COP eCat between 125 and 143….(?)

Here’s a question sent by John Schut:

“Did I understood correctly that Anrea Rossi has indirectly stated that the COP of the eCat is between 125 and 143? This because he stated that the eCat uses 7 à 8 KWatt/hour while producing 1 MWatt/hour.”

John’s question is based on a statement made by Andrea Rossi yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics when asked by a reader what the input power was when the 1 MW plant was in self-sustain mode, including consumption of the air conditioner and ‘entertaining gadgets.’

Rossi replied:

Andrea Rossi
August 1st, 2015 at 7:00 PM
Alexvs:
Rethinking, what you ask for can be answered: the comsume of current when the 1MW E-Cat is in ssm, producing 1 MWh/h is betwen 7 and 8 kWh/h. The air conditioner is not included, because powered from a source independent from the E-Cat, as well as the light. Entertaining gadgets are Physics books, they do not consume current. The current is consumed by the control panels, triacs, transformers, safety systems.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Someone responded by asking Rossi if this meant that the COP would be between 125 and 142 (as John asked)

Rossi responded:

“You must make a distinction between the ssm and the non ssm cycles. We will give the data related to the performance of the 1 MW E-Cat after the end of the tests on course.
For example now, at 7.54 a.m. of Sunday August 2, She is not in ssm; all stable, all good, no problems by now, and the control system has put Her in not ssm mode.”

So at this point it really is not possible to know the average COP of the plant, because we don’t know the duration of the SSM periods in comparison to the non-SSM periods. We don’t have any data to go by, except the spot-checking we get when Rossi is asked on the JONP what the plant is doing at a particular moment. I have tried to compile those responses on this thread:

http://www.e-catworld.com/rossis-1mw-plant-performance-updates/

From the responses compiled, Rossi says that out of 14 entries, 10 times he mentions that the plant is in SSM, 4 times the plant is “stable”. A reading once in a while is random, however, and I’m not sure we can determine a statistically significant pattern from these data points.

  • Gerald

    Maybe ssm is the most boring and Rossi has time left to read his blog. Can’t remember reading it somewhere but I guess the plant is under 24×7 human monitoring?

    • Frank Acland

      Yes, for this test it is. I think the plan is that you won’t need to have that round-the-clock monitoring in working plants.

      • Gerald

        In the future 24 hour monitoring won’t probably be necessarily. My guess is that the first customers are big heat users (or cooling like a datacenter) and they mostly have already 24×7 thechnical support on side. So the technical employes only need to be educated how the plant works and affects their normal process. Probably remote support will be used in case of unexpected events.

        I’m thinking jobs now. Educated people, support, repair etc etc. It will take a lot of (old) new people who know how energy(heat) transfer works. By my experience the people now working that area are very old fashion using nature laws as we know it now. So in first they will be very septic but once they know and trust there’s a box container size who gives controllable heat at a profitable cost they will go mental upgrading there old systems. No doubt.

  • Buck

    CORRECTION: My original post was in error, an error caught by Seppo. I have now updated the table to reflect the correction.

    Further, the initial two COPS (3.2 and 3.6) utilize the COPs from the Lugano report, COPS generated under full power . . . no SSM.

    My apologies for the error.

    ========================

    For fun, I assumed that in Powered Mode the COP reflects the Lugano Report of 3.2 and 3.6; in SSM mode the COP is 125, the more conservative value presented above. I have also included Pow’rd Mode COP values of 4 and 5 as Rossi has been refining his control mechanisms and construction of the ECat. He obviously knows that the higher the COP can be during Powered Mode, the greater the value of the E-Cat and Hot-Cat

    The first two columns below represent the proportion of time divided between the two modes.
    The last four columns hopefully are plain to understand.

    To me, the table below easily affirms that the projected COP is near the rumored range of 20-80 from some months back. Further, the 20-80 COP rumored range suggests that Rossi is able to achieve ECat stability with between about 2% and 15% powered mode.

    Pow’rd . . . SSM . . . . .Projected COP (w/ Powered COP = ~)
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.2 . . . . . 3.6 . . . . . 4.0 . . . . . 5.0
    01% . . . . .99% . . . . . . . 91 . . . . . 93 . . . . . 96 . . . . . .101
    02% . . . . .98% . . . . . . . 71 . . . . . 75 . . . . . 78 . . . . . . 84
    03% . . . . .97% . . . . . . . 58 . . . . . 62 . . . . . 66 . . . . . . 73
    04% . . . . .96% . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . 53 . . . . . 57 . . . . . . 64
    05% . . . . .95% . . . . . . . 43 . . . . . 47 . . . . . 50 . . . . . . 57
    10% . . . . .90% . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . 29 . . . . . 31 . . . . . . 37
    15% . . . . .85% . . . . . . . 19 . . . . . 21 . . . . . 23 . . . . . . 27
    20% . . . . .80% . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . 16 . . . . . 18 . . . . . . 22

    AFTERTHOUGHT:
    Rossi’s disclosure suggests a change in Rossi’s/IH’s outlook. I prefer to perceive this as an increase in optimism. A willingness to show how dramatic the displacement of traditional power sources can be (95-99% displacement). That their plans for the market are robust. That pricing will allow for market penetration.

    I am left feeling far more positive.

    • If I am not mistaken, to get COP, you need to divide the average output power by the average input power. For 80% SSM you will get 0.8 x 8 kW + 0.2 x 1000/3 kW = 6.4 + 67 = ca. 73 kW, resulting in COP = 13.7 which is quite good. in case SSM would prevail 95% of time: 0.95 x 8 kW + 0.05 x 1000/3 kW = 7,6 + 16.7 = ca. 24.3 kW and COP = 41.2

      • artefact

        if the COP is between 20 and 80 there should be a very high ssm ratio. ( http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=626: )

        between 87/13 (COP 19,88) and 99/1 (COP 88,86)

      • Buck

        Seppo . . . I stand corrected. Thank you. You are right.

        I’ll be back later today to use the COP figures from the Lugano report . . . a test conducted under full power at all times . . . no SSM.

    • artefact

      as reference Rossis post:

      “Andrea Rossi
      July 28th, 2015 at 4:01 PM
      Gerry Carillon:
      We reached 1380°C and resisted for about 10 hours at that temperature, of which 8 hours in ssm.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.”

      • Gerrit

        Based on current infos we can conclude that a COP of 20 seems very conservative. The range is more likely COP 60-100.

        CORRECTION:
        Buck’s calculation above doesn’t work. 20% non-SSM with a cop of 3 will never get a total COP higher than 15. (even if the SSM COP >>1000.)

        To reach COP 60 the SSM must be 95% AND non-SSM must have a COP of 6.

        I now think a COP of 20-60 is more likely.

        • artefact

          I thing Seppo below has it correct.

    • georgehants

      Buck, at a cop of your lowest, say 64 what would this mean for the % of present industrial power that could be replaced by e-cats at a worthwhile cost advantage?
      Assuming capital and maintenance costs equal to gas.

      • Buck

        George,

        a COP of 64 would displace about 98.44% of the electricity historically purchased from the grid.

        Put differently, with a COP of 64, you would only need to buy $1.56 of grid power to get $100 worth of heat.

        Please note, this provides a HUGE margin to Rossi’s/IH’s business even if they set their E-Cat pricing to save the customer 50% off the customer’s traditional monthly industrial power bill. It would seem to be like printing money.

        Now, what plant manager wouldn’t want a 50% reduction in energy costs in COGS? And there is essentially no carbon footprint or pollution.

        • georgehants

          Buck that sounds stunning, we have just asked Mr. Rossi the below question if it gets through moderation and he answers.
          I wonder if others on page agree with your helpful estimates?
          ———-
          Dear Mr. Rossi if you are allowed to answer, could you say, allowing for
          your fuel mixture to be very complicated, when mass-produced will it’s
          manufacturing cost be expensive compared to say just plain Nickle?
          Best Wishes

          • georgehants

            Mr. Rossi has replied ——-
            Andrea Rossi
            August 2nd, 2015 at 3:41 PM
            Jackie:
            What I can say is that the price of the charge is irrelevant, due to the tiny amount of it respect the energy produced.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

  • georgehants

    It is good of Mr. Rossi to continue to give out these bits of information, that all put together tell us a good deal about the situation.
    It is defiantly worthwhile to keep watching as any day more disclosures could be coming, plus the many replication attempts may at anytime show something new or spectacular.
    Never in the field of science was so much owed by so many to so few

  • John Schut

    The two ways of calculating the COP (Buck vs. Seppo/artefact) lead to two totally different results. Which approach is the truly correct one?

  • Well, Rossi certainly seems to be the leader today. As it appears the Solar Hydrogen Trends device is just a battery, not an energy source at all, their COP has to be less than 1. Defkalion claimed a COP far above 20, but where is their product now? They have been silent so long it appears they hit a roadblock or were bought up by a secretive larger corporation. Brillouin has interesting ideas, but has never proven a high COP. The simplified hot fusion companies are years away from having a usable product, but long term they could be competition.

  • Well, Rossi certainly seems to be the leader today. As it appears the Solar Hydrogen Trends device is just a battery, not an energy source at all, their COP has to be less than 1. Defkalion claimed a COP far above 20, but where is their product now? They have been silent so long it appears they hit a roadblock or were bought up by a secretive larger corporation. Brillouin has interesting ideas, but has never proven a high COP. The simplified hot fusion companies are years away from having a usable product, but long term they could be competition.

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Just thinking of future innovations;
    If the control systems puts the whole plant in SSM, seems to me disturbing, when from the amount of individually controllable pumps one can imagine that each reactor has it’s own pump to regulate the cooling.
    Then each reactor should have it’s own contoller also, and then it is unlikely to me that all reactors together would go to SSM.
    Hmm. From somewhere I waguely remember that inside a “group” the menstrual cycle of female seems to syncronace over time, also some pendulum systems do it!
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/24/portuguese-scientists-discover-why-pendulum-clocks-swing-together

  • John Schut

    It has become clear that the way in which the COP must be calculated is the way Seppo/artefact did. My earlier graph gave the illusion that only high COP’s really matter, but the graph below better shows that a higher SSM percentage is linearly profitable.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Actually, would not 80% ssm at a COP cop of say 8 give you

      Think of 10 units of energy.

      Input: 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 2 units of energy supplied
      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
      Output:8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 = 80 units out

      80/2
      So your COP will be 40.

      At 90% ssm (9 units), then you get 80/1 = 80

      If the static COP is only 3, then at 80% SSM

      then taking original 80% of 80% (8 units), then:

      Input: 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 2 units in
      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
      Output:3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 = 30 units out

      30/2 then cop = 15

      Of course the above assumes a “constant” output when in
      SSM, and I suspect it more of a “downward” curve that the controller “kicks” on
      the power before the curve drops below the tempature in which the LENR effect stops.

      So perhaps another analogy is those guys that spin plates – you run around and give each plate a spin like this (think of EACH plate as a LENR reactor core!). Just needs a “spin” once in awhile to keep going!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhoos1oY404

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • John Schut

        I don’t really understand your remark.
        I get the impression that you mixup COP and Output(?).
        You speak of 90% ssm (9 units), but the input is still 8×0 (which must be 9×0).
        Furthermore you set the output differently, while it should be always the same (1 mW/h because that’s the output of the E-Cat).The COP is nothing more or less then the outputed 1 mW/h divided by the totally inputted power.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          thanks – that is a type-o – yes I mean 9 units for the 2nd example of same cop, but THEN I go back to original 8 units with a different COP – I edited the post to make this more clear.

  • Uncle Bob

    I’m really surprised that the matter of whether the 1MW e_cat is in ssm mode or not always seems to be answered as in ssm or not in ssm.
    I thought the idea of having multiple reactors would be that there would always a number of reactors drawing supply power while others would be operating in self sustain mode.
    That way both the input power and output power would be far more regular.

    By having the whole 1 MW device either in ssm or not in ssm, means the input power requirement would jump between the stated 7 kilowatts and a presumed 250 kilowatts, and the output power would probably be equally irregular.
    This would severely affect the usefulness of the device..
    Maybe someone might like to ask why the device is being operated in this manner, either in ssm or not in ssm, because the updates always indicate this to be the case.
    I don’t ever recollect a report stating “Partially in ssm as always”‘

    • We do not know the details of how the control unit works. Probably it tries to keep the output power stable at 1 MW. I do not either recollect a statement “Partially in ssm as always” so I think we should assume “SSM or not SSM”. I do not see any problem with that and do not believe we will get the control unit details at this stage.

      • Frank Acland

        Frank Acland
        August 4th, 2015 at 10:48 AM
        Dear Andrea,

        Is it possible for the 1 MW plant to be in ‘partial’ SSM — meaning that some reactors are in SSM, while other are in non-SSM?

        Or is it the case that in SSM, the whole plant is self-sustaining?

        Many thanks,

        Frank Acland

        Andrea Rossi
        August 4th, 2015 at 11:15 AM
        Frank Aclkand:
        Both modes are possible.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        • Oh, we did get more details! Great job Frank, and thanks to Dr. Rossi.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      But due to so many small reactors, they not all going to be powered at the same time – so in a merry go round approach, you have the units staggered.

      In other words you don’t put power to all 100 units – you put power to a few
      and once they SSM, you use that power for other units. Once you get them all staggered, then you only powering 20% of the units at a given time (assuming 80% SAM). So you would never “sync” them all at the same time to require power.

      In fact this issue MUCH shows how using many smaller
      devices is better than one big unit that would require huge amounts of power
      when “on”. And this also applies to startup – you only need power to start a few, and once they SSM, you use that power to startup other units.

      Rossi has stated the max input is about 250,000 watts,
      but he also stated above that the power consummation was only about 8000 watts
      to get that 1 million watts output. This is only possible by staggering a bunch
      of small units like a conductor managing a musical symphony.

      edit: see my post below – the guy on Ed Sullivan spinning plates is a great analogy!

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Albert D. Kallal

    But due to so many small reactors, they not all going to be powered at the same time – so in a merry go round approach, you have the units staggered.

    In other words you don’t put power to all 100 units – you put power to a few
    and once they SSM, you use that power for other units. Once you get them all staggered, then you only powering 20% of the units at a given time (assuming 80% SAM). So you would never “sync” them all at the same time to require power.

    In fact this issue MUCH shows how using many smaller
    devices is better than one big unit that would require huge amounts of power
    when “on”. And this also applies to startup – you only need power to start a few, and once they SSM, you use that power to startup other units.

    Rossi has stated the max input is about 250,000 watts,
    but he also stated above that the power consummation was only about 8000 watts
    to get that 1 million watts output. This is only possible by staggering a bunch
    of small units like a conductor managing a musical symphony.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually, would not 80% ssm at a COP cop of say 8 give you

    Think of 10 units of energy.

    Input: 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 2 units of energy supplied
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    Output:8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 = 80 units out

    So your COP will be 40.

    At 90% ssm (9 units), then you get 80/1 = 80

    If the static COP is only 3, then

    Input: 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 2 units in
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    Output:3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 = 30 units out

    30/2 then cop = 15

    Of course the above assumes a “constant” output when in
    SSM, and I suspect it more of a “downward” curve that the controller “kicks” on
    the power before the curve drops below the tempature in which the LENR effect stops.

    So perhaps another analogy is those guys that spin plates – you run around and give each plate a spin like this (think of EACH plate as a LENR reactor core!). Just needs a “spin” once in awhile to keep going!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhoos1oY404

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • John Schut

      I don’t really understand your remark.
      I get the impression that you mixup COP and Output(?).
      You speak of 90% ssm (9 units), but the input is still 8×0 (which must be 9×0).
      Furthermore you set the output differently, while it should be always the same (1 mW/h because that’s the output of the E-Cat).The COP is nothing more or less then the outputed 1 mW/h divided by the totally inputted power.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        thanks – that is a type-o – yes I mean 9 units for the 2nd example of same cop, but THEN I go back to original 8 units with a different COP – I edited the post to make this more clear.