream publication writes that they are very excited about this marvelous discovery. Nature or Science would be hard to refute but what are the odds that they would even submit a paper to them?

      • Thanks, Broncobet!

        I want the report NOW but if a longer wait is required to get it into an elite level journal then I will wait patiently. If I were running Nature or Science I sure wouldn’t want somebody else to publish one of the most important discoveries in history.

  • Good post.

    I’ve got a page set up for assessing the report that covers many of the same issues:
    http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html

    Is there anything you’d like to see me add to it?

    • Broncobet

      LENR G What a cool job you did with that presentation, very well done!! I will be a little excited if the NYT or some mainstream publication writes that they are very excited about this marvelous discovery. Nature or Science would be hard to refute but what are the odds that they would even submit a paper to them?

      • Thanks, Broncobet!

        I want the report NOW but if a longer wait is required to get it into an elite level journal then I will wait patiently. If I were running Nature or Science I sure wouldn’t want somebody else to publish one of the most important discoveries in history.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    If the ecat was capable of super critical steam then why are they having difficulty creating electrical power with it instead of just heat? As it is I was thinking they were examining low steam steam engines to tackle the problem.

    If higher temperatures are present then why wouldn’t Rossi have told us and gone after power generation?

    • mwerner

      Super critical steam requires high pressures to keep the water liquid while you heat it above 212 degrees. The hot cat needs to run at a higher temperature. Just throwing water on it would quench the reaction. Building high pressure boilers is not a trivial task and best left for after you understand your heat source completely. This is the sort of thing that IH can hire done.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Yes. I think Siemens was involved in such a pursuit, but every indication from Rossi is that they are pursuing the ecat as a heater still and not too much talk of power generation. Various steam technologies are much more understood than LENR and if the ecat were capable I am sure there would be something suitable in a short time.

      • Probably some kind of intermediate thermal store may be required, such as a large block of cast iron with vertical bores running through it. Some of these would be occupied by replaceable reactor cores, and the rest would act as flash steam generators and superheaters, with water being pumped from below. The reactor cores would probably be mounted at the same level as the latter, to keep their operating temps high.

        Depending on the thermal mass required, the weight and size of such a heat store might preclude automotive use, but could be OK in large ships, locomotives and fixed power plants.

      • Broncobet

        If the reaction is quenched that is the equivalent to saying it doesn’t work. Natural gas,fission,and coal are not “quenched” by having the heat removed. On the contrary all processes work better not worse when the difference in temperature is bigger. It is a foolish distraction for any discussion that goes beyond heating a kettle for tea. Just do that twice and you’re a trillionaire, all the rest is counter productive.

  • Fibb

    Why is there no blurb telling us who the hell Rick Allen is?

    • bachcole

      Rick Allen is a human being who writes well and understands the E-Cat situation thoroughly.

      • pelgrim108

        Are you sure? Could be a dog from the future. You never now.

        • bachcole

          I was merely pointing out that “the hell” was not appropriate or appreciated.

        • Curbina

          Well, that position is already taken by a Shitzu.

    • Frank Acland

      He’s an E-Cat World reader.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      I know a dog named blurb, but he cannot speak.

  • bachcole

    Rick Allen is a human being who writes well and understands the E-Cat situation thoroughly.

    • pelgrim108

      Are you sure? Could be a dog from the future. You never now.

      • Curbina

        Well, that position is already taken by a Shitzu.

  • ronzonni

    I don’t understand the purpose of speculation about this while Rossi is saying the results could be positive or negative in almost every post he writes. We just have to wait and see. It gets more and more difficult to understand the reasons for the delays about something this important to the entire world. Can’t someone build a fire under the testers?

  • ronzonni

    I don’t understand the purpose of speculation about this while Rossi is saying the results could be positive or negative in almost every post he writes. We just have to wait and see. It gets more and more difficult to understand the reasons for the delays about something this important to the entire world. Can’t someone build a fire under the testers?

    • friendlyprogrammer

      The last report was rushed out and everyone involved was scoffed at and had their reputations tarnished among mainstream advocates. Maybe the investigative parties are waiting for tenure first.

      • Broncobet

        They all have tenure.

    • Broncobet

      It’s been twenty five years since the great Pons and Flieshman awed the world, is it too much to ask for you to wait another twenty five??

      • Omega Z

        Another Twenty five years is pushing it. But I agree, I’d rather they take their time & do it right then to hurry & screw it up. Hmm. Last time they rushed it did cause a twenty five year delay.

  • WaltC

    I’d also expect the report to delve into the theory of where the energy comes from (H->D, or whatever) and to examine the “ash” to confirm or disprove their theory.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      I’m pretty sure they will still not be allowed to open the ecat.. Rossi has never allowed it before. Why do people keep talking about measuring the ingredients before and after?

      • Broncobet

        The government wants disruptive change.That’s what we got with our very small investment in the national lab that does FF’s. Between them and oil man Walace they’ve made this country trillions of dollars richer and stronger by fracking and directional drilling. The doe through ARPA has a program just for LENR not for basic research,but for things to prove it and make it pay. We can fund a thousand programs and if all fail except one we come out way ahead. It’s called “swinging for the fences”. It is very odd that we’ve heard no one mention that they have one of these grants people are usually pretty proud of it.This is the last week to apply as it was announced last year.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Thanks Rick, that about sums it up. Now tell me when and how much the fossil fuel markets will react to the news. (:

    • Broncobet

      If you were very sure that these reports are true you could easily multiply your money a hundred times by shorting FF futures on the futures markets, pick something in the future five or six years say natural gas it’s $4 in the US if reports are true that contract will easily go to $2 or less. But you would have to be sure that all these people are not lying, are you sure? If you do nothing and these reports are honest then the contracts will lose some value every day which of course would make anyone who shorted them very wealthy. But people can never keep quiet about a secret like this so they will bet on it, that we are not seeing any action means that no one with money believes it.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        I dont think it’s possible to short investments for the length of time required for this. Purchasers would want to see their paperwork far sooner than months down the road. I once sold stocks at a profit to someone who had shorted them earlier and lost his bet.

        You say no action on the stock market means nobody with money believes it. I will take that a step further and suggest the government has purposefully withheld patents and support because this is labelled as a disruptive tech that could throw the stock markets into a frenzy.

        I think the safer bet is to invest in companies that produce electric motors and other products that will expand a hundredfold with the advent of cheap and portable electric power. 600 million cars and trucks will be wanting electric or hydrogen engines for the first decade or so.

        If the Chief research scientist at NASA Langley is heralding LENR as gospel then we can bet our bottom dollar that Obama and other senior staff know it is coming, but if they support it they could cause riots in the streets while bankers leap from their windows.

        • Broncobet

          Thanks for the reply. It is the easiest thing in the world to short the 2024 natural gas contract ,just pick up the phone. You are free to have a contract with great leverage or less. All you need is faith that they are not lying. Would you really be so angry if they were? We could just view Rossi as that lovable scoundrel or a modern Robbin Hood stealing from the rich and stupid. I see him as a hero either way; we either get a great new energy source or a really good story. For a holywood movie it would work better if it was all an illusion, what a magician!!

        • Broncobet

          I never said anything about the stock market. There are very pure ways of betting. The futures markets and options on futures Pick up the phone and call someone you’ve Googled who handels this sort of thing. Short the 2024 natural gas contract. As I have stated before ,there can be no announcement of a new energy source without a signal being sent from these futures markets because people will always profit if they hear of it first and people would of heard that which was supposed to be secret. Humans making profits have never kept secrets, it’s too tempting. I just hope I am so totally wrong about all of this and you all can tease me for years about the week when I had my doubts!!

  • Fortyniner

    Probably some kind of intermediate thermal store may be required, such as a large block of cast iron with vertical bores running through it. Some of these would be occupied by replaceable reactor cores, and the rest would act as flash steam generators and superheaters, with water being pumped from below. The reactor cores would probably be mounted at the same level as the latter, to keep their operating temps high.

    Depending on the thermal mass required, the weight might preclude automotive use, but could be OK in large ships, locomotives and fixed power plants.

  • Doug Cutler

    One of the chief criticisms of the previous test was its failure to categorically eliminate a DC line fake. Power In was not monitored for DC current theoretically leaving a back door to sneak in undetected power.

    Its pretty clear from follow up discussion that testers became aware of/sensitized to this issue and will almost certainly have taken measures to remove this objection with the new testing protocol.

    • Broncobet

      The government wants disruptive change.That’s what we got with our very small investment in the national lab that does FF’s. Between them and oil man Walace they’ve made this country trillions of dollars richer and stronger by fracking and directional drilling. The doe through ARPA has a program just for LENR not for basic research,but for things to prove it and make it pay. We can fund a thousand programs and if all fail except one we come out way ahead. It’s called “swinging for the fences”. It is very odd that we’ve heard no one mention that they have one of these grants people are usually pretty proud of it.This is the last week to apply as it was announced last year.

    • Omega Z

      Albert
      There all E-cats. 2 versions. High temp & Low temp.
      Rossi has been conservative on the COP because reaching higher COP runs into stability & control issues. 1.5 years ago, he developed the 2 stage E-cat- Drive/Reactor to deal with these issues. To date, we have very little knowledge of.

      Note the 1 you keep pointing to, This was the original configuration. the high temp E-cat(COP=2.9) was run at a conservative temperature to avoid a runaway melt down as happened in the 2nd test. Hard to test when they melt.

      Also note that this test was for the validation that the E-cat generated excess heat. COP>1.(It Works) It was not their intent to see how high a COP could be achieved. In fact, it is in continuous R&D/evolution & that number is due to change so testing for that would be meaningless.

      As Industrial Heat purchased Rossi’s technology a year & a half ago, Rossi has been working with about a dozen experts in their field to advance this technology. Other then the Mouse/Cat configuration, Rossi has been tight lipped on what Info he divulges. He is now but the Chief Scientist who works for/with Industrial Heat.

      They have placed a low temp 1Mw E-cat into a customers facilities who uses low temp heat/steam in their process. Whatever that is will in time be made public.

      We also await the publishing of an additional long term (approximately 6 month millions of data points) test report done by people from multiple universities, multiple countries.

      Regardless the outcome, Many of us follow this development because it’s important to the world. You can follow along or go on your marry way. I chose to follow.
      Also I have no delusions. Even if it works perfectly & develops to a COP>20, it will take several years to start to emerge & decades to transition. I’m old enough, I see little or no benefit for me, except I may get to see it’s birth. I’m good with that…

      • Albert D. Kallal

        The issue of a higher COP with higher temperatures is NOT a supported
        claim or view at this point in time.

        A claim here was MADE IN PUBLIC that states a higher COP
        will result from the hot cat (h-cat) as opposed to the regular e-cat. As I
        stated based on history, and even charts of the LENR heat effect show COP going down as outputs increase. It is simply a hollow claim that is not based on any first hand knowledge, nor any knowledge that been divulged by the players in this field.

        I choose like you to follow this story and I ALSO choose
        to uphold statements and claims made on this subject to the basic qualities of truth, logic and complying with the body of evidence we so far on this subject.

        As I stated, such a claim of higher COP’s with h-cats is
        not known and contradicts the current body of evidence. Maybe the claim is correct, maybe it is wrong – but as such this claim is SHEER SPECULATION unless some collaborating evidence is provided. In “most” systems higher temperatures will by basic reason produce a higher COP, but LENR has not (so far) shown this to be the case because one is also attempting to increase energy outputs. (one tiny hot spot with a higher COP is not as usefaul has “many” spots at a lower tempature with more useful overall wattage output).

        And as for adoption rate? It took about 40 years for the
        telephone to reach 90% of households. It Took the VCR about 10 years to reach 70% of households.

        And while the DVD was the fastest adopted consumer product
        ever (it sold 350,000 units the first year), today products like the iPad when launched sold 4 MILLION in the FIRST quarter. And it only been about 7 years since mp3 music “really” took off, and now CD’s are dead.

        We are quite much are experaince what Alvin Toffer called
        “Future Shock” in the book of the same name. That term describes too much change in a short period of time. The smartphone revolution is ONLY about 5 years old (imagine that only 5 years old!!!).

        If the e-cat plant delivers heat energy at below current
        market costs and is reliable?

        Given so far based on the “relative” simplicity of the
        e-cat (at least from a manufacturing point of view), then I would suspect that adoption rates will accelerate at an ASTOUNDING paces after about 3-5 years and that “critical” mass of awareness is reached about this technology. If reliability and a good COP is obtained, this will not take decades- it will hardly take one decade the e-cat delivers.

        Regards,
        Albert k

  • Doug Cutler

    One of the chief criticisms of the previous test was its failure to categorically eliminate a DC line fake. Power In was not monitored for DC current theoretically leaving a back door to sneak in undetected power.

    Its pretty clear from follow up discussion that testers became aware of/sensitized to this issue and will almost certainly have taken measures to remove this objection with the new testing protocol.

    • bachcole

      Certainly.

      I doubt if all of the venture capitalists and engineers since the 2013 test have failed to look close at that DC wire issue and they are all so stupid as to miss it. This is where faith in other human beings helps to connect the dots.

      • Doug Cutler

        Faith is one of those words of slippery meaning that plays little role in science; I fact, good research is designed to eliminate the need for it altogether.

        The involvement of venture capital is an encouraging development but in its pre-deployment phase how many heads has it turned really? Not nearly as many as will a positive result from a well-designed peer-reviewed study.

        • Omega Z

          Doug
          This test is completely setup by those doing the test.
          DC voltage is ruled out due to this fact.
          Surely they wouldn’t connect DC to their own mains. Right.

          Incidentally, If I fed DC voltage through your AC mains, many of your electronic devises would not respond very well to it. So those testing the e-cat having their own equipment hooked up to that main would have had issues.

          But regardless, It will be a non issue this time. It’s half a world away from Rossi’s Lab.

          • Doug Cutler

            I agree. A markedly superior methodology is expected across a number of variables. I only mentioned the issue of power input monitoring because it was overlooked in the article above and because it was a huge bone of contention from the previous round.

            Looking forward to the test results . . .

          • Omega Z

            Actually Doug “WE” may have had excess expectations from the 1st test. Consider it was only a preliminary test to see if it warranted a more vigorous examination.
            It served it’s purpose for those involved & gave them an Idea on how to follow up. Sooo, Not so bad a test…

        • bachcole

          Your post turns on a light for me. Peer review is great for eliminating the bad. It is terrible at including the good.

        • bachcole

          “Faith is one of those words of slippery meaning that plays little role in science.” Perhaps in confirmation faith is completely wrong. But in exploration, discovery, and to a lesser extent development, it is absolutely essential. Columbus was WRONG in his theory, yet with his faith he made by far the largest geographical discovery ever. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

          • Broncobet

            In the Bible faith is defined as “an unseen but hoped for result” (hope I got that right).

        • Broncobet

          Good point, but you ask more than they can provide. I look forward to a good report from the professors but I will bet a boatload of cash it won’t be well designed peer reviewed. If they could do that they would have done it long ago.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    On what basis is the claim that the hot cat has a higher
    COP? Where has this been shown?

    In fact from the report posted here (does anyone read this stuff???).
    http://www.e-catworld.com/may-2013-3rd-party-test/
    For regular cat:

    Total calculated power production per hour = 2034 W
    COP = 2034/360 = 5.6

    So we have a COP of 5.6
    For the hot cat we have:

    Emitted power was calculated as 816 Watts, and power
    consumption at 322 Watts per hour, giving a COP of 2.9

    So HOT cat COP = 2.9

    So CLEARLY based on the LAST report we saw a MUCH lower
    COP for the HOT cat.

    And Rossi has stated this new plant is NOT based on the
    HOT cat (this stands to reason since the so far we seen that HOT cats have a
    MUCH LOWER COP).

    So is this claim of a higher COP with hot cats a sheer speculation
    or is there ANY credible evidence to back up this claim?

    I mean, if such a higher COP, then why would the expected
    plant not use the new HOT cats then?

    And virtually EVERYTHING I read on LENR shows that at
    VERY low power outputs, then COP’s of 20 VERY easy to obtain. As you
    ramp up the output, then the COP falls dramatic – so much so that the main
    problem with LENR is commercial viable outputs of power, not that the effect exists.

    So EVERYTHING I read so far suggests that higher output
    reactions and especially HIGHER temperatures result in a LOWER COP.

    So, this begs the question:

    What evidence do we have for the higher temperature e-cats
    having higher COP when everything points to this being the reverse? I mean,
    this is simply wild speculation on Rick Allen’s part unless there is some information
    that supports this view when EVERYTHING I read does not support this view.

    And the fact that Rossi is not using hot-cats for this new reactor
    likely again supports this view of reduced COP for the higher temperature e-cats.

    Regards
    Albert k

    • Omega Z

      All Hot-Cat tests.
      Test #1 Hot-cat. COP-5.6
      Test #2 went into runaway & melted down. Report gave no data.
      Test #3 Hot-cat. COP-2.9
      These numbers were measured very conservatively. If in doubt, error to the lower level.
      The energy density was based on 1 gram. It was actually .3 gram.
      Test #3 was run at the lowest temps of the 3.

      You have it backwards.
      The COP increases exponentially as the temperature increases.

      The issue is when operating at higher temps, stability & control are harder to maintain. Rossi has implemented a change which is now a 2 stage system. This is intended to improve control to avoid runaways at higher operating temperatures.

      2 Stage System. Contains a Drive reactor which activates & controls the main reactor. The main reactor has no external power connected to it. Known as the Mouse/Cat setup.

      The aim of the Hot cat is primarily for Electrical generation. This will require a substantial amount of R&D. Producing high quality steam with basically a heating element is different then using fossil fuels such as N-gas. Tho it produces cheap heat, the device itself will be substantially more expensive then the gas burners it will replace. Thus R&D to find a cheaper means of producing them. The Boilers themselves will need purpose design to interface with the E-cats & turbines. I would suggest to IH/Rossi to look to nuclear plant boiler systems. Likely a similar design would work tho to smaller scale. No shielding will be needed to speak of.

      Why start out with the low temp E-cat. It’s far closer to marketability.
      Due to lower operating temperatures & just over 1 BAR of pressure they can use cheaper hardware. Much simpler & cheaper to implement. The Hot cats likely will operate in the 10’s of BAR pressure.

      Note the lowtemp E-cats will still have a COP>6 Guaranteed. My understanding is they operate on a slightly different principle.
      Think of it as the 1st cell phone.(The Brick.)
      The Smart phone/hot cat will follow after additional R&D…

      PS. The runaway melt down went from about 1000’C to 2000’C in about 10 seconds. According to those who observed it(Testers I presume) It likely produced about 1 Million watts of heat in that time period to melt the stainless steel & ceramics. The stainless steel turned white/blue. The nickel would have melted at 1525’C & the reaction would stop. Still the temperature increased momentarily.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    On what basis is the claim that the hot cat has a higher
    COP? Where has this been shown?

    In fact from the report posted here (does anyone read this stuff???).
    http://www.e-catworld.com/may-2013-3rd-party-test/
    For regular cat:

    Total calculated power production per hour = 2034 W
    COP = 2034/360 = 5.6

    So we have a COP of 5.6
    For the hot cat we have:

    Emitted power was calculated as 816 Watts, and power
    consumption at 322 Watts per hour, giving a COP of 2.9

    So HOT cat COP = 2.9

    So CLEARLY based on the LAST report we saw a MUCH lower
    COP for the HOT cat.

    And Rossi has stated this new plant is NOT based on the
    HOT cat (this stands to reason since the so far we seen that HOT cats have a
    MUCH LOWER COP).

    So is this claim of a higher COP with hot cats a sheer speculation
    or is there ANY credible evidence to back up this claim?

    I mean, if such a higher COP, then why would the expected
    plant not use the new HOT cats then?

    And virtually EVERYTHING I read on LENR shows that at
    VERY low power outputs, then COP’s of 20 VERY easy to obtain. As you
    ramp up the output, then the COP falls dramatic – so much so that the main
    problem with LENR is commercial viable outputs of power, not that the effect exists.

    So EVERYTHING I read so far suggests that higher output
    reactions and especially HIGHER temperatures result in a LOWER COP.

    So, this begs the question:

    What evidence do we have for the higher temperature e-cats
    having higher COP when everything points to this being the reverse? I mean,
    this is simply wild speculation on Rick Allen’s part unless there is some information
    that supports this view when EVERYTHING I read does not support this view.

    And the fact that Rossi is not using hot-cats for this new reactor
    likely again supports this view of reduced COP for the higher temperature e-cats.

    Regards
    Albert k

    • Omega Z

      All Hot-Cat tests.
      Test #1 Hot-cat. COP-5.6
      Test #2 went into runaway & melted down. Report gave no data.
      Test #3 Hot-cat. COP-2.9
      These numbers were measured very conservatively. If in doubt, error to the lower level.
      The energy density was based on 1 gram. It was actually .3 gram.
      Test #3 was run at the lowest temps of the 3.

      You have it backwards.
      The COP increases exponentially as the temperature increases.

      The issue is when operating at higher temps, stability & control are harder to maintain. Rossi has implemented a change which is now a 2 stage system. This is intended to improve control to avoid runaways at higher operating temperatures.

      2 Stage System. Contains a Drive reactor which activates & controls the main reactor. The main reactor has no external power connected to it. Known as the Mouse/Cat setup.

      The aim of the Hot cat is primarily for Electrical generation. This will require a substantial amount of R&D. Producing high quality steam with basically a heating element is different then using fossil fuels such as N-gas. Tho it produces cheap heat, the device itself will be substantially more expensive then the gas burners it will replace. Thus R&D to find a cheaper means of producing them. The Boilers themselves will need purpose design to interface with the E-cats & turbines. I would suggest to IH/Rossi to look to nuclear plant boiler systems. Likely a similar design would work tho to smaller scale. No shielding will be needed to speak of.

      Why start out with the low temp E-cat. It’s far closer to marketability.
      Due to lower operating temperatures & just over 1 BAR of pressure they can use cheaper hardware. Much simpler & cheaper to implement. The Hot cats likely will operate in the 10’s of BAR pressure.

      Note the lowtemp E-cats will still have a COP>6 Guaranteed. My understanding is they operate on a slightly different principle.
      Think of it as the 1st cell phone.(The Brick.)
      The Smart phone/hot cat will follow after additional R&D…

      PS. The runaway melt down went from about 1000’C to 2000’C in about 10 seconds. According to those who observed it(Testers I presume) It likely produced about 1 Million watts of heat in that time period to melt the stainless steel & ceramics. The stainless steel turned white/blue. The nickel would have melted at 1525’C & the reaction would stop. Still the temperature increased momentarily.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Thanks for the follow up. I read that report as showing the
        normal e-cat at 5.6 and the h-cat at 2.9. Upon further reading we see that BOTH
        TESTS were on the h-cats.

        Since both tests are on the h-cat, then we ARE STILL back
        to speculation on h-cats having higher COP then e-cats. Again, what evidence
        has been provided for this claim? (I all happy if such evidence exists – I not
        seen or been able to find as such).

        Given those numbers are for h-cat only? We thus don’t have any credible comparison to normal h-cats. Therefore by logic, then AGAIN this claim is speculation that h-cats will have higher COP’s then e-cats unless some evidence is provided. I am open and most have to be pointed to such evidence, but have not found or see as such at this point in time.

        It is certainly understandable that Rossi’s going with
        normal e-cats due to control/safety and longevity. However this AGAIN means we are looking at a COP’s LESS then 5.6 or less then 2.9 unless the regular e-cats have increased their COP’s beyond that of h-cats.

        At the end of the day, there no data or test that shows
        or supports those h-cats have higher COPs then e-cats. (they may, or may not).
        However, given the history of LENR devices, as watts per devices go up, the COP falls and I not see anything change this issue).

        Assuming that h-cats have a COP of 2.9-5.6?

        Then should one assume that the e-cat will have a LOWER
        cop. Dropping below 2.9 don’t look too good, does it? And below 5.6 is not
        that great either. Perhaps Rossi knows this?

        So far the numbers given don’t change past history of
        LENR devices either way.

        I am STILL of the view that the e-cats will have higher
        COP’s then the test numbers for h-cats. At least I am hoping as such, and such
        hope is not blind based, but based on past history of LENR devices.

        If for some strange reason (and I don’t have a reason)
        that I am wrong, and h-cats DO HAVE higher outputs then e-cats?

        Then forthcoming test report by logic likely will produce
        results of LESS then the 2.9-5.6 range we seen for h-cats.

        Regards,
        Albert k

        • Omega Z

          Albert
          There all E-cats. 2 versions. High temp & Low temp.
          Rossi has been conservative on the COP because reaching higher COP runs into stability & control issues. 1.5 years ago, he developed the 2 stage E-cat- Drive/Reactor to deal with these issues. To date, we have very little knowledge of.

          Note the 1 you keep pointing to, This was the original configuration. the high temp E-cat(COP=2.9) was run at a conservative temperature to avoid a runaway melt down as happened in the 2nd test. Hard to test when they melt.

          Also note that this test was for the validation that the E-cat generated excess heat. COP>1.(It Works) It was not their intent to see how high a COP could be achieved. In fact, it is in continuous R&D/evolution & that number is due to change so testing for that would be meaningless.

          As Industrial Heat purchased Rossi’s technology a year & a half ago, Rossi has been working with about a dozen experts in their field to advance this technology. Other then the Mouse/Cat configuration, Rossi has been tight lipped on what Info he divulges. He is now but the Chief Scientist who works for/with Industrial Heat.

          They have placed a low temp 1Mw E-cat into a customers facilities who uses low temp heat/steam in their process. Whatever that is will in time be made public.

          We also await the publishing of an additional long term (approximately 6 month millions of data points) test report done by people from multiple universities, multiple countries.

          Regardless the outcome, Many of us follow this development because it’s important to the world. You can follow along or go on your marry way. I chose to follow.
          Also I have no delusions. Even if it works perfectly & develops to a COP>20, it will take several years to start to emerge & decades to transition. I’m old enough, I see little or no benefit for me, except I may get to see it’s birth. I’m good with that…

          • Albert D. Kallal

            The issue of a higher COP with higher temperatures is NOT a supported
            claim or view at this point in time.

            A claim here was MADE IN PUBLIC that states a higher COP
            will result from the hot cat (h-cat) as opposed to the regular e-cat. As I
            stated based on history, and even charts of the LENR heat effect show COP going down as outputs increase. It is simply a hollow claim that is not based on any first hand knowledge, nor any knowledge that been divulged by the players in this field.

            I choose like you to follow this story and I ALSO choose
            to uphold statements and claims made on this subject to the basic qualities of truth, logic and complying with the body of evidence we so far on this subject.

            As I stated, such a claim of higher COP’s with h-cats is
            not known and contradicts the current body of evidence. Maybe the claim is correct, maybe it is wrong – but as such this claim is SHEER SPECULATION unless some collaborating evidence is provided. In “most” systems higher temperatures will by basic reason produce a higher COP, but LENR has not (so far) shown this to be the case because one is also attempting to increase energy outputs. (one tiny hot spot with a higher COP is not as usefaul has “many” spots at a lower tempature with more useful overall wattage output).

            And as for adoption rate? It took about 40 years for the
            telephone to reach 90% of households. It Took the VCR about 10 years to reach 70% of households.

            And while the DVD was the fastest adopted consumer product
            ever (it sold 350,000 units the first year), today products like the iPad when launched sold 4 MILLION in the FIRST quarter. And it only been about 7 years since mp3 music “really” took off, and now CD’s are dead.

            We are quite much are experaince what Alvin Toffer called
            “Future Shock” in the book of the same name. That term describes too much change in a short period of time. The smartphone revolution is ONLY about 5 years old (imagine that only 5 years old!!!).

            If the e-cat plant delivers heat energy at below current
            market costs and is reliable?

            Given so far based on the “relative” simplicity of the
            e-cat (at least from a manufacturing point of view), then I would suspect that adoption rates will accelerate at an ASTOUNDING paces after about 3-5 years and that “critical” mass of awareness is reached about this technology. If reliability and a good COP is obtained, this will not take decades- it will hardly take one decade the e-cat delivers.

            Regards,
            Albert k

  • Omega Z

    Another Twenty five years is pushing it. But I agree, I’d rather they take their time & do it right then to hurry & screw it up. Hmm. Last time they rushed it did cause a twenty five year delay.