Lundin and Lidgren Predict COP of over 1000 Based on their LENR Theory (Rossi: Paper ‘Extremely Important’)

The paper published by Rickard Lundin and Hand Lidgren may have revealed important information about the potential of the LENR effect they have been investigating.

There is a section in their newly published paper that is both exciting and provocative (thanks to LENR G for pointing it out), as they look at the energy output potential for the model they propose. They refer to figure 9 in their paper which displays a simulation of a H2 + Ni58 reactor — which they say should give a much higher output compared to one using Li7, because it has a “lower spallation threshold.”

They write:

“Overall, the H2 + Ni58 reactor gives a higher performance. In fact, by combining wave input at frequencies closer to resonance with decreasing external power, (low-power mode) a new equilibrium may theoretically establish where the gain/COP may exceed 1000” (p. 8).

If this is actually true, the bar has been raised in terms of performance of LENR reactions. For many years people have been saying that a COP of even 10 with a LENR system providing megawatts of output, would be sufficient to revolutionize energy production, because it would mean LENR capable of efficiencies that would be much more competitive than those of fossil fuels.

If it is possible to reach COPs of over 1000, then we are on a different plane altogether, and really the sky would be the limit. Lundin and Lidgren see perfecting the use of resonant frequencies as being the key to refining LENR, as opposed to “creating turbulence through square waves,” which Lundin told Mats Lewan was Rossi’s technique for shaking loose the neutron.

It’s fascinating to see a new paper with a theory that seems to open up a whole new way of generating LENR reactions — and it will be interesting to see if there are experimental results that verify the claims Lundin and Lidgren are making. Andrea Rossi seems to be well ahead of the pack in terms of bringing a LENR product to market, but interest is certainly mounting elsewhere, and new theoretical breakthroughs could pave the way for serious competition for the E-Cat.


This just posted on the JONP by Andrea Rossi:

Andrea Rossi
October 15th, 2015 at 10:32 AM
Dr Peter Forsberg, Frank Acland, Ing. Michelangelo De Meo, Toussaint:
I have finished now to study the paper of Hans Lidgren and Richard Lundin (Swedish Institute of Space Physics): “Nuclear Spallation and Neutron Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing”, published by Institutet for Rymdfysik, Kiruna, Sweden, October 2015.
It is an extremely important publication that both Prof. Norman Cook and I – we discussed this morning also about it-are taking in reference to the theoretical paper we are working upon.
Warm Regards,

  • radvar


    (sorry, first thing that burst into my mind 🙂

    • mcloki

      Exactly my thought. Depending on how long these reactions can be sustained it opens up the entire solar system to exploration. All those asteroid mining companies just got more realistic.

  • Ophelia Rump

    This article approaches silly with the position that the COP 100 raises the bar. Previously there was no theoretical limit to the rate of energy release which COP is a factor of.

    The good news is actually that there is a theoretical limit to the release rate which should preclude turning the reactors into bombs. With this theoretical limit, the concern that the reactors might ever explosively release all the energy at once is rationalized away.

    We can all sleep a little easier if we know that there will be no accidental vaporization of industries or homes.

    • MasterBlaster7

      COP 1000 is actually fairly, ho hum, for energy production. COP, of about, 100 should be enough to do everything we need LENR to do. COP of 100 is 99% efficient…COP 1000 is 99.9% efficient. There may be some applications in a ‘LENR turbine jet engine’ but major diminishing returns for almost everything else we in-vision for LENR.

      If they can get a device to do COP 1000…I think the most important thing, that it would yield, would be to help solve the theory. It would lend major support to the resonate model.

      Just remember COP 100 is good enough. Don’t get carried away with crazy COP numbers.

      • RD Canuck

        Huh? Is my understanding of the term COP completely wrong?
        I assumed that COP = 1 was that same as 1 unit energy in to 1 unit energy out
        For example 1 Watt in –> 1 Watt out, therefore 100% efficient.
        COP 100 = 1 W in –> 100 W out
        COP 1000 – 1 W in –> 1000 W out

        Am I wrong and if so,how?

        • MasterBlaster7

          No, that is right. Maybe I used efficient wrong. Same point though.

      • LuFong

        Another way of looking at COP of 1000 versus COP of 100 is that the reactor for COP of 1000 might be 10 times smaller than COP of 100. This might be very important for things where weight or volume matters.

        • MasterBlaster7

          Nah. I don’t think you could make it smaller. But, you could make the power needed to drive the reaction 10 times smaller.

          Also, if you made an e-cat smaller and smaller, outputting the same energy, it would get hotter and hotter per volume area.

          • LuFong

            Yes, one has to consider the power input as part of the reactor. So smaller batteries, solar cells, fuel tanks etc would be drastically reduced. Given the density of LENR this would be the determining factor I would think where space and weight matter.

            But also the LENR reactor itself could be smaller and lighter (but may not matter because of the non-LENR components of the system) if the heat transfer were greater over a unit surface area, It does not necessarily have to run hotter. In fact if you 1/8 the reactor volume you decrease the surface area by only 1/4th.

          • MasterBlaster7

            If you like the idea of small LENR devices. Check out Jet Energy NANOR and M-NANOR.

        • Ged

          We’ve got two meaty theories within the past two weeks now. However, the question remains on how to apply them to guide an improved reactor design.

          H2 + Ni58, definitely takes us back to where we were before Li came into the picture. It would be nice to get that working as suggested by theory, since Li is so corrosive and bothersome to work with.

          • MasterBlaster7

            I wouldn’t obsess on theory Ged…that way madness lies.

            I would obsess on the money saved by Rossi client when that is released.

          • Omega Z

            I agree, All that would excite me is that it works & COP>10.

          • MasterBlaster7

            Well, theory is important. But, I feel it is waaaaay to early in the game to get excited about them. In total, they are all over the place.

          • Ged

            Theory leads to more optimized, reliable, and easy to make devices ;). Mastering it is essential for utilizing the technology to its fullest, and for reaching the next step beyond this.

          • MasterBlaster7


    • giovanniontheweb

      Any safe and and not expensive COP bigger than 10 will be a revolution. Do you remember heat pumps? One dollar in ten dollars out, that is the deal. One dollar in 1000 dollars out within 10 years with a technological jump; hold it.

      • Axil Axil

        So sorry…please excuse me but I am forced to conclude, this endorsement by Rossi shows how little Rossi knows about what is going on inside his reactor.

        • Owen Geiger

          Well then show us your reactor. Can it heat a factory? I seriously doubt Rossi just stumbled onto his discoveries by luck or chance.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi has never claimed to know precisely what is taking place internally or theoretically. One may construe that from singular posts by Rossi, but not if all his posts are taken in full context. It is a work in progress. What’s more, Rossi is open to new possibilities.

          As to this paper-
          #1A Rossi bombards the charge with a broad spectrum of frequencies
          #2A and suspects they may involve tunneling.

          #1B Lidgren & Lundin bombards the charge with a narrow spectrum of frequencies
          #2B and suspect that neutrons are “shaken loose” and are captured by another element.

          Looking at 1A and 1B, why would Rossi & Cook not take this paper serious regardless of the difference at points 2A and 2B.

          There are a lot of theories floating around out there. To lock in on a single theory at this point would be illogical. You yourself have proposed some interesting ideas & some that aren’t. But you need to keep an open mind. You could be wrong. Even if a theory seems to fit the results, that theory can still be wrong.

          Most of what appears to be taking place in LENR is at such a small scale that everyone is merely making educated guesses. One element loses a neutron while another gains a neutron may be far more complex or simple then what one may deduce.

          While we have technology to watch some things take place in real time, Often we don’t and are merely making assumptions from an end result. We could be totally wrong about what is really taking place.

          An Atom is really small, but there could be things a 1000 fold smaller that we are totally oblivious to. Within an atom, there could be an entirely new universe where Infinitesimally small things exist.

    • Alain Samoun

      “neutron release threat”
      Yes, that bother me too. What is the energy of these neutrons,can we be protected from them? Are the current explorers of the technology, including Rossi, aware of the danger? I know that detecting neutrons is not that easy…

      • Axil Axil

        If Rossi was exposed to neutrons in his experiments, he would be dead a long time ago.

        • GreenWin

          A “slow neutron” has zero charge and little momentum. Is it plausible its energy decays to a less volatile radiative entity?

    • Axil Axil

      How can Rossi endorse this theory when he has been exposed to these purported neutrons since he was 20. Neutrons have no place in LENR.

      • Timar

        What if those neutrons are in fact the ultra low momentum neutrons proposed by Widom-Larsen and NASA? If so, they are too slow and heavy to move farther than a few micrometer.

    • GreenWin

      Ms. Rump. Perhaps we should not expect any technical solution to “save humanity.” That prospect finds purchase in the imaginative human heart. The tech is merely an expression of the enlightened state of that heart. I think. 🙂

  • bfast

    Love this!

    We see two scientific phenomenon in one.
    First, they are making a good prediction: “Overall, the H2 + Ni58 reactor gives a higher performance.”

    Second, if their theory is correct, it should lead to a shorter path to incredible COP > 1000 results.

    Now that some scientists are getting past denialism, their expertise proves valuable. But data must not drive science, it must not be the other way around.

  • Bob Matulis

    Isn’t SSM infinite COP? Please help me understand the difference between a reaction of 1000
    COP and a COP of 10 using some of the output to power the reaction (hence SSM). Thanks

    • MasterBlaster7

      Yah, SSM is ,basically, infinite COP…while it lasts.

      Also, a prime e-cat powering multiple e-cats powering the prime, or looped, is ‘constructively’ infinite COP. Rossi says that is dangerous, but we will check back on it in a few years.

      Money is the best way to understand COP

      Lets say that Rossi’s client, before e-cat, payed $1,000,000 dollars a year to supply heat for his industrial process.

      If Rossi’s device is COP 10 ……client now pays $100,000 a year to power the e-cat for the same industrial heat.

      If Rossi’s device is COP 100……client now pays $10,000 a year to power the e-cat for the same industrial heat

      If Rossi’s device is COP 1000….client now pays $1,000 a year to power the e-cat for the same industrial heat

      • Zephir

        You can always buy two units and use energy from first stage for heating the second stage and multiply the COPs in this way, thus the actual COP is not so important.

      • Bob Matulis

        Thanks that was helpful. I agree that the more important metric is the cost of power (rather than COP). An infinite “Free” energy source is not free since it requires infrastructure to transmit and other equipment (windmill is an example). The ideal system will have a decent COP and be as simple as possible with minimized maintenance to reduce cost per kWh.
        I suppose if cost can get down to the cost of hydro-electric such as the Hoover Dam that would be optimal…

  • Mike Henderson

    COP >1000 means jet packs and flying cars, the end of the grid, and some really scary AI robots.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Don’t need AI – just dumb robots doing physical labour via real human telepresence workers – need absolutely no new tech.

      • Andre Blum

        imagine what we humans can do with our free time once robots can take over our watching TV for 3 or 4 hours a day!

        • Mike Henderson

          I find NetFlix to be a great efficiency improvement. I can watch an hour long TV show in only 42 minutes.

          • Bob Greenyer

            try it on double speed… audio is still intelligible and if you loose the titles and recaps … you are at a COP of 3 … and that’s as good as a heat pump

        • SG

          What is the practical take-away from this paper for the replicators including the MFMP? The practical take away *should* be the frequency and pulse shape that is needed to obtain electromagnetic resonance with Ni and H2. But try as I might, I can’t seem to discern that specific information in the paper. Perhaps someone with a better ability to read scientific papers than me can extract that information from the paper and share it in more “engineering” rather than “scientific” terms so that the replicators can try things.

          • Timar

            To replicate Lugano, a simple square wave will suffice.

          • Agaricus

            And once any o/u result is obtained, small shifts in frequency will instantly tell you which direction to head in, in order to optimise output. Next play with amplitude, then wave profile – no theory needed at this stage.

        • Timar

          You reply seems inapt and ill informed, given the fact that socialists were among the first victims of the National Socialist regime; that right-wing capitalists all around the world, but particularly in the US endorsed the regime (i.e. Henry Ford, who was an outspoken anti-Semite and admirer of Hitler) and that today, enthnocentric and Volkish ideology is on a dangerous recurrence within the political right.

          I don’t see those deep political divides the US is suffering from here in Germany. In fact, there is an almost absurd level of agreement between both major political parties who currently form the government in a large coalition (conservative and moderate socialist party). On the same time, because of the proportional representation in parliament, minor parties – such as the green and the socialist left, but also right-wing populists – are much less marginalized than in the US. (The green party currently participates in 9 out of 16 federal state government coalitions).

          Moreover, I can hardly think of any country that is currently more adverse to warfare and nationalism, more open towards immigrants and refugees of foreign religion and ethnicity (we are welcoming one million this year), and more critically aware of its own history – particularly WWII – than Germany.

          • Ryan

            This is in response to Manuel Cruz since for whatever reason it won’t allow me to actually respond to their post:

            Uh, no. The Nazi’s were fascists, which by the way is an ultra right wing ideology and not socialism in the slightest (just look up any real history on the topic). The Nazi’s were very good at collusion with corporations to create a dictatorial regime (which again is fascism) The Nazi’s called themselves socialists because the concept was popular with a lot of people at the time (which was because most of the populous of Germany at the time was destitute due to war reparations demanded after WWI and a government that was barely effective again due to WWI). In swoops the Nazi’s under a flag of socialism (which they never were) and a call to get back at all the people that wronged them. That drew in people that hoped they could reach a point where they weren’t starving and that was all that was needed. Then the Nazi’s started in with the master race BS and how god was on their side and wanted them to kill those that were impure and that is how they reached a point where they were murdering millions. And so you have access to more real information here are the 14 points of fascism ( ) which the various fascist groups of the WWII era met perfectly and other conservative groups now match up with pretty well right now.

            But hey, by your logic then North Korea is a Democratic Republic, its right there in their name and thus must be what they are right? Oh, that’s right, lots of groups use labels that make them look better but in reality they are nothing like what they claim. Thus, the Nazi’s used the socialist tag to appeal to people at the time when they were never, in any form, socialists.

          • Timar

            Spot on, Ryan.

            The National Socialists had nothing to do with socialism – they came from the opposite end of the political spectrum, as everyone with a basic historic and political education should know. The only reason they employed the term ‘socialism’ was to appeal to naive left-leaning voters. In fact, the NS movement was financed by powerful industrialists – not only from Germany, btw. – who were affraid of socialism, and without their financial support (and the cancellation of vital credits from the US by president Roosevelt, which threw the deeply endepted Weimar Republic into a grave economic crisis – a lession that should have been considered more thoroughly when dealing with the Greek crisis recently) would likely never have come to power.

          • National socialisme have few to compare with socialisme, nor with capitalisme, and all to oppose to liberalism.

            Facisms use capitalism in a way that looks like crony capitalism, to support the power of the Nation.

            Real capitalism is based on risk, on freedom, of market, on permanently unstable position, on responsibility, on public laws and neutral justice, on regulation of externalities by those who suffer or benefit from them.

            Some socialism share many values with liberalism, supporting self organisation (associationism, mutualism, like Proudhon), but the one of marx share many ideas with the one of fascism.

            the idea is that the state own the truth, and that economic agents have to be controlled so they don’t oppose the final goal of the group.

            Socialism try to support comfort of the peoples, and today the way they do is by statism.
            fascism try to support the interest of peoples by supporting the nation as a collective object, expecting that globally it benefit all, and accepting it cost to few.

            I shares that position for long, being educate as sovereignist, bu recently with life experience I realised that nobody is intelligent or honest more than the other in any kind of organization.
            Individual, SMB, corps, states, NGO, are all honest and corrupted, intelligent and stupid, in an equal way.

            There is no capacity, no computer or councils, not even crowdsourcing or market that can find the best way before it is experimented.
            the idea is that we should experiment all, and eliminate the errors, avoiding errors of unmanageable size…

      • Axil Axil

        Just get that carbon in your nickel powder.

      • radvar

        Telepresence…hmm…that might actually solve the “refresh the hotel room” challenge. One telepresence operator with 10 robots, intervening when a robot gets stuck. (No disrespect to hotel staff intended!)

        I can’t quite figure out how that’s going to help with making MY bed, though. Maybe I could multi-task even more…

    • Omega Z

      Flying cars will be dealt with the same as airplanes. License, flight plans & all. Nothing like most people imagine.

      • SG

        I’d disagree here. Flying cars, once economically feasible, will be more like self-flying quad-copters with auto-GPS navigation. NASA is already envisioning and planning for areal superhighways for when it happens. There will be few skills required to hop in one and go. They will automatically avoid collisions in-air similar to how self-driving vehicles will do the same on-ground. Perhaps a license to fly, yes, but I doubt much more than that.

        • Omega Z

          Flying cars as you envision would need to be totally autonomous. They would also fly in the same manor as cars with roadways only in the air. You won’t be able to fly over homes as the crow flues. There are far to many safety issues.

          There are many aspects people overlook. 1st, most people can’t handle 2 dimensional driving let alone multidimensional, over a million accidents a year. Anything that flies needs regular scheduled maintenance regardless how well it’s running and even if it just sits. This cost alone keeps it away from most people. And ultimately, I doubt they will ever be cheap.

  • Fyodor

    Let’s see an actual experiment generating clear excess heat and then see someone or someones replicate that experiment.

  • Omega Z

    Always with the Gold & Silver.
    I would much rather have a 50K bushel grain bin full of wheat or corn.
    There would quickly come a time I could obtain all the gold or silver I wanted for a bushel of wheat.

    Gold, Silver, Diamonds, Gems. Worthless when you’re starving.
    However, I doubt LENR will destabilize much of anything. The transition will take decades regardless what energy source replaces fossil fuels.

    • Frechette

      ll that glistens is not gold.

    • PappyYokum

      Gold, Silver, Diamonds, & Gems are not worthless when you’re starving. Grain can be grown, gold can’t be grown. Grain goes bad. It gets eaten by bugs and vermin. It is bulky and hard to transport. It has a short shelf life. Gold and precious metals retain their value and are widely recognized and accepted. A loaf a bread drops in value as it goes stale. Metals don’t go bad. They are value dense and easily transported.
      While one can imagine a scenario where grain has value and gold doesn’t, but history says otherwise.

      • Jonnyb

        Yum I’m starving let’s eat some gold! That diamond looks tasty as well! hummmm see what your saying but not what Omega Z was trying to say.

      • Omega Z

        Pappy, After you starve to death, I will have access to all your treasure. It will still be there. Grain can be kept for a very long time. Grain found in the pyramids has been planted with great success. I can also plant and harvest more from what I have in those grain bins.

        My stores of grain will determine the value of your treasure. How much is it worth to you not to starve. Your treasure is worthless to me. However, if you’re willing to trade your labor to work in my fields, I will see to it that you do not starve. Metals don’t go bad. Well, actually, over time. but as you point out, they will still be there when your gone. They have no nutritional value to sustain you.

        You know those crazy survivalists. Maybe their crazy like a fox. They stock up several years of food & few if any precious metals or gems. What happens when they run out of food. To start, world food stores are basically depleted after 3 months. After 1 year, they can come out & rebuild. There will be little threat as the primary survivors will be of like minded people like themselves.

        Perhaps you need to reevaluate you sense of values. Beyond, food, water & shelter, without them, nothing else matters.

    • Agaricus

      A crossbow and bolts would be worth more than gold, in the event of any general collapse. But new taxes and corporate profiteering will probably ensure a minimum amount of disruption during the coming transition.

      • Omega Z

        Cheap energy should also generate many new jobs. Thus less taxes need
        for social programs while at the same time those jobs will generate
        additional tax revenues.

        Will the Government see it this way &
        act accordingly. Probably not.

        • despite the myth, the know effect of cheaper product (energy, objects, telcom…) ar :
          – creating jobs in other markets, because consumer have available income
          – increasing usage and thus consumption of the cheaper good

          globally it is good.
          that it create job is not meaningful, it create value that people can use either to consume more, or to work less for the same concrete income.

          if people get jobless, and incomeless, there is an independent problem. typically it is linked to public policy, not to more productive technology.

  • Daniel Maris

    Oh so sad to hear those sort of remarks LookMoo – especially when they are more true than false. 🙂

  • GreenWin

    I agree with Rog. LOL Andre! The challenge then might be, rather than watch TV 3-4 hours/day… How ’bout we create 3-4 hours a day??? All it takes is rigorous honesty (from programmers.)

  • Frechette

    “Even their socialism works”

    To the chagrin of the Tea Party lunatics.

  • Omega Z

    Even when the 1mW plant is in SSM, it still draws between 8kW and 10Kw.

  • Billy Jackson

    The only fear i have when discussing potentials of the e-cat is the chase for greater and greater COP’s. It can lead to a chase your own tail type research where you never put out a product because you are constantly finding improvements that can be made… call it searching for the perfect product if you want…

    at this time i just want to see a working e-cat on the market.. we can get improvements and updates as we move forward every year. i say this because of Rossi’s stance on making the most economical model that is cheap enough that its not worth reverse engineering..

    • Omega Z

      I agree. Also, even with infinite COP, you still use energy for controls & such & this needs to be taken into account so COP will always be limited under this scenario.

      As I’ve posted before, Once passing COP=20, you have ever dwindling returns. IMO, if you can obtain COP=33, converted to electricity gives you 10 electrical watts out for use & 1 electrical watt for the loop.

      This is very cheap energy. Add to that, energy fed in coming from cheap energy E-cats makes it very very cheap energy.

      Cost of energy then boils down to hardware & the occasional fuel recharge. That will never go away.
      A 10kW E-cat at 1/3rd electrical conversion provides 3.3kW of electricity.
      Rather then trying to squeeze an extra 100 watts of usable energy through doubling or quadrupling the COP, I would rather see an improvement in conversion efficiency.

      If the conversion efficiency was increased by 50%, you would gain about 1700 watts more energy. This can be the difference of needing 2 or 3 e-cat reactors to only needing 1 or 2 E-cat reactors. Aside from more energy, you have a huge savings in the additional hardware not needed.

      • William D. Fleming

        I doubt the COP of a piece of firewood would be much above two if you had to use electrical coils to keep it going. Yet a stack of firewood considered as a unit has infinite cop. (unless you count the match you started it with)

        It seems to me that a LENR system could be scaled up to any desired output whilst providing its own internal energy.

        • Axil Axil

          This is the cat and mouse mechanism.

        • Omega Z

          The fact is COP isn’t properly used in these discussions.
          Rossi’s E-cat isn’t any different the an IC engine.
          You apply small portion of electricity & the excess energy comes from the fuel. IC=Gasoline … E-cat=NI/H/Li/?

          However, COP is useful for these discussions with a little perspective.

  • Axil Axil

    Any invention that produces neutrons is dead on arrival. The nuclear regulatory agency(NRC), the IAEA, and the department of energy(DOE) make it their business to kill any invention that produces neutrons. Let us hope that this theory and all other theories of LENR that mention the word neutron is malarkey.