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.

  • TPaign

    Someone should swing by the test location and see what size power meter is on the outside of the building and/or tenant space. At a COP of 1, 300 kW output at 3 phase 480V requires a minimum 360 amps. Also at a COP of one, 1,000 kW output at 3 phase 480V requires a minimum 1,202 amps. For the address listed in the legal document, a facility that size commonly will have a 200 or 400 amp service. An 800 amp service is not-so-common, larger than 1000 amp pretty rare. If the output is being measured accurately, and Rossi is only running at a COP of 1, then the locations electrical service must be larger than 3P/480V/1,200 amps, or 3P/208V/2,775 amps.

    • Ged

      That is a very astute observation. The mains have to be designed to handle whatever max could come in, so that’s an easy bit of evidence to determine.

      • Mike Henderson

        If this soap opera needs more conspiracy drama: Why is there an electrician working on the service to the building the day that Google’s StreetView car drives by?

        https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8162491,-80.3254479,3a,75y,95.63h,55.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saQ6Qa0mnchivanuXWp0pRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

        • Alex Fenrick

          It is probably coincidence…but humorous and quite coincidental that they are installing an additional distribution transformer outside that address!!! lol The google photo was taken April 2015….

          • 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.

        • Ged

          Be interesting if we could find the date that happened! The intrigue just doesn’t stop from getting deeper.

          Edit: Based on the streetview date slider, seems these pictures are from April 2015, but nothing more specific than that. And in February 2014, they were just finishing putting in those new power pole things.

          • Peter

            April 2015 from bottom of screen.

          • wpj

            So, 2 months after the test started…………………..

        • Ophelia Rump

          If you position the camera between the trucks, you can watch the man with the backhoe lay new cable. But that building is Alta Graphics. It seems to be a row of small businesses.

          I don’t think that is the JM Chemicals factory. I found a site which shows that building as their address, but that is probably just a mailing address, very secretive this factory.

          • Alex Fenrick

            Ophelia…that is the building. Alta Graphics is just one of the other tenants in that building…amusingly enough a company called Rossini Marble is in the same building as well!

            EDIT: I suppose it could be a mailing address…but a commercial building like that with presumed warehouse space would make for a strange mailing only address. Just throwing ideas out there.

        • -so is the name of this soap opera “A StreetView Car Named Conspire”?

        • Jacob Slatter

          Hmmm…

          • Alex Fenrick

            HAHA that is awesome!!!

          • Bruce Williams

            That is a photo of…………………..Dottore ROSSI !

          • adriano

            OMG!!! ahaahaah thanks for the laugh

    • Dan

      I live in Miami. Send me the address and I’ll do a drive by.

      • Fastbuck

        Hi Dan. Have you done that drive by yet? It would be nice to see a pic of the electric meter. While your there, a fresh pic of the front and rear entrances would be great!

    • Alex Fenrick

      TPaign is absolutely right….his numbers are correct. This is a very interesting angle that I had not even thought of. Even if some of the ancillary service cabinets are inside the building, you would still easily see some evidence of service capacity via the can and building entry pipe size if you know what you are looking for. I am not saying this is proof of anything concrete…just more interesting info in the saga….

    • Andrew

      Or @ 600v 289 A….at max power draw. A 400 A panel would be well within the tolerance of 80% total load, assuming nothing else is running of course. 600v industrial/commercial service is quite common, where I live anyways. Most apartment buildings or factories will have 1kA+ services so it’s not that rare. Just off the top of my head I can think of at lest 30 places I have been in my area with services like that.

  • Gittyup

    I live in Miami and also am a GC so I have plenty of experience with meter cans and service amperage etc. Post the address and I’ll swing by and see what’s up with the meter can.

    • Mike Henderson

      Search this site for JM Chemical Products. http://search.sunbiz.org It lists their Principal Address as 7861 46TH STREET, DORAL, FL 33166

    • Bob Matulis

      Hopefully on a separate meter.

    • Ged

      Thank you for offering to help us all out by investigating. Good luck!

    • Wherever the test location was, it had Rossi and Team coming and going at all hours of the day for almost a year. Others working in the area would recognize them if presented with a photo and could confirm their presence in the area. Neighboring establishments, convenience stores, Starbucks, gas stations, etc…

    • Guest

      Re-posting this from animpossibleinvention comment:

      The address for JM Products Inc listed in their corporate filings is 7861 NW 46th Street, Doral FL. It looks to be the building at the corner of NW 46th Street and NW 79th Ave in Doral.

      Doing a little research it looks like Unit #6 in that building is the only unit that uses 7861 as its mailing address, and it appears to have possibly just become available for rent (after apparently last having entered into a rental contract sometime around 9/1/14 which aligns with JM’s address change filing on 9/3/14). The space is listed as a ~6K sqft industrial warehouse space for light manufacturing or storage use.

      If you do swing by hopefully you can also report on whether the address has been vacated since the end of the test…

      Looks like the business in the adjacent unit is called Rontan Signals, so if it is vacant maybe they’d answer some questions about when it became vacant and whether or not they noticed activity at their former neighbor’s loading dock that would be consistent with production and shipping of products?

      • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

        Wow. That would be great. You can also take some photographs of the place if you dont mind.

  • 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.

  • 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…..

      • Steve Swatman

        A minimum COP of 3, (MINIMUM) assuming it was using the maximum power available at all times!

        Even it was a minimum of COP 3 and thus never running in SSM, a cop of 3 is without doubt Proof of concept!

        No matter how many people use the minimum as a (possible) maximum in their comments, it is still a beautiful proof of concept. in which case Rossi is vindicated.

        The next question should be, what % of the time was the plant running in SSM?

        • Alex Fenrick

          Steve…did you read my comment before responding? Neither myself nor Rene stated or even alluded that we believe a COP of 3 would not be proof of concept. I actually believe an honest independent confirmation of a COP of 3 WOULD in fact be proof of concept….but that does not mean it would be a viable power source for most companies that have constant power needs. I believe it was explained quite thoroughly.

      • 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.

        • Alex Fenrick

          Bob…that is pretty much what myself and Rene were pointing out. While there are companies that could absolutely take advantage of a COP of 3…..it is a very small percentage. This gives it very little viability commercially until a higher coefficient is achieved.

          • 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.

        • 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 reserve was consumed all the time if SSM is true. 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, is true and was outside license contract, then IH:s statement ‘could not substantiate’ would get some meaning. Remains to be seen.

          • Alex Fenrick

            I don’t believe the “could not substantiate” had anything to do with Quark-X.

  • 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

  • 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

      • Andy Kumar

        I get the arithmetic part. I was just a bit surprised that you prefaced your conclusion with the assumption of truthfulness. There was a time when this assumption need not be stated explicitly.

        • Frank Acland

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

      • clovis ray

        hi, Frank,
        LOL I was just thinking ::) , not many things around, that can run that long on so little, even if it only ran just over, say, one or two, would that not be remarkable,
        I say yes, it ran constantly for about a year, and if the reactor needed an adjustment, it was replaced with another, until repairs were make and it put back on line, that the usual process, i have did it many times, with many kinds of machinery.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Where are the Rossi exaggerators that claimed a COP of 50 now from last week?

    I think the average COP for the test will prove to be in the range of 3 to 5. That is enough, if I read the contract correctly, for IH to make a pro-rated payout of roughly 50 to 80% of the $89 mm.

    Clearly IH thinks that the plant is not economically useful. This implies that the COP is low, or that it requires constant tweaking 24×7, at the cost of say $300K per year. Considering that the savings on a COP 3 plant is only 2/3*1MW = .666 KW, and that industrial electricity cost $70/MWh vs. industrial natural gas cost $3.84 per KCF = $13.2/MWh (both price sources EIA), we are talking about providing 1 MW of Rossi head for 333 KW costing $23/hour vs. $13.2/MWh for gas heat.

    We are only getting 100 to 140 C steam out of the Rossi plant.

    Thus, the plant clearly doesn’t work economically except in those places where we can’t get natural gas, and even then, the management software has to be completed so that a Rossi technician does not need to live in the trailer.

    To make it work vs. natural gas, COP must exceed 6 or it must run primarily on natural gas; and it must work unattended.

    We don’t know yet what IH will say, but I suspect that the plant wasn’t working up to contract specs and that IH sent its own independent expert to prove that. What will come out of the trial is a specific report by at least 2, maybe 3 experts, detailing performance.

    I think COP 2 at 1 MW scale is revolutionary. But not commercial in April 2016, and IH may have decided to conserve cash as the payout may not be for 2 to 5 years when the Rossi plant finally is engineered for delivery to an unattended site.

    What is worse is the slow neutrons seen in bubbles in the detector on the MFMP Glowstick 5.3 test. This is the first report of ionizing radiation. Slow neutrons are difficult to shield and contaminate everything they come into contact with by neutron activation. This will be a regulatory approval nightmare for the home or industrial market. That may constrain LENR to larger power plants with effective radiation shielding, unless the thickness can be reduced to something that will fit in a basement LENR furnace unit. Think “NRC” getting involved to regulate the safety.

    I believe that LENR will work as a booster or efficiency provider on natural gas fired power plants where the neutron contamination can be contained safely away from the public.

    IH may know all this and had estimated that paying out say 50% of the nominal $89 mm was a negative economic investment, and that there was sufficient doubt about the veracity of the COP measurements to demand a trial whereby a third party expert can prove to a judge what the actual COP is. All this will take years.

    I can’t wait to read IH’s answer to the complaint.

    • Engineer48

      You wrote:
      “Where are the Rossi exaggerators that claimed a COP of 50 now from last week?”

      It seems you have not read the complaint filed by Rossi? Item 71 – 73 should be of interest to you:

      71. On February 15, 2016, the Guaranteed Performance test was successfully concluded. The E-Cat Unit had successfully operated for more than three hundred fifty (350) days out of a four hundred (100) day period at a level substantially greater than the level achieved during the Validation Test. By all accounts, the amount of energy produced by the E-Cat Unit during the Guaranteed Performance Test was substantially greater than fifty (50) times the amount of energy consumed by the E-Cat Unit during the same period.

      72. On or about March 29, 2016, the ERV published his final report regarding the operation of the E-Cat Unit during the Guaranteed Performance test. In the ERV’s report, the ERV confirmed that the E-Cat Unit had satisfied all of the performance requirements imposed by the License Agreement including, but not limited to, the requirement that the production of energy was at least six (6) times greater than the energy consumed.

      73. 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).

      • 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.

          • Are you still in talks with LC? How’s that going?

          • bachcole

            Self-interested reports are notoriously unreliable.

    • GordonDocherty

      “Slow neutrons are difficult to shield and contaminate everything they come into contact with by neutron activation.”

      I think you’ll find that’s energetic neutrons, as produced in fission reactors and nuclear bombs. For “Slow neutrons” read “Ultralow Momentum Neutrons” or “Ultralow Energy Neutrons”.

      “Considering that the savings on a COP 3 plant is only 2/3*1MW = .666 KW,
      and that industrial electricity cost $70/MWh vs. industrial natural gas
      cost $3.84 per KCF = $13.2/MWh (both price sources EIA), we are talking
      about providing 1 MW of Rossi head for 333 KW costing $23/hour vs.
      $13.2/MWh for gas heat.”

      In the UK, there is currently real political pressure to try to build a new (3.2GW electrical/9GW thermal) fission reactor with strike price of £92.50/MWh (about $130.00/MWh), being built with money from the French taxpayer and money borrowed from China – and, of course, there’s the waste, the metres thick shielding, the containment vessel (of dubious quality, given it is of the same type as the one currently being installed at Flamanville – see http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Flamanville-EPR-vessel-anomalies-under-scrutiny-0704154.html ) – oh, and the bill for paying for this is £18Bn – 24Bn (with the taxpayer having to fork out £22Bn if the plant is never used).

      Further, consent has been given for investigations into the potential for finding coal bed methane to be extracted by high pressure fracture wells (that’s fracking to you and me) right under the reactor: Hinkley Point sits on top of one of the parcels of land for which a licence to drill exploratory wells is now on offer (block: ST24, north of Shurton and Wick : http://frack-off.org.uk/locations/ )

      Finally, the wind direction across Hinkley is normally either from the South West – taking contaminant over Bristol, the Severn Valley and the West Midlands (population around 3.5 Million) or West, taking contaminant over London and its hinterland (population around 10 Million) – all within a 110 miles radius, with Cardiff and Bristol being within 20 – 30 miles (combined population around 1 Million)

      So, is there a need for LENR? You bet…

      • GordonDocherty

        I forgot to mention, large passenger planes stuffed full of aviation fuel fly nearly directly over Hinkley Point. To put it bluntly, Hinkley Point C in these troubled times would be a security nightmare… and even in a “non-nuclear conflict”, would risk becoming the near perfect dirty bomb. On these grounds alone, it should never be built. Yet, here we are…

        • peacelovewoodstock

          Don’t they engineer those things to withstand, say, a direct impact from a large aircraft?

          • GordonDocherty

            the containment vessel, maybe, but the heat exchange and control systems, no – and just look to Fukishima to see what happens when the heat exchange and control systems are knocked out. Then, of course, there is the containment vessel of dubious quality – and, if terrorists deliberately aim two planes full of fuel at the reactor… the reaction times as planes deviated off course would be close to zero. These are new times, with new threats, requiring new responses. And then, of course, there are still conventional weapons, should rogue states decide to “have a go”.

          • peacelovewoodstock

            Point taken.

        • .. Not to mention the arrangement that would allow the Chinese to build their own new nukes in the UK in return for their 1/3 funding of Hinkley C station.

          Fortunately it (finally) begins to look like the last wheels are falling of this ridiculous project:

          http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/23-april-2016/

          Pending any other firm developments then perhaps the Severn Estuary tidal schemes and estuarine wind farm project will make much better use of the HPC site. EDF would be much better off getting behind these proposals than risking their future on another failed nuclear project, no matter what taxpayer funded bribes Osborne offers to try to keep his scheme afloat.

      • Anon2012_2014

        ‘I think you’ll find that’s energetic neutrons, as produced in fission reactors and nuclear bombs. For “Slow neutrons” read “Ultralow Momentum Neutrons” or “Ultralow Energy Neutrons”.’

        Try again. We are talking about thermal energy neutrons. Thermal neutron activation is a basic undergrad physics lab experiment/demo. Been there done that!

        See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation

        “Neutron activation is the process in which neutron radiation induces radioactivity in materials, and occurs when atomic nuclei capture free neutrons, becoming heavier and entering excited states. The excited nucleus often decays immediately by emitting gamma rays, or particles such as beta particles, alpha particles, fission products and neutrons (in nuclear fission). Thus, the process of neutron capture, even after any intermediate decay, often results in the formation of an unstable activation product. Such radioactive nuclei can exhibit half-lives ranging from small fractions of a second to many years.

        Neutron activation is the only common way that a stable material can be induced into becoming intrinsically radioactive.”

        “For physicians and radiation safety officers, activation of sodium in the human body to sodium-24, and phosphorus to phosphorus-32, can give a good immediate estimate of acute accidental neutron exposure.”

    • Hhiram

      Always the best posts on any LENR forum, thanks for this. Your comments are the only reason I keep checking the forums for updates.

      • Anon2012_2014

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

        • bachcole

          But how do you know that you are only human? (:->)

    • LarryJ

      “Clearly IH thinks that the plant is not economically useful.”

      What IH thinks is not clear to me at all and based on the volume of comments regarding their motivation it is not clear to many other folks as well. I think you would be better saying “In my Opinion”

      In my opinion IH is very impressed with the technology and would rather take a run at market share right now and spend the next decade or two arguing about IP rights. I know my crystal ball is just as good as yours.

    • Frederic Maillard

      As you just did, IH could easily make the same cost calculations before signing the agreement with AR.
      So they have to pay the bill now according to the measured COP would it be 3 , 5 or 50.

      • clovis ray

        nope, to late, breach of contract, for non payment, all bets are off.

    • Michael W Wolf

      There is no way to calculate. If the ecat has SSM, isn’t that infinite cop? You would need the time ecat was in SSM to calculate correctly.

    • SteveA

      I don’t believe anyone ever said the COP was 3. Rossi said the amount of power available was 300kW. So that was the service limit, not necessarily what the plant was drawing. The report referenced minimum COP of 6, so that says the power draw wasn’t higher than 167kW at any time after LENR is activated (obviously COP=1 until then). The question is what percent of the time after the plant was started was there active LENR, and what was the average power draw during LENR periods?

      • 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.

    • “Where are the Rossi exaggerators that claimed a COP of 50”

      They still exist, and can be found. It would appear you may be a bit confused, just a little, by events though ..

    • “Clearly IH thinks that the plant is not economically useful.”

      Yup. That would explain why they (IH) have ceased all patent filing activities…

      No, wait –

  • Dr. Mike

    Frank,
    Those were good questions to ask Rossi. If we believe the court documents, the average power going to the e-cat plant was about 20KW to achieve an average COP of greater than 50. It may have taken something close to the maximum power to start up the plant, but this would have to be offset by the system running with less than 20KW for most of the running time to achieve an average COP of >50. Some of the questions that I would like to see answered by the ERV report (or Rossi) include:
    1. In calculating the COP, was the total input power to the container used, or just the input power used to heat the e-cats when they weren’t in SSM?
    2. Did the COP calculation include the power to bring the e-cats up to operating temperature?
    3. If COP was calculated using only the power to heat the e-cats, how much power was consumed by all other electronics within the container?
    4. How was the output power measured?

    My guess is that the method of measuring the COP was specified fairly precisely in the agreement between Rossi and IH since there was so much money on the line to achieve a COP of 6.0. Perhaps the ERV report will document the agreed methodology for the COP determination?

    • clovis ray

      HI, Dr M.
      I’m not Frank, but i will try and answer you, and BTW i’m much better looking than he is.
      first off, it was 300 kw, not 20,
      second off, the cat in ssm, is making a cop of 50, you don’t need much of anything to measure that kind of excess, the measure of the customer’s happiness is the best indicator of excess power.

      • 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.

        • clovis ray

          Mike, I/H breached the agreement,by non- payment, once that complaint is decided, then, reparation, and penalty phase, then there is i/p theft, now that getting into, a whole other can of worms, not to mention,forgery of doc’s and who know what. i suspect they will try and pull stakes and salvage,the remains, the same is with mice and men.

  • roseland67

    300 kW, assume 480 volts in Miami facility
    .95 pf, (assume most of load is heater), around
    400 amp breaker to feed Ecat.
    This is common size in commercial switch gear,
    Nothing unusual there

  • Frank Acland

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

  • Richard Stuart

    At this point, does anyone really care if the plant is commercial? If he has demonstrated a COP of 3 isn’t that the equivalent of the Wright Flyer showing man could fly? Seems to me that showing that Cold Fusion works AT ALL is a lot more important than showing the current generator is commercial. We know he’s working on improved models.

  • clovis ray

    This post is so screwed up, so do you think Dr Rossi, cares if you guys are creeping around his back fence, come on guys are you that bored, heck i thought things were going great, i don’t think Frank would think it’s right either. i personally don’t want anything to do with this. and i suggest, you take this little caper somewhere else,

    • Ged

      Generally power meters and lines are publicly accessable, so there is nothing wrong here in just looking. No one is allowed to invade private property, but for anything that is public, there is nothing wrong what so ever

    • Alex Fenrick

      If there is nothing to hide…there is nothing to fear….

  • 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

  • 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

  • Gerard McEk

    Determining the electrical power by good measuring equipment is easy and can also be checked by comparing the with the standard kWH meter of the customer. Measuring the output heat may be more difficult. It is done by measuring water flow and temperatures. Question is how the customer measures it and we’re they in line with each other too?

    • “Measuring the output heat may be more difficult.”

      Wow. You’re right. We will have to await for the development of flow meters and thermometers and thermocouples, maybe even invent a field of applied science / engineering called ‘calorimetry’ even …

      Wow.

      /sarcasm

  • Евгений Максимов

    Useless toy?
    AR why hide a secret?

    • Why do you hide your passwords?

  • The electric part is probably a minor problem, having the electricity meter as a control measure. Measuring the heat output is the real issue, and we can only hope to get necessary answers in the ERV report, if we’ll ever see it. Mainly:
    How was the water flow measured?
    How can we know that all the water passing through the plant was evaporated and didn’t pass just as hot water (overflowing)?

    • Rip Kirbyian

      Mats, the guys from Hydrofusion seems competent (PhDs in physics) and able to call a bluff (professional poker players). I guess they have invested at least some money and probably a lot of time in the E-cat. What do these guys say when you speak to them about the latest development?

    • Argon

      For court case I could guess that if real customer was running real process similar to existing ones and if COP was 50 as Mr. Rossi claims, that customer testimony would be pretty conclusive by comparing products produced vs e-bill charged. Then the question moves to electricity meter tampering, or Rossi feeding the lines from other meter and secretly paying the extra bill from his pocket. Would that be possible with all IH people around. remains to see.

      • wpj

        If they were genuinely producing the metal catalysts, these have been made for over 50 years so they would have definitive knowledge of the amount of energy required. Given the low cost/competition in production of these materials, any energy savings would really add to the bottom line. It would certainly explain their desire to purchase more units if that is the case.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Well, you can put a switch on an electric meter. When it is off, you get electricity but the meter doesn’t register any electricity.

        • 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.

          • Speculation running into the realm of silly, it appears. Maybe next we propose that some one on his team is robbing banks? See, that is silly too.

    • Gian Luca

      Mats, your questions are legitimate but also technical.
      Maybe my view is stupid but to keep our feet on the ground,
      do you think would do the JM Chemicals
      continue the test of 356 days if it had not produced the results declare yourself?
      Maybe Yes, but requesting a payment for the rental of the space occupied and the current consumed.
      Do not believe?

      • 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.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats,

      I know several power system engineers, you know the guys that build and maintain large thermal power plants that run on high temp steam. They tell me doing the measurements for the 1MWt 105C steam ECat plant is drop dead simple as how to do this and the equipment to use was established a very long time ago.

      There is no grey area here. Doing the measurements are not difficult nor challenging especially as the claimed long term thermal steam energy was significantly greater than 50 times the long term averaged electrical energy input.

      That Rossi bought and installed the same equipment as the ERV also adds to the data integrity as there were then 2 sets of measurement data. From Rossi’s statement his set of monitoring equipment reported the same measurement data as that of the ERV, to the accuracy of the equipment.

      Add to that the utility bills for the electricity and the water consumed, both of which need to support the 1MW of steam generation and not just warm water, this is not a hard job to show the ERV report was accurate.

      So sum it is claimed there are 4 sets of data:

      1) ERV data
      2) Rossi data from identical equipment as the ERV
      3) Electricity account from the supply utilities meters for the period of the test
      4) Water account from the supply utilities meters for the period of the test

      They ALL need to support each other and if so it will be VERY difficult to say the ERV data collected is faulty.

      • wpj

        Very nice but, if they were indeed making these catalysts, then there is a huge amount of water used in leaching, washing and then final storage (they are shipped over water due to their pyrophoric nature) so 4 is not really valid for this.

        • Engineer48

          As some have claimed there was no production, all the utility bills can be used to support or not that statement.

          • wpj

            As pointed out by Mats, the photo of the plant shows a return for the water which will be re-heated.

      • Fair enough Engineer48. A few things though:
        – I don’t from where I got it, maybe the license agreement, but I think the water ran in a closed loop, evaporating, condensing, cooling and back again. That excludes the use of water consumption data.
        – The case with flawed measurements, mainly claimed by IH, is closely connected with the claim of deception. In that case overflow could be intentional, and we would need to get information on the set-up to understand if that can be excluded.
        – Same goes for efficiency claimed by the customer in his process (not raised by you but by others). If it’s deception, the customer could be involved.

        Here I’m just trying to imagine what IH might claim in its answer to Rossi’s lawsuit. And consequently, what the court might need to investigate.

        • Engineer48

          Mats,

          My reference was to the advice I was given my 2 friends that are power system engineers at a large thermal power plant.

          They liked the dual monitoring equipment and said that if they were called as expert witnesses, they would need to see the equipment used, how and where it was installed, the dual data streams, the energy and water utilisation accounts plus of course a schematic of the plant and then to inspect the monitoring equipment as the plant operated and maybe to place their own test load to measure how well the monitoring system responded to varying loads.

          Said maybe 1-2 week to do a prelim report that would indicate if the existing monitoring system was working ok or not and was responding properly to varying loads on the 1MWt plant.

          So doing this is not a big ask and is what every thermal power plant in the world does all the time.

          Should add that someone suggested the 1MW plant had no customer and just produced warm water that was put down the drain. Knowing the water consumption would shown if that was or was not possible.

          • Good idea. Hope the court will do something like that.

    • Dr. Mike

      Mats,
      I agree that there will probably be a lot more questions as to how the output heat was measured as compared to electrical input once the report is released. As suggested in my comments below (response to Clovis Ray), I think Rossi would have a much stronger court case if he were to release the ERV report as an initial draft to this website, then revise the final report to clarify the questions that might be raised in this scientific community. Perhaps Frank might make this recommendation to Rossi?

  • steph har

    Is this not the case, correct me if I’m wrong. Because the cost of the fuel is so cheap can’t you just put two e-cats in series, the first would need 100KW to provide the 300KW to drive the second that provides the 1MW.

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

  • 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;

  • 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;

    • Michael W Wolf

      Producing direct electricity in SSM? Almost too good to be true.

      • Barlow

        Didn’t Rossi also say that the e-cat moves itself? A kind of em drive.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Well let’s just hope he is not using a magic wand. 🙂

  • Gennadiy

    Colleagues, do not you think that the study LENR only copying Rossi – a dead end?

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • “There are ways to deceive certain types of meters.”

      We aren’t considering the actions of a couple of ‘pot growers’ stealing power from the grid out of sight of inspecting eyes, so no, this speculation appears silly …

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I do not assert anything, I‘m just outlining a worst case scenario. Independently of that, exactly such a mismeasurement happened in July 2012 during a presentation of the E-Cat to Swedish investors. See Mats Lewan’s book, 1st edition (print version), p. 238f. Or search
        “The instruments show different” in the E-book.

  • blanco69

    For me there are some deeper questions here. Are IH trying to establish if Rossi’s method of LENR works at all? Or are they saying that it works but is it commerically viable? If they’re trying to establish that an ecat (of any kind) produces excess heat at all ie. the phenomenon exists, then you ‘ve got to say that putting a shipping containe full of these things in the corner of a factory somewhere and waiting for a year is not the way to do it! Remember, if it works then you are in a race against time so waiting for a year is crazy. We talked about this before, I know, but I find that behaior irrational. In my view, one could determine a vaild COP figure (especially if you gonna say it’s 50!) in, say, 2 weeks! I’m comming more to the conclusion that IH believe the technology works but with a COP closer to 3 and you can see then why, with such a marginal viability, you would go down the path of a long term, real life test. I think that, if the COP really was 50 then IH would have found out much sooner than 12 months into the test and we certainly wouldn’t have had all that F9 stuff from Rossi. My view is that IH wont end up paying Rossi $89M but a figure somewhere south of that. Nevermind, once the EQuark hits the streets a 1MW shipping container will look decidedly old school.

    • Good point.

    • There are many aspects of the story so far that stretch credulity, but the year-long test has to be right at the top of the list. The more we find out about it (or rather, the more we are told) the less sense it makes.

      A year long test simply wasn’t necessary – it’s just not what you do when developing this kind of kit. You build a small prototype (a single reactor or group of reactors in this case), hook this up to a shedload of sensors and monitors, then test it under simulated field conditions of increasing intensity, and you do this close to your fabrication facilities so that you can quickly provide parts for mods and repairs. As problems show up you make your modifications and try again, then keep repeating the cycle. If it becomes obvious that the prototype isn’t ever going to work properly you start again (which is what seems to have happened).

      What you do not do is cart your large, heavy, and fragile first prototype to an unguarded warehouse far from your engineering base, and with no facilities except an electrical supply, then hook it up to a third party’s production machinery of unknown operational characteristics, employ some outsider with a clipboard to measure things for you, then wait for a year while doing nothing else (while civil war quietly breaks out).

      And if that’s not bad enough, we are given to believe that a fake company was created by an established UK manufacturer and a Rossi associate, which rented an empty warehouse on an industrial estate and installed some production machinery from somewhere (apparently complete with feedstock, plus managers and operators prepared to run their plant 24/7, canteen facilities and so on), for the prototype to feed into, and that Rossi then babysat his creation for a year, nipping out occasionally for fresh air, coffee, spare parts… and to get the ‘quark’ prototype built so he could take it back to his container and play with it. … And that the instant the test finished, the e-cats and the production machinery were removed, Rossi, Penon, the managers and the plant operators went home, and the warehouse was placed back on the rental market.

      Sorry – but the whole story is beyond crazy.

      All we actually know is that two prototype boiler units were built somewhere (assuming not CGI/cardboard sets) and installed in containers by a small team thought to be IH employees, and (presumably) run for some period. We don’t know where for sure, we don’t know what the ‘load’ was or how a continuous MW of waste heat was disposed of, we don’t know who (if anyone) was monitoring progress other than Rossi and Penon, we don’t know what the results were – and we certainly don’t know why a year was wasted on this futile exercise when all effort should have been put into developing and testing individual reactor variants in parallel, experimenting with every tweak possible, and working on an operating theory.

      I hope we will learn the answers to these mysteries soon, but I’m not holding my breath. On the face of it, IH AND Rossi seem to have been fiddling for more than a year, while Rome burns. We can only hope that the real story is slightly more sane than the one we’re running with at the moment.

      • Ciaranjay

        Agaricus, well said.
        My thoughts are that the initial 24 hour test was to prove the principal worked. For which IH paid.
        The only reason to test for a year is to test how near to commercialization the tech is. Yet as you say it does not make sense. It looks like IH were not fully engaged. It looks like Rossi had to babysit the thing virtually 24/7. It looks like the tech is not ready for commercialization. It looks like IH were not impressed enough to part with around $90 million. But the whole setup looks strange. Obviously there is truth yet to come out.

      • roseland67

        Agaricus,
        It’s not crazy, it’s simply beyond absurd

      • DrD

        He was duped, naive if you like.

        Dr Andrea Rossi,
        In past you already had written in this blog that you were working to
        make a massive production factory. It was more than three years ago.
        Cheers,
        Gene

        Andrea Rossi
        April 24, 2016 at 7:52 AM
        Gene:
        True. Then talks with Cherokee began in spring 2012, they were very
        serious and I changed strategy, because at those times I was convinced
        that Cherokee was really intentioned to make a bif production concern,
        not a financial speculation. I was wrong.

  • Zapece

    To make any conclusions on a maximum input power of 300kW at this point is erroneous without more data. If we assume a standard bell curve with 300kW input at one end and SSM at the other then the data would still need to be broken down into how long the plant operated at each power level.
    If we average it we are looking at a COP of 6 but the curve could be skewed significantly in either direction depending on the amount of time in SSM or the amount of time operating in the upper end of the power spectrum. The fact is we still don’t have enough data to justify a conclusion about whether the tech fulfilled IH’s criteria without the report.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • georgehants

    I will repeat as the amount of repetition on these pages is amazing, 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 while we wait for this carbuncle to be resolved.
    The clear connection of Cold Fusion delay to totally corrupt capitalism and incompetence is clear for us all to see for 27 years.
    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, (if genuine) besides personal gain, I would like to hear it.
    ———-
    When the whole world is running toward a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction seems to have lost his mind.
    C.S. Lewis
    ———–
    It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.
    Henry David Thoreau

    • Michael W Wolf

      Ponns and Fliecshmann wanted to give it to the world George, but the socialist minded people at MIT and Cal tech, wanted to keep their welfare checks coming and screwed the world. Rossi has shown excess heat. He was called a fraud, time and time again. Let’s give him a chance, now that he has SSM and is trying to perfect direct ecat electricity, He may end up with something incontestable. And MFPF can’t do the test. They we’ll be part of the so called scam, since they know Rossi and Piatelli. There is no independence when it comes to LENR, can’t you see that? It has been set up that way to keep LENR from becoming mainstream for as long as they can keep it that way.

      • 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 just like drugs etc. etc. to do it’s job of helping this World.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Can’t argue with that George. I agree.

      • 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. I just hope he wins the court case and sell the products. I hope to see his massive market flood.

        • Michael W Wolf

          I agree, I am just saying they have had it in for cold fusion from the start. And if rossi has SSM, 50 COP is just the beginning. I felt myself turning against a couple of times. When I calm down, I am back to giving him some slack. I can’t seem to go against him because of how important his work may be.

    • Steve Swatman

      “The amount of repetition on these pages is amazing” Yes it certainly is georgehants.

      “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”

      This repetitive question has been answered repetitively too.

      Would you give up 10yrs of your work and expense to the world for free? I think not, then why would you demand someone else does.

      It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.

      IH, Darden and Vaughn, as well as Woodford and Fluvio, all of their due diligence team, lawyers and engineers, all saw with their own eyes, they were convinced.

      And now we see people complaining that a COP 3 is irrelevant. What people see, is only what they want to see. ;-0

      • 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 benefit 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”.

          • Stefenski

            Alas Capitalism now only works by & because of selfishness.
            It’s just a greedy system now
            One day the planet will revolve merrily – with the Banking institutions a Historical study only.
            It will change slowly for the better – when the majority of individuals begin to live for service – to others.
            Open Source projects are the beginning of that change

          • 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.

          • roseland67

            Stefanski,

            Maybe when that day comes we will finally see a working Ecat

          • DrD

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

          • Stefenski

            Hasn’t Mr Rossi already been paid some Millions.
            How much can a person spend in their life.
            I am sure if he were short changed , then he would be well rewarded with donations – if he is about to save the planet.
            He intimated that he wanted to help humanity’s energy needs, If I’m not mistaken.
            – As his motive. Now it has switched to money – it appears.

          • Steve Swatman

            you need money to start a factory, to pay for shipping and staff wages, and if you want to create a product that is produced in numbers large enough numbers to supply those in need and stop the capitalists from stealing your designs, well hell, you have to really play the game.

          • 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.

    • peacelovewoodstock

      Why would he invest his time and hundreds of thousands of dollars just to end a “circus” that is really only taking place on a few obscure discussion boards (w/ no offense to Frank)?

      • 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?

          • bachcole

            I often go several days without showering and my family and dogs still think that I am great. (:->)

      • Alex Fenrick

        If you believe this “circus” is and will be only taking place on a few obscure discussion boards….you have not been paying attention at all. Even mainstream publications like Popular Mechanics have taken notice and ironically mentioned THIS site AND Frank. You are definitely off base in your view there….

    • 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? Dont attack the person but the arguments please

        • 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.
      Please stop going on about it.

      • 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.

      • Agree w/AdrianAshfield

    • Sounds like the deal the devil offered to Jesus; “show us and we will believe you” …

      Literally “Show us a miraculous sign if you want us to believe in you”

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

          • Andrew

            George, you have been here s long time and admire your selfless views and wish the world was as selfless however if wishes came true the world would be a scarier place. All money is, is a common bartering system and allows many people including Rossi and many other great scientists, engineers and smart people to specialize in what they’re good at otherwise they would have no time at all to make and create the things they do because they would be too busy making their own bread, plucking their own chickens and making their own furniture.

            Rossi need the money to get things rolling, and personally would like to see him do that over someone else because he deserves it.

          • 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.

          • bachcole

            Such a perspective gives him absolute certainty, something that the rest of us mortals struggle to attain.

        • Chris Blythe

          Has Rossi given an insight into how electricity is produced, it would seem to be a different animal?

    • clovis ray

      OH, he’s building his factory all right, and he don’t need that puny amount of dust, He has plenty of folks that would love to back this potential trillion dollar corp. don’t worry, things are now moving forward again at full throttle.with a goal of, putting his e-cat plants out the doors, and on to the market, yahooo.

      • Karl Venter

        Excellent
        When can we expect some ecats Yahooo?

  • 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.

  • 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 ?

  • 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.

  • giovanniontheweb
    • BillH

      A nicely written article, but full of holes and inconsistencies. The thrust of the article being that patents hamper development and innovation, The point of a patent is to make the innovation more widely used, not to stifle development. Those criticising Watt at the time were probably those wish to use the ideas in Watt’s patent without paying a single penny in license fees. Is it surprising Watt and Boulton broke even only after eight years into the patents lifespan? Had they not patented it, they may well have gone bust well before then. No business ever got much backing when all the investors would be offered is “break even”.

      The suggestion is that there was a mad rush to develop new steam engines after Watt’s patent expired, my bet would be that there was also a mad rush to patent these new steam engines.

      In any case, what was happening in America during this period? since they would also have access to Watt’s patent they could rush headlong into development of steam engines with little or no regard to a British patent. Did this happen? who developed steam trains first?

      The only thing of real substance that comes out of this articles is that a patent should last at least eight year, and who is to say that 25 years is not a reasonable amount of time.

  • BillH

    Two more pieces of information would enable you to make a more accurate estimate of COP.
    How much electrical input does the plant need while in SSM? It could be small but not zero, I’d suggest somewhere between 10-30KW. And of course for what % of the total time of the test(352 days) was the plant in SSM? My estimate would be wide, somewhere between 50-80%. With an input of 30KW and 50% SSM you can get to a figure of 15 for COP. With the input lower and the SSM maintained for greater than 50% of the time, a COP of 50 would appear possible.

    • 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.

      • billH

        Good info, so worse case, it ran at COP3 for 25% of the time, and COP80(12.5KW input, 1MWth output).for 75% of the time, there is the add complication of possible downtime(max 10%, or the contract would not be made and the test would have ended early).

        Worse case again, COP0 for 10% of the test period, COP3 for 22.5% of the test, and COP80 for 67.5% of the test. which would indeed give a COP of 50+ for the duration of the test. Interesting.

  • 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”

  • Rinus

    Can somebody explain me why a COP > 2 is not the same as COP > as any number you can think of?
    When COP > 2 one eCat can feed two others, each of which can feed two others, ans so on.
    So, by building a whole tree of eCats one can get the COP as large as wanted.
    Or not?

    • 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.

      • Rinus

        Thanks for this explanation. How high should the COP have to be to make this work. Would COP > 50 do?

        • Timar

          With sufficient engineering, any COP significantly greater than 1 based on a thermally controlled reaction can very likely be turned into a COP that approaches infinity. It is all about the distribution of heat within the reactor (plus the outer insulation of the reactor) necessary to maintain a stable(!) reaction – the “self sustain mode”. Therefore it seems technically plausible that Rossi may be able to acchieve a COP > 50 after all these years of engineering that went into his reactors and all the design revisions (e.g. “cat & mouse”) he supposedly went through.

    • 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%.

  • 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.

  • bachcole

    I hate to be continually beating this annoying drum, but observations or reports are just reports, not evidence, until there is confirmation from disinterested sources.

    But I find it intriguing that he says that it would be impossible for the input to be greater than 300 kW. It makes perfect sense that the test set-up would have a natural maximum imput, sort of like the wattage on my house plugs would have a natural maximum based upon the voltage (117 volts) times the amperage, and the amps would be limited by the fuses or the circuit breakers.

    • “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?

  • 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?

  • wpj

    Interesting question

    Dr Rossi,

    Do you use titanium in the QuarkX ?

    Lupo

    Answer was “yes”; no longer any F numbers.

    • clovis ray

      I love it. already. no kidding serious,

      • wpj

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

      • DrD

        such a positive reply to such a question. Amazing.

    • BillH

      Ah! as in F9, I thought he might have meant E-numbers, as in additives, hehe.
      So, AR gives us a certainty now, not a maybe?

  • 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

    If Dr Rossi don’t put up some real good reason for him to be belived in very soon, i will place him among the greatest bullshiters in the world..

    • DrD

      Try reading all of this blog and his.

  • 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

    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. Your story of being Swedish is hard to believe when you include slang like ain’t and bullshiter, those are words that would never be taught in a language class. There are several posters that frequent this board from Scandinavia and they do not use American slang, so I am left with the question of ‘Whom is bullshitting who?’.

          • 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

          • Northern light

            Nevertheless many people from the US use the word BS. If you think that the only way to learn something is from school, then you´ve got a lot to learn. Many, if not most, TV programs and movies here in Sweden are from USA (or Britainn), and they are subtitles in Swedish with the original sound.

            Also, English is somehow considered “cool” since long time ago in Sweden, so there are many English words used, especially among the young, and consequentially, a lot of slang. You would be surprised hearing how many people are using the f-word when they are upset, and since the word is not from the native language, probably not considered as bad as it is regarded when an American is doing it in the US.

            Regardless of the above, as Snobben is conveying, Rossi needs to step forward. If he has something to show. I am doubtful.

          • 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 😉

    • Michael W Wolf

      If what Rossi claims he has is not so. He would be the greatest scammer of all time. But at least you are giving him a chance to prove himself, before you actually call him a scammer. If you were to actually call him a scammer, we would know you were a troll. But you didn’t and you are not. Welcome.

      • 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 …

      • Snobben

        Welcome where?

    • bachcole

      I strongly suggest that you read through the links in my article here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/04/21/this-is-what-i-know-for-sure-roger-bird/

      When you have read those articles and watched those videos and thought them through, then perhaps you will be up to speed with the rest of us. Until then, your perspective has not matured with regard to LENR, LENR+, Rossi, and the E-cat.

      • 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…

        • bachcole

          Rossi may and will change, particularly with regard to the ravages of ageing, but the facts of the Ferrara 2013 and Lugano 2014 will never change.

    • 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.

  • 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.

  • disqus_Wytyu1fa2J

    The follow-up order of 3 1MW plants is only

    feasible if the new design works in an unattended mode.

    Do we know how this is realised and what the fundamental difference
    is between the 1 year tested ecat an the ones to be delivered?

    Ok, the cores are different as we learned, but most difficulties AR had reported have been based on leakages as far as I remember.

    Heat exchangers and plumbing should have undergone a giant progress to operate the system unattendedly.

    • billH

      Having a single technician attend the plant is not totally unfeasable if the COP is high enough and the down time is kept to a minimum. If these 3 supposed new plant were in the same location it might be more economic. Perhaps a team of 3 techs could monitor many plants if they are all located on the same site. Health and Safety might require standby techs in any case.

    • Owen Geiger

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

  • 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.

  • 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…

    • clovis ray

      HI, Snobben,
      You need a spell checker, and you sound like you have some interesting insights on the one year test, or were you talking about some other test, please clarify

    • 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.’

  • 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…

  • Tom59

    Stepping back and away from discussions about all sorts of details, we have a technology, barely understood and far from systematically researched. But there is something and it is potentially big. Rossi took up the splinters of understanding, puzzled together a device that shows the effect and tries to push this to market, largely in a one man show. We follow his struggles in real time and wait impatiently for the happy end which we expected for the past weeks but it did not come. Maybe we are at the same level as an early alchemist who heated an obscure mixture and blew up his lab. Far away from a controlled use of explosives. But that early explosions raised questions among the curious and we ultimately arrived there. Maybe Rossi is that early alchemist.

    • psi2u2

      Very nice perspective.

    • Eyedoc

      Sorry, but that was F & P……AR is the guy 100 years later that got the mixture right and sold gunpowder

  • 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.

  • 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?

      • 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.

  • Randombit

    May I make a question ? How all this people can comment an ERV report that is actually not disclosed to public ? The only persons that had it are Rossi, Darden and the Penon. I suspect that who criticize the report is OR inventing everything from his own mind OR connect to Darden ( and possibly paid by him ). NO serious professional would comment a document that is not public. Seems that there is a deliberate policy to discredit the report BEFORE it will be public counting on the fact that a few blog readers and commenters actually read the original documents and just few of the readers can understand the documents. But ALL can have a profound opinion on what they have not read and not understood.

  • 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.

  • John

    I reviewed the technical specs for the E Cat listed on HydroFusion s website. It gives a maximum input power of 200 kW, and an average input power of 167 kW. Why is there a difference between what is listed on HydroFusion’s website and what is given here?

    • DrD

      Available input power must be > actual (MAX) input power.