Rossi: For 1MW Plant Test, Maximum Possible Input 300kW — Average Output 1 MW

I have been trying figure out what the minimum COP could have been in the 1MW plant test, so I asked a couple of questions on the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

1. What was the maximum electricity input available to the 1MW E-Cat plant during the year long test?

Answer: 300 kW

2. During the 1-year E-Cat plant test, during the time the plant was operating (excluding down times), what was the average power output (thermal)?

Answer: The average energy produced has been: circa 1 MWh/h

Assuming Rossi’s answers are truthful here (and no hidden sources of energy were input into the system), the minimum COP for the entire test would have been about 3. That would be if all the electrical power available was used, and without any self-sustain mode employed. If there were long periods of operation in self-sustain mode, as Andrea Rossi reported while the test was going on, then it’s conceivable that the COP of about 50 as reported in the legal complaint could have been achieved.

I also asked Rossi about the electricity bills of the customer. He affirmed that those bills have been retained, but declined to say whether he and/or IH had access to them, saying this could be something that could come up in the court case. I would think that the customer could end up being an important witness if the case gets as far as a trial.

  • Rene

    Ouch, a potential minimum COP of 3 is a problem because it means an e-cat plant would need a lot of reserve power. Industrial plants often run with interruptible power to get lower rates, so it might be a problem if a company needs constant power/heat. Switching to prime power raises rates and lowers savings. I guess the ‘company’ did not have these requirements.
    A COP of 3 suggests hot cats since they ran that low by Rossi’s admissions about them. The warm cats were said to have a COP of 6 (pre extended SSM days). Did he ever say how long it takes to excite a reaction after a hot cat (or for that matter, any e-cat) module drops out of SSM?

    • Alex Fenrick

      Agreed Rene…a minimum COP of 3 would not be very viable for most large companies that would be interested in a LENR based power source. There are companies that would not be affected by it, but I would tend to think most would have constant power/heat needs. I think LENR at a level of COP of 3 would still be of interest…just may be a bit more niche than planned in 2016. With that being said, if COP of 3 is real…then I think we could safely guess that efficiency and improvement would be gained rather quickly after acceptance and real-world installation usage dramatically raising the COP. I was curious as well about the time to excite a reaction after drop out of SSM…I don’t recall that info personally…hopefully someone here recalls…..

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have a place that can only be heated by electricity – I would be over the moon by a COP of 1.5.

        In the heat treatment business – which is often based on electric heating – heater element providers make a big song and dance when their element is 5% more efficient than a competitors. Over 300% would be ground breaking.

        COP of 3 is NOT good for the traditional large scale energy generator and grid supply manopolies since line losses are often 50% – but if I could have turned my 360W of solar in India to 1080W of thermal, it goes from powering the lights, fan, internet… to being my water boiler and cooker… a COP of 3 is huge when you don’t want to/cannot buy from the grid and would be a transformational addition to 100s millions of 3rd world homes.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          A very interesting take on a low COP. I have “always” considered that anything much less then say 8 is not so valuable. You point shows that even a relative low COP of 3-6 would and could still have much use. While such a low COP would not compete with say natural gas heating that additional power for smaller solar installations would be of use.

          And who knows with your progress, you may soon be building your own reactor for personal use! Heck, the way things are going you might be first to market!

          And you could call it the Bob-Cat!

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Bob Greenyer

            Our work is crowd funded and very much a collective effort by a group of researchers collaborating in the interests of the many.

            If we are ever lucky enough to build a practical reactor and call it the Bobcat – it would be because of the staff of Bobcat Sweden personally sacrificing part of their bonuses to help support the project.

    • Argon

      You need to re read what was the question and what was the answer. They had 400 amp breaker in mains line. So max input power available was limited to that by electricity supply contract.
      In worst case if output measurement was reliable, it would mean that COP would be 3 in the minimum.
      This does not mean that all input was consumed all the time. Seems to be pretty hard to ask simple questions and get conclusive answers not to mention analytic comments. That alone makes me concerned.

      • Rene

        The way excitation has been described by Rossi is that the heaters run for a period of time full on or in some pulse width modulated fashion until LENR starts, then some on/off heat dance is done for a short bit then SSM is entered. From that point until SSM ends usually no auxiliary heat is created (the exact recipe is unknown). From past discussions going back almost 5 years, the time to reaction start was an hour, That means one hour at 300KW or lower steps if some of the modules were still in SSM. However, because (again from disclosures in the past) when SSM ends is not deterministic, there may be times when all the modules are out of SSM hence all modules must be restarted.
        Since that time, Rossi claimed he improved (decreased the time to reaction start) and increase SSM interval, but, to my recollection, he never said to what degree. Using what has been stated, it means that some of the time that 1MW plant will be drawing 300KW possibly up to an hour with zero LENR then very little input power (just the control and excitation/quenching circuitry) for up to 50 hours while the modules cruise in SSM.
        The problem is we don’t know whether the overall COP for the entire duration of the 1 year run was 50 (that would be awesome), or whether every now and then the COP was 50.

        • Argon

          Ok now I see what you mean. Yes that setup cannot be viable in all industrial applications, many processes need guaranteed power levels within limits, and also imo 300kW reserve could cost something in El. contract if needed only hour in every 50 hours or so (at least I pay base fee proportional to breaker size).
          Nevertheless in Rossis claim # 73 he claims COP to be over 6 ‘Guaranteed Performance period’ and ‘during the testing period’ average COP was often 0ver 60, what ever those terms means exactly.

          Claims here:
          http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/21/rossi-for-1mw-plant-test-maximum-possible-input-300kw-average-output-1-mw/#comment-2636716619

          So if Quark-X and faster ‘ignition’ Rossi has been talking about, was outside license contract, then IH:s statement ‘could not substantiate’ would get some meaning. Remains to be seen.

  • Andy Kumar

    Admin says, “Assuming Rossi’s answers are truthful here (and no hidden sources of energy were input into the system), the minimum COP for the entire test would have been about 3.”
    .
    Frank, did you really mean to say this? Please clarify.

    • Frank Acland

      Yes. Based on AR’s statements that the maximum available input power was 300kW, and the average output power throughout was circa 1MW — you couldn’t go lower than about COP 3

  • Frank Acland

    Just trying to be logical. Personally I assume those numbers are accurate.

  • Gerald

    Like leaving bread crums for the internet community. Great sub plot in the new James Bond movie “Dr Rossi”. Indeed it’s a funny coincident.

  • Alain Samoun

    To me an average COP between 1 and 3 with the FIRST PROTOTYPE of a 1MW LENR POWER PLANT, working 1 year, is revolutionary,certainly not competitive YET money wise, but a good step toward the goal of getting rid of fossil fuel

  • Domenico Canino

    Mats, no more measures needed, because all the measures we saw haven’t been trusted; i dream a tv movie legal drama scene in which andrea rossi in front of the court show an e cat working in SSM; no more disinformation, no more chatters, only a for sure working product;

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I have proposed this way of determining the minimum COP a few days ago. Just to repeat some points:

    1 – I do not think that the electricity measurements and the readings of the provider’s meter must be necessarily correct. There are ways to deceive certain types of meters. But the readings are not important if the line is capable of delivering maximum 300 kW of continuous power. This can easily be proven.

    2 – The measurements of output energy can also be ignored if the customer used a standard production method which allows an estimate of the consumed energy, let’s say with an error margin of 10%. If the customer is a well-established company such as Johnson Matthey, nobody could doubt their statements.

    The judge would just have to hear both the electricity provider and the customer. Everything will depend on the question who the customer is and if he can reliably testify that about 1 MW of average thermal power have been consumed.

  • georgehants

    I will repeat, Mr Rossi could end all of this circus by offering his now, not back engineering possible e-cat, for open testing by competent and un-corrupt organizations such as MFMP.
    The clear connection of Cold Fusion to totally corrupt capitalism is clear for us all to see.
    Why does he not allow this testing should be a topic page of it’s own.
    If anybody can give a reason why he is not joyfully passing on his life saving discovery to the World, besides personal gain, I would like to hear it.

    • Göran Jansson

      Yes georgehants, your “amount of repetition on these pages is amazing”.

      • georgehants

        Sorry, the Truth is often attacked. that is life.

      • Jarea

        What kind of comment is that?

        • Warthog

          An accurate one. GH has been asked multiple times to stick to the subject of the site, which is LENR, and not “how evil capitalism is”. He has adamantly refused to do that.

    • AdrianAshfield

      I wrote earlier it was not in Rossi’s business interest to release the ERV’s report. Sifferkoll adds that it is not in his legal interest too.

      http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/the-rossi-darden-apcoworldwide-saga-why-is-it-good-to-not-release-the-cop50-erv-lenr-report/

      You think LENR will be magically implemented without a profit motive. Many don’t agree with you. What matters is that it is Rossi’s call anyway.

      • georgehants

        Adrian, I respect your view of capitalism, please respect my view without trying to avoid debate, you sound like the people who cried, wailed and abused P&F etc. because it was against current Dogma to look at their discovery.

  • US_Citizen71

    A COP of 3 would still require a partial payment from IH anything above 2.4 would trigger a partial payment. Read the second amendment to the contract.

  • Argon

    So are you saying that in Florida El. companies doesn’t have lead cables and energy meters in cabins sealed by themselves? I don’t know since never been there, but anyway at the very moment (late 2015?) when IH factually started to change their minds, if that was because of suspecting real COP, don’t you think they didn’t have time to check all the cables and meters in period of several months?
    Possible in world we living, but not very probable in my mind.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Well they gave Rossi 11.5 million. Maybe they didn’t care to check anything. I am with Rossi 100%. But the fact remains that switches can be put in to turn meters off while receiving electricity. I don’t think Rossi did that. And I don’t know that IH checked for it. The electric company wouldn’t know unless they were specifically looking for it. It can be hidden very easily.

  • I can See that Mr Rossi has not finished his Marathon run yet.
    Being the tenacious man that he undoubtedly is he will go till the finish.
    The hills and dales that have and still confront him leave the man undaunted.
    He runs on still controlling his pace and breathing.
    We will applauded when he crosses the line.

    • Stefenski

      He sprinted off at the start with great intentions. but midway a dense fog enveloped him , now he’s ventured of the track , last seen heading over the treacherous Moor.

      Still, a devoted bunch of us are camped out at the finish line, praying that he finds himself again , sometime soon.

      • I got me thermos!
        Plus a bottle of the good stuff to celebrate with.

  • Engineer48

    Please review this post as it is important to this thread’s discussion:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/20/e-cat-1mw-plant-test-results-watch-thread/#comment-2637080782

  • georgehants

    peace, I cannot decipher in any way your comment.

    • peacelovewoodstock

      What I mean is what exactly does Rossi stand to gain from a costly and time-consuming public demonstration? If he prevails in court, he will get all the recognition that he could want. That is to say, considering what may be at stake, what should he care what the great unwashed think about him?

  • georgehants

    Without getting into your repetitive discussion, you nor anybody has verifiable proof of a COP of three.
    Yes I would give up with fair reward my work on Cold Fusion for the befit of mankind, would you?

    • Steve Swatman

      I have given much of my time and knowledge for free in my lifetime, however i would be loath to give in to the demands of a few who repetitively scream for everything for free.

      Especially when I have put my time, my blood, sweat and tears along with my savings into a work that is ridiculed no matter how many times its tested. The benefit of mankind is a strange call, mankind will benefit only when the product is ready for market, that is what Rossi is planning.

      • georgehants

        Steve, I respect your view regarding your work and I do not for a moment say that you or anybody should not be fairly rewarded for their work for society, but so should every other person on this planet, with none more privileged than another.
        If you doubt the suffering of mankind directly attributable to capitalism, I can only recommend you spend some time on the Internet doing a little honest Research.

        • Warthog

          Show me a better system than capitalism……you can’t do that, and you can’t even elucidate what you think such a system should be and/or how it should work, other than “not capitalism”.

        • DrD

          George, I’ve lived (briefly) in such places. Believe me, the attitude was “why should I do the work”.

      • DrD

        such a positive reply to such a question. Amazing.

  • georgehants

    Michael, all agreed, he has had five years and can prove his case in weeks if he wished.
    My unpopular concern is for the people suffering and dying at the hands of the greedy rich, I have no intention of changing that concern because others don’t give a damn.
    Cold Fusion needs complete freedom to do it’s job of helping this World.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Much speculation about the COP. I don’t think it matters beyond being high enough to get Rossi his $89 million that he might need to build a mass production factory.
    Rossi has said the new E-Cat QuarkX is the future, even for domestic use. If the X version produces electricity directly, as claimed, it is easy to see why.

    • georgehants

      Adrian, constant repetition of the words “speculation” “if” etc. get us nowhere.
      Do you think it would be better if Mr. Rossi now proved his COP of three, as he can easily do by passing a unit to MFMP etc.
      My local plumber and electrician could competently measure a COP of that magnitude in a day.

      • AdrianAshfield

        George, no one outside the Rossi camp knows anything bout the quark X.
        Why would MFMP have greater standing in the court than the ERV?

        • georgehants

          Adrian, why have you changed the subject, I have no interest in a money grabbing court case just the proof beyond doubt of Cold Fusion.

          • Jarea

            Well said george.

          • bkrharold

            There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the anomalous heat effect observed by Fleischmann and Pons was real. This was the basis for Rossis work. It has also been duplicated and independently verified many times. The question is whether Rossi has been able to optimize and control the effect so as to reliably produce useful of energy on demand. I believe that he has, but if it turns out, that is not the case, a scientific investigation will eventually uncover the underlying principles. This will inevitably start an international race to exploit the new technology.

          • menos50

            This is old hat George, the question is can Rossi do a COP of 6 ,10 or 50?
            https://drmyronevans.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/echiaro-2015-lowenergynuclearreactionslenrphenomenaand.pdf

      • Pekka Janhunen

        George, recall that a COP of about three was already proven in http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 . Report written by seven physicists, published in Arxiv.

        Not satisfied by something in the report? If so, it’s anyway not Rossi’s fault, because he just provided the testers the reactors, there and in Lugano.

        That said, with E-cat X, demonstrating the reactor should become easier and easier. If it produces electricity directly, a small desktop demo with battery and Quark-X and some electricity consuming device might be possible to perform in a few hours.

        • georgehants

          Pekka, that test was not free and open as I am suggesting.
          Very important and encouraging yes, but it has not allowed Cold Fusion to become the top Research priority throughout the World.
          Capitalism is stopping that, while the corrupt rich defend their obscene positions and the status quo is not disturbed before they can retain their wealth and power.
          (It seems the average Joe is willing to just except that blindly and many even defend it.)
          just as P&F where destroyed by corrupt and incompetent scientists.
          I have my view that there is nothing stopping Mr. Rossi from proving Now a COP of three and it is no good people coming on page trying to make excuses and give illogical reasons beyond greed as to why he would not do that.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            By free and open test, do you mean that Rossi should publish the full recipe how to build the device? In theory, his patents should accomplish that, but obviously they are a bit incomplete since replication doesn’t seem to be easy. Which also means, by the way, that their commercial value is questionable. On this one can blame Rossi: he’s trying to keep a thing both secret and open at the same time. But he risks getting a commercial punishment about that, unless he changes course. Which he might have done, because he says he has 200+ patents submitted or something like that.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi’s patent allows for the production of excess heat.
            It doesn’t however allow the Results Rossi speaks of.

            I’ve seen nothing of the electronic portion of the E-cat. Possibly that is covered in as yet unseen patents.

          • Michael W Wolf

            George, Capitalism doesn’t have the ability to act. It is like blaming guns for the murder of people. Or like blaming spoons for Rosie Odonnel’s weight problem. I have often said that socialists have meddled with capitalism. Instead of the socialists being blamed, they propagandized people into blaming a boogieman. Capitalism. The rest of your comment I agree with.

          • DrD

            Or like blaming money for evil (that miss-quoted saying).

        • Roland

          George doesn’t read, as he adamantly avers, as he already knows everything intuitively. Suggesting that he do so, or attempt to learn anything new, is largely a wasted effort.

          Deliberate ignorance, some insist, allows one to bask in the warm glow of a self important bliss that is unmarred by the intrusive thoughts of others.

  • If the hypothesis is deception and that the customer was involved, then I guess the customer wouldn’t say anything. Again, this is what the court might be advised in IH’s answer, and it would need to investigate that hypothesis.

  • Frank Acland

    Correct. I just wanted to highlight that according Rossi’s stated available input power and average output power, the COP must have been at least circa 3. The court complaint says that the average COP was over 50.

  • Karl Venter

    What about Mr Norman Cook

    Is he not Rossi man who has the theory
    Does he not have anything to say
    Surely if you have a theory you can say that his theory works ?
    Is the theory also under NDA?

    • Omega Z

      The Norman Cook/Rossi Theory is a work in progress.
      It is not complete conclusive or published.

  • Dr. Mike

    clovis ray,
    What we need is an ERV report that scientists and engineers can examine, understand, and conclude that the data measurements were taken correctly, and that the data proves the results concluded by the report. My guess is that there will be some things in the initial report that are not well enough explained to be understood by members of the scientific community. There may even be some errors as there were in the Lugano report. My recommendation to Rossi would be to post the report on this website as an initial draft, then incorporate changes as necessary to make the document acceptable to the scientific community. His court case would be much stronger if a final report has been scrutinized by the scientific community, especially if all questions that might be posed by IH’s scientists in court have already been answered in the final draft of the report.

  • Jarea

    I think we shouldnt compare the achievements of P&F with Rossi. P&F were the first yes, but not good enough to reproduce results. Rossi says it has a product that generetates a COP of 50. We only want to end th discussion of Lenr proof having one of its minor COP=3 products tested by MFMP under patent protection.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually, we can’t determine any average COP by that information.

    The “max” input is 300kw, the average output is 1MW.

    From above, in SSM mode etc., then no ability exists to determine COP. Rossi most certainly not suggesting or implying that the COP is 3 – but he is certainly saying that max draw of power
    can go to 300KW.

    However, Rossi has already stated the ERV suggests a COP of 50 – the ERV no doubt will concur with this COP statement.

    So we don’t really need to “guess” the COP – Rossi spilled the beans on the ERV report already.

    Such a high COP is a revolution – Rossi just now have to prove this to us the people.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Michael W Wolf

      Great point Albert. IH says the ambiguously not to trust the Erv numbers. Which tells me when Rossi said 50 COP, the ERV report will reflect exactly that. The question I have is how 50 COP can be in error. It must be real or fraud, no other option exists in my mind.

      • wpj

        And Rossi also placed equipment adjacent to those of the ERV with identical results so they are either both wrong or both right.

        Maybe a COP of 3 could be incorrectly measured, but 50 is hard to comprehend.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Not really.

          If the plant has additional power sources, then both Rossi and the ERV will measure and see the same results. It is for this reason that I believe the ERV power readings will show a COP of 50.

          However, the above does not mean such readings are correct, but only that Rossi says WHEN measuring the same as the ERV, then Rossi confirms what the ERV is seeing.
          The issue is not what the ERV is seeing, but independence of the plant, utilities and company involved in consuming that electricity

          I mean, in the now famous Bre-X gold scandal, once they had salted the core samples with gold, then 10 independent honest people can look at the core samples and all verify each other readings, but at the end of the day such readings verified by those parties are of little value.

          Rossi never stated the COP – only that the ERV stated his readings show a COP of 50, and that when Rossi measured the SAME way, he also saw the same COP of 50.

          I mean, either the COP is 50 and IH has not a leg to stand on, or reasons exist to doubt that COP of 50.

          However the fact of Rossi saying when he duplicated the way the ERV measure power, he also obtained the same reading. At no point in time is Rossi actually saying the plant has a COP of 50. So the fact that both Rossi and the ERV say they saw readings of a 50 COP does not help until such time conflicts of interest etc. are removed.

          I don’t believe the ERV is being dishonest or attempting to miss-lead anyone here. However, you don’t fork over 90 million without some additional fact checking.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • wpj

            I don’t deny any of that; all I was implying is that they were either both wrong or both correct.

            They are the only people that we are aware of that had monitoring equipment there so I find it difficult to accept the IH statements without counter measurements being presented, especially if production DID take place.

          • Owen Geiger

            Also note Rossi said the owner was able to monitor some of the major values independently. Supposedly the owner concurred with the other results. And, IH must have been checking everything every step of the way with stakes so high.

    • LT

      A search on internet reveals that the electrical power ratings in the USA to premises are based on the requirements of the customer.
      Electrical utilities let the customers often choose from the following standard values :

      3K, 6K, 9K, 15K, 30K, 45K, 75K, 112.5K, 150K, 300K, 500K

      So 300K is a standard value. Thus Rossi probably refers to the maximum input power rating of 300K for the whole “facility” or to a special electrical input power connection to his 1 MW plant.
      (But this means that he also could be using a lot less then the maximum input)

      Maybe somebody with knowledge in the electrical power utility industry in the USA can confirm my statement above ?

  • Don’t forget that output from the ‘pilot plant’ is heat, but the input must be electricity.

  • Warthog

    You’d be surprised exactly how much I agree with you…but that wasn’t the question. “Show me” ANY system that works better (or even as well). Even a theoretical one. Socialism of every stripe has proven a failure often enough that we can rule that direction out.

    I disagree with you only on one point…it won’t be necessary for anyone to “live for service to others” (i.e. no gigantic (and I think impossible) change to human nature will be required). I’m not sure about “Open Source”…”Kickstarter” is more like it.

    But this forum is NOT the right place to discuss it.

  • giovanniontheweb

    nobody tries to steal an “empty patent”, that is actually a more consistent proof than any approximate “theory”

  • Omega Z

    Per Rossi, approximately 12KW to 14KW are needed during SSM.

    We don’t know the average length of time of SSM. In the past, he’s said to have maintained an average SSM 75% of the time.

  • Zeddicus23

    This has been discussed many times, but the simple answer as I understand it is that significant electrical power is used to drive the Ecat, while the output is relatively low-grade heat. (This is true BTW for almost all LENR experiments starting with Pons & Fleischmann who used electrolysis.) The efficiency for conversion from heat to electricity is very low (although it increases somewhat at higher temperatures) and so a relatively high COP is needed to close the loop. So far, no one (Celani, Piantelli, Brillouin Energy, P&F, etc.) has been able to do this in part because the COP is too low, and also because in most cases the low operating temperature leads to an even lower efficiency for conversion to electricity thus requiring an even higher COP. On the other hand, it is conceivable that Rossi’s ‘mouse-cat’ benefits from this principle, e.g. the “mouse” provides some of the heat and/or radiation needed for the larger ‘cat’. This is of course assuming that Rossi’s e-cat does in fact operate with the COP that he claims.

  • Karl Venter

    Excellent
    When can we expect some ecats Yahooo?

  • Michael W Wolf

    It is simple. If the ecat can’t produce electricity, it can’t be chained so easily.

    • DrD

      AR also answered in response to a similar question, that he doesn’t do this for “safety reasons”. Even without a E-Cat X (with direct electrical output capabilty) he could have generated electric via a trubine or sterling engine or many of the other lower efficiency techniques.
      I also wondered, if it’s for safety reasons, why he couldn’t buffer the lectricity via a large bank of batteries. I think the answer is, why bother if you have a grid and only need 2%.

  • Snobben

    Ok, you think my comment was wrong and to chalanging aginst Dr Rossi? I think you should consider working for the thrue and not defend a highly posible scamer…. I will spread the word about yor censure on other forums if you contniu on this path

    • Snobben

      Thruth i mean

      • Or even ‘truth’?

        • Snobben

          Jepp, english ain’t my native language…you should try Swedish 🙂

          • US_Citizen71

            Maybe you should try Google translate, it at least doesn’t misspell words or use slang like ain’t.

          • Gerrit

            I see nothing suspicious in a non native speaker using slang words. What you may not know is that in most northern countries english language tv shows are subtitled, thus all those slang words are frequently heard and understood, but grammar mistakes stay.

          • US_Citizen71

            The thing is the expletive that is part of BS is one of the 7 words you can’t use on TV in the US so it wasn’t learned from a TV show. Here is an authority on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ

          • Snobben

            That’s right and english expressions like “money talks and bullshit walks” are frequently used in sweden. we often mix in englis words and sentence wen we talk. I don’t think US citizen have been much around the world…

          • Snobben

            It’s not often i have a reason writing in english. I have followed this story from a swedish forum called Energikatalysatorn, i have defended Andre Rossis right to prove what he’s got from that forum for around five years now. But i think Andrea Rossis time is running out. There are no longer any reason for him to slow things down. The break with IH should speed things up and if not that’s because Andrea Rossi have nothing to show the world. I don’t care much what you think about me ore who i am…this is just my opinion.

        • Timar

          It is spelled ‘TRUTH’. Ask georgehants 😉

    • psi2u2

      Just out of curiosity, who is the ‘you’ in this statement?

  • Snobben

    If Dr Rossi don’t come up witha a real good reson for him to be belived in very soon, i will place him among the greatest scamers in the world

    • Fine. You do that. We will see in a year or two who eats their hat as the saying goes.

  • wpj

    Yes, I was getting confused with F8 and F7 having, it seems, already lost F9 (though that, apparently, remains a bone of contention).

  • Snobben

    I know some intresting things regarding the one megawat-container and the secret custumer. I heard from people that was there Swedish physics and one journalist. The thing is that the container realy was in operation, and Rossi was the one runing it. The tricky part is that the containers heat was konected by a hose to a hole in the wall. Nobody that visited the container knowd whar was on the other side of the wall. I my self think it sounds very surealistisct like an episod from the TV-serie Lost or something like that. This information is for me first information and second information and I’m convinced that this is how it looked for all visitors at the customer… sorry for any miss spellings…

    • Those people I talked to, who visited the plant, said exactly this. The steam output was led in a tube going through a wall where the customer’s production supposedly was being run. The door to that space was closed and they never opened it. One of them, however, claims to have gleaned when the door opened for a moment, and saw what seemed to be production activity.

      BTW, on my blog at Animpossibleinvention.com, I published also this today:

      ‘I have been talking to people having visited the 1MW plant and meeting with the customer during first half of 2015, showing them pictures taken at the registered address for the customer JM Products—7861, 46th Street, Doral, Fl 33166. They say that it looks very much like the place they visited, noting details such as the stairs leading up to the entrance at the back of the building—an area where trucks can load and unload cargo. I and other persons have tried to call the telephone number listed for JM Products, (786) 631-4676, a number that was also written on a business card I have seen, but there was no answer.’

      • Ged

        Mysterious. Like some Steven King novel. Makes our lives interesting.

      • Snobben

        My opinion regarding Andrea Rossi and hes LENR is that all people sitting on information,small or big should make it official. That includes all involved parts no mather in which level or task. Just speak out, thats the only way to reach the truth

        • Snobben

          If A.R have what he says he have there is nothing to protect, only good things can come out of it. If he don’t have it, then there is absolutely nothing to protect. I think the second scenario is the most likely outcome…sadly

          • bachcole

            Alerting the competition to what one has is very foolish in the business sense.

        • bachcole

          “should” is a yellow flag word.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Furthermore, because pretty much all of the Electricity in France comes from Nuclear, the French tend to heat their house electrically. If they could used 1/3rd less with electric heaters that had a COP of 1.5 then the balance they could sell to Germany, which would offset their reliance on burning dirty Lignite coal for much of their energy production.

    Saying you need a high COP is not really considering the massive benefit even a small positive COP could have for the environment.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Thank’s Hhiram. I try to analyze and be honest. Sometimes I make mistakes — I’m only human.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Thanks Engineer48.

    #71 is from Rossi’s lawyer in the complaint, not the ERV. #73 is from the ERV:

    “More specifically, the ERV found that over the Guaranteed Performance period, the amount of energy produced by the E-Cat Unit was consistently substantially greater than six (6) times the amount of energy consumed by the unit. In fact, the ERV found that during the testing period, the average energy multiplier (Energy Produced / Energy Consumed) was often greater than sixty (60).”

    This tells me the ERV measured COP 6+ with occasional burst during self-sustained mode to 60.

    I think average 50x COP is a likely gross exaggeration that has been seized upon by the uninformed. COP of 3 to 10 is reasonable for the 350 day test of total energy in (joules or kWH) to energy out. If the plant is running at 50x COP meaning that it consumed only 20 kilowatt years for an output of 1000 kilowatt years (rounding test time up to 1 year), it is essentially too good to be true. This is almost certainly a gross exaggeration which will be shown when the ERVs report is made public.

    • Engineer48

      All the claims are from Rossi, as written by his lawyer.

      Please reread claim 71, which in effect states the total energy outputted, over the period of the test, was significantly greater than 50 times the total energy consumed.

      Of course that claim, which is very clear and made by Rossi, must be verified.

  • Yes, one must ask how or what is the scam even?

    He is NOTHING in the vein of Bernie Madoff or Charles Ponzi even.

    And the ‘boys’ involved at this point (IH et al) are professionals at this point

    Not our grandmas and their pensions …

  • “but observations or reports are just reports”

    If they come directly from AR, aren’t they just a tad bit more reliable? i mean, first hand from one of the principals involved, the inventor even, must carry more weight?

  • Snobben

    I have been following A.R since he first showed up on Swedish TV, 6 years ago. I belived in him and gived him hes chance to prow what he’s got. But some time it’s time to wake up and that time will soon be here. Of course it’s up to every one to make that decision. But i think it’s healthy for AR to feel the clock is ticking what ever he have in hes mind…

  • radvar

    You know, that statement says a whole lot more about you than it does about anything else. I mean, you do know that, don’t you?

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Mats Lewan on his blog from April 24th reports on a one-month bill for the place alleged to be the test site. He reports that it: “… indicates an average consumption of about 10 to 20 kWh per hour”. Even if it is off by a factor of two, it certainly can separate COP 1 from COP 50. The other measurement (assuming that the steam out does not contain liquid water) required is water mass flow rate into the plant. You will see arguments about how accurate the flow sensor is and if it was properly calibrated. I have calibrated flow sensors by using a stop watch (much less than 1% error), a bucket (about 5 gallons US), and a scale (less than 1% error). All you need to do is divert the water flow into the bucket, time the diversion using the stopwatch, and then weigh the water in the bucket. It is certainly not rocket science. It should be easy to differentiate COP 1 from COP 50.

    If the ERV could not make the measurements, something is radically wrong.

    • Owen Geiger

      Calorimetry is be standard, straightforward work for specialists who work in this field, and yet pathoskeps will debate it endlessly as if it’s impossibly difficult. Use some common sense. Obviously engineers know how to do this properly. And because of the importance of this test almost certainly everything was checked and rechecked many times. And then consider the bogus argument that IH was supposedly fooled for one year. This is such an outrageous claim that stretches credulity. How could IH be this incompetent?

      • DrD

        Try reading all of this blog and his.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Pathoskeptics will also argue that the quality of the steam was wrong and that will “invalidate” the test, but even if no steam was generated, only water at 100C, you still can separate COP 1 from COP 50.

  • Owen Geiger

    Rossi said the new reactors incorporate all the changes and improvements that were developed during the one year test.

  • DrD

    It’s not all personal gain. As said many times, you don’t develop, improve, manufacture and support something as difficult as this for free or even on charitable donations.