The 2 COPs of the E-Cat

From what Andrea Rossi has been saying recently regarding the upcoming presentation, I think we have some idea of what to expect from the upcoming presentation. Rossi is not going to focus on the overall COP of the complete apparatus, which includes the control system and the circuit in which the E-Cat QX reactor(s) are located, his goal is only to demonstrate the COP of the E-Cat QX itself.

Andrea Rossi
August 3, 2017 at 7:15 AM
Jaroslaw Bem:
The COP is given from the ratio between the energy produced by the E-Cat and the energy consumed by the E-Cat, independently from the energy consumed by the control system.
The control system consume is made by the heat in which the flowing electricity is dissipated, that obviously cannot be accounted for the COP of the reactor.  The thermal energy in which the electricity of the control system is converted can be recovered itself, with a COP close to 1, if opportune, because the heated air can be sent in a preheater of the water before it goes to the reactor. It is just standard air/water heat exchange and it can recover practically all the energy dissipated by the control system. This, obviously, does not change the COP of the reactor.
To reach a COP>1 adding the energy consumed by the control system is enough 1 E-Cat QX.
Warm Regards,

A.R.

He does note in the last sentence of this response that if there was only one E-Cat QX, that the whole system (including the control system) would have a COP higher than 1, which implies that the power consumption of the control system is less than 20W (the power rating he has provided for a single E-Cat QX. I have asked Rossi to confirm this, but so far he has not. If this control system can operate up to 100 QX reactors, then one would assume that the more reactors that are combined, the higher the overall system COP would be. Another quote:

Michael S.:
First and foremost, thank you for your kindness and attention to our work.
Answer: the energy consumed will be measured AFTER the power source, which means between the power source and the E-Cat ! From where arrives the energy to the power source or IN it doesn’t matter to the COP: what matters is only the amount of it. If it arrives from a battery, or a series of batteries, or a multiple sandwich of batteries, or from a magician, or from the grid, therefore from a dam, or a nuclear plant, or a thermoelectric plant, or yourself in parallel and series with friends of yours rubbing frenziedly, even with the help of me hidden behind black courtains, a stock of amber sticks, it couldn’t affect the COP. What counts is how many Wh/h arrive to the E-Cat, not their origin.
About the plat you suggest, it will be fun when the E-Cat will go commercial.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Since Rossi states that the power consumed by the control system is immaterial for the purposes of demonstrating the COP of the E-Cat itself, and since he has also stated that he considers it confidential, I don’t think that we will see measurements of the control system’s power consumption in the demo. He has said that this will be a “technological” demonstration, not a commercial one.

However, when it comes time for commercialization, it will be very important for customers to know the power consumption of the whole system, including the controller and any other appended electronics, so they know how much money the might be able to save, and how much power the system will consume.  So the overall COP of the system is ultimately going to be most important when it comes to practical application of E-Cat technology.

  • roseland67

    What is the size of the wire feeding the Ecat?
    What is the voltage feeding for the Ecat?
    Are microwaves being used?

  • Mylan

    I’m specifically concerned if there will be meaningful power measurements. Rossi’s comments on voltage and current through the resistor make me fear that the measurements will be pretty useless.

    • Gerard McEk

      Indeed, that is also my concern. I hope he allows the engineers responsible for testing a proper look at the current and voltage shapes running into the E-cat QX.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Agreed. For two resistors (R1 and R2) in series, it holds that P1/P2 = R1/R2. With Rossi’s method you would get only P1 (assuming that R1 corresponds to the resistor and R2 to the reactor). The total power would come to P1*(1 + R2/R1). Not a big problem if R2 is low enough, but if not so one could largely underestimate the input, and thus overestimate the ‘COP’.

  • Dr. Mike

    Frank,
    I believe your analysis of what Rossi has said on his blog makes it fairly easy to predict what we will see in the demonstration of the E-Cat QX. You are certainly correct that the system COP is what is important for a commercial product. Rossi’s claim that the controller power is not important because most of the energy going to the controller can be recovered as heat is simply not true. In fact, if the controller power is too high, it may require fans or another cooling means which will further reduce the system COP.
    Even though one controller may operate 100 E-Cats, the system COP may not improve that much in going from 10 to 100 QX’s because the controller power consumption may be proportional to the number of QX’s being controlled. IMO we won’t know what the system COP is until the first commercial prototype is available for testing.
    Rossi is certainly correct that it doesn’t matter what the source of power is that supplies the QX. However, the method of measuring the input power does matter. A dc voltage measurement across a 1 ohm series resistor shows only the dc current flowing in the circuit. A claim that internal resistance of the QX is less than 1 ohm does not provide a measurement of the dc power going to the QX device. Also, without a oscilloscope to measure what high frequency energy is being supplied to the QX, there will be no scientific measurement of the device input power. It is certainly reasonable to believe that Rossi considers the output of the controller to be proprietary and can not be shown in the demonstration. If this is the case, then no calculation of the device COP can be made. The alternative is to measure the power going into the controller, which of course Rossi claims is not important. My conclusion is that we will know nothing new after the demonstration other than some number of QX’s can output a certain amount of power as calculated by Rossi’s calorimetry procedure. What are the chances that Rossi calibrates his calorimetry system using a separate heat source (such as used by Pons and Fleischmann in their experiments)? IMO- not much chance.
    Dr. Mike

    • Vinney

      It will be a DC power source to the QuarkX, so hidden AC frequencies won’t apply.
      I think it’s still a relevant test, as the control system efficiency can be improved over time.
      The electronics miniturised, with less power consuming processors and RF or gamma emitters. You are just being cynical now.

      • Dr. Mike

        The controller may be supplied with only dc power, but the only way to determine if the controller is not supplying the QX with high frequency energy is to measure the output of the controller with an oscilloscope. Since Rossi claims the output of the controller is proprietary, it’s doubtful that that output is just ~0.1v dc, which is what it would need to be for consistency with the measured 0.1v dc across the 1 ohm resistor and Rossi’s claim that the series resistance of the QX is much less than 1 ohm.

  • Dr. Mike

    If the controller did not supply some type of high frequency energy to the QX, why would Rossi consider the output of the controller to be proprietary? I agree that most of the circuitry in the controller will consume minimal power. However, the power consumed by the circuitry used to deliver high frequency energy to the QX will be at least as much as the power delivered to the QX. If 100 QX’s are being driven by a single controller, then the part of the controller circuitry supplying high frequency energy will need to operate at 100 times the power level as compared to that needed to supply a single device.
    It doesn’t seem likely that Rossi will provide any more accurate measurement of the total input power to the QX in the demonstration than what was provided in the recently published paper. Any electrical engineer reviewing this paper would conclude that insufficient measurements were taken to determine the input power to the device.

  • Ophelia Rump

    At 2000 percent return with one or a one hundred cores, it is a good investment at any input value.
    Assuming a string of 100 cores in series off a single controller, that is 100 times better.

    200,000% return on investment allows for an insignificant fraction of a single percent to be expended upon controller cost.

    I believe that might be one twenty thousandth of a percent, but I am legendarily bad with estimating.
    Replacing those cores annually will be significant, but a small fraction of a percent of the profitability of using them.

    ____________________________________

    The moment these go into production for commercial use, a race will begin, it will be a life or death struggle for businesses, in every sector where some gain access to LENR and others do not.

    In any market where one business can virtually eliminate there energy consumption costs and the others cannot or do not match them, the competing businesses will either become absorbed ruined.

  • AdrianAshfield

    What is missing from this discussion is what is required to start the reaction and heat it up to the operating temperature (2500C?)
    Presumably Rossi will keep this secret for as long as possible as it might give clues about the design. Once it starts operating the power required appears minimal and the COP is probably in the hundreds. To be fair, this is what really matters.

    If that startup power is figured in to a short demo with one E-Cat QX it will make the COP unrealistically low, but it doesn’t matter for an industrial application where the E-Cat will be running continuously.

    • Rene

      That really all depends. Remember his original e-cats, the one we all signed up to buy? That one had a nominal COP of 6 because , as he said back then, 1/6th of the time it required resistance heating, something like 2KW for an hour then 6 hours of generating 2KW, or 4KW of heat (the number varied across its ‘development’ cycle.
      We do not know how long the ECQX runs once it become operational. We do not know how much energy was expended to make it operational. We do not know how much total energy it will generate until it extinguishes itself or how long that period will be.
      As I wrote before, this is a wow demo for selected investment partners, just like the last three times since 2011.
      We have to decouple the strong possibility of LENR, albeit somewhat variable in performance, from Rossi’s dubious and secretive commercial/research tinkering.

  • Omega Z

    I think there is undue concern about the measurements. I think Rossi is correct. Only the measurements of the QX input matters.

    A controller for R&D will be excessive for it’s task. A product purpose built dedicated controller would likely be much more efficient by design and power consumption. Rossi’s controller for the 3.x KW Hot-cat consumed about 100 watts. Computers that draw much less are available. Even more so for something as simple as a Raspberry pi.

    (100 QX’s ganged would produce somewhere around 2-KW.)

    This Demo that we will see is not actually intended for Rossi fans. It is for the guests that will be present. Considering past occurrences (Does it need narrated) Those guests would very likely use real experts rather then cronies and mere acquaintances met by happenstance as it appears(IH/Darden) did.

    Your one assumption that we will know very little more after this demo is likely valid other then minor details. It would be nice if we knew who the guests were would help, but I find that unlikely to be revealed. This ride is not over yet…

    • Mylan

      The problem is that Rossi claims that the input power is known by simply measuring the voltage over the resistor. That is simply not true. There are questions on JONP coming up supporting this claim. I wonder if Rossi is sending comments to himself. Unless the input voltage is given, and it does not look like it will be, the input power can not be determined this way.

      • AdrianAshfield

        Rossi stated the the resistance of the reactor was similar to a conductor. If that is true just measuring the voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor gives a good approximation.
        I doubt whether that will be taken on trust so I assume Rossi will give the voltage output from the power pack.

        • Mylan

          From his comments it seems like he won’t, and he is spamming all questions concerning this point on his blog. All he has on his blog are comments saying “Your method is just fine”. Seems like he was writing these comments himself.

          • AdrianAshfield

            If the reactor has zero resistance he is right. I expect he is tired of the critics who always find something wrong with everything he does. For the sake of his audience at the demo I would be very surprised if he doesn’t show the voltage of the power pack. Wait and see what happens before getting so negative.

          • Mylan

            Sorry. I’m negative because I’m soo frustrated because no LENR presentation so far has been conclusive. I was very much hoping that we would finally get high COP and good measurements, but things seem to go the other way.

          • Omega Z

            Back to my narrative. As I said, this demo is for the guests. Not us. I’m sure if the need is there, “they” will be given more details. It is not Rossi’s job to convince us of anything. He is not required to give details that would be of benefit to competitors.

            With a little investigation, you would find the Government labs and University R&D withhold information all the time. No one wants to spend years working on something just to have someone else steal their thunder. We are lucky Rossi allows us any info at all. It’s not really in his best interest to do so.

            I am curious why anytime something is in discussions here at ECW and elsewhere that when these same questions appear on JONP, everyone jumps to the conclusion that Rossi is working/talking with his alter ego. There are many in the shadows that post on JONP that follow the blogs. I would be more concerned if none of this was asked on JONP.

            Speaking of the alter ego’s, there were a few suspected “AE’s” that turned out to be members of the skeptic crowd itself who even deceived themselves. That was a laugh.

            As to spamming/deleting posts. How do you know. Also, from time to time when people repeat the same question over and over, he likely gets tired of repeating himself. In the past he has even stated that repeated questions will be spammed. You can’t be more straight up then that.

            “Seems like he was writing these comments himself.”

            I highly doubt that, but he probably has followers who do provide supporting statements. Come down on Frank here at ECW and see how many supporters come back at you…

          • Mylan

            Sorry, I’m just giving up on Rossi after all these years. How can you know that the guests will get all the information? After all Rossi seems to be trying to publish about the E-Cat Qx, and also in this paper only the voltage over the resistor is given. No mentioning the power source. I mean the total power going into the system really can’t be a secret, unless it is very high and the COP very bad.
            What’s the point in publishing the voltage in one part of the circuit? That is just completely meaningless.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi didn’t publish anything.
            You must mean the Gullstroem paper that Rossi collaborated on. Perhaps you should take it up with Gullstroem as he is the Author. It’s also been stated multiple times that this paper is a work in progress.

          • Mylan

            Rossi’s name is on the paper. Her is an author of the paper.

          • Omega Z

            In the title,

            Carl-Oscar Gullström, Andrea Rossi
            https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05249.pdf

            If you go to arxiv,org and do a search, it “ONLY” list Carl-Oscar Gullström as the author leaving Rossi as a collaborator.

          • Mylan

            Rossi is clearly an author of the paper both in the PDF and the online version. That is the way authors are listed under the title of a paper, and all authors are responsible for a paper together.
            The reason you don’t find him on Arxiv can be that he has no account with Arxiv.
            Why is it so important to you that he was not an author?

          • Omega Z

            Why is it so important to you that this is just a Rossi paper.

            It’s highly probable this paper would not have been published if Gullström had not been directly involved with testing the QX.

          • Mylan

            I did not write that it was just a Rossi paper. But he is an author of the paper and is publishing on a site for scientific publications. Accordingly, scientific standards apply. Which means that he is responsible for the content and should not ignore questions coming up because the paper lacks necessary information. I mean, sure he can, but then there is no point in publishing on Arxiv.

          • Omega Z

            According to Arxiv, Rossi is not the author, therefore he is only a collaborator. I do believe it was Gullström’s prerogative to publish or Rossi would have been included as an author or at least co-author.

            They have already received some feed back on the paper and made changes. Perhaps you should go through proper channels and ask your questions or provide feedback. You’ve claimed to be a scientist so you should know the proper channels. It is definitely not through the blogs. Which raises other questions about your intentions.

          • Mylan

            You are right that I might have to choose other channels. I have no other intentions but to see a functioning LENR device. You are wrong about the author thing. Rossi’s name is on the paper, right under the title, I don’t understand how you can deny that.

          • Omega Z

            I don’t deny Rossi’s name is on the paper right after Gullström.
            Carl-Oscar Gullström, Andrea Rossi

            However, as far as Arxiv is concerned, Gullström is the only registered author. That leaves Rossi due to his name being on the paper as a collaborator. In short, If any changes were to be made to this paper, it would have to be done by Gullström. It is his paper. Further, Rossi has indicated that certain info is proprietary and will not be published at this time. The paper is also a work in progress. Straight up you know it was intentional that not all info was included nor will it be for some time.

            A couple years ago, I read a published paper(on Arxiv I think?) about lab grown meat. It also left certain proprietary info out of the paper and they had no intention of publishing those details. They were only looking for feedback on what was published. Leaving certain info out is not uncommon.

  • Omega Z

    The input power to the QX verses output is all that is important for this test. If this is OK for Government R&D, then why not for Rossi. 100 QX modules ganged would output 2-KW. If the controller required 100 watts, that would still be COP=20.

    • Dr. Mike

      I agree that most people following Rossi’s progress would be satisfied with an accurate measurement of the QX input power (and output power). Based on the recently published paper, what is known about the input power?

      DC power to 1 ohm resistor- known
      DC power to QX device- unknown
      Non DC power to 1 ohm resistor- unknown
      Non DC power to QX device- unknown

      Based on Rossi’s comments in his blog, it seems doubtful that the demonstration will provide any additional information about the 3 unknown input powers listed above. Do you believe any measurements will be taken in the demonstration to get an accurate measurement of the total input power? If Rossi is not willing to provide an accurate measurement of the input power to the QX device, the alternative is to measure the total power going to the system (controller plus device), for which there surely could not be any claims that such measurements were proprietary. I’ve been advocating a measurement of the system input power only because I don’t believe Rossi will make a true measurement of the device input power in the demonstration.

      • Omega Z

        “Do you believe any measurements will be taken in the demonstration to get an accurate measurement of the total input power?”

        Not that we will be privy to. The guests I assume will be provided more details dependent on who the guests are and what their purpose of being present for.

        I believe I saw where Rossi wants to setup for a Q&A after the test.
        Possibly you could ask some questions at that time. Past experience would indicate that Rossi will provide answers that will only lead to more unanswered questions.

  • LilyLover

    In short, Dr. Rossi is simply saying — Give me my UL certification and I’ll give you abundance.
    He’s doing his part; can we do ours?
    Should we already lawyer up against the UL to accuse them of lethargy or ignorance towards the World changing, pollution cleaning QXE-Cat? (Q-si-cat)
    Will the UL not shuffle the queue to advance a wartime effort to certify a gadget of war?
    Will the UL not shuffle the queue to advance a peacetime effort to certify a gadget of peace?
    Haven’t we, as a society, become a passive-violent monster?
    Do people matter?
    Should a looter be lauded more than the producer?
    UL is just an artificial entity — laws of the men are meant to em-better men. Laws of the God are also meant to em-better men. Today, the sanctity of the laws of the God is trampled under profits. Shouldn’t we trample the whole UL orat least stomp our feet at the whole UL to publicly tell them to “drop everything, and test our beloved Q-si-cat?

    • Rene

      UL certification of a device with the potential to generate nuclear radiation (betas, gammas, neutrons…) will happen when said device is turned over to the *independent* UL testers to run it out of spec, and that when out of spec it does not emit dangerous radiation. They will want to see what happens when the laity does things to it like take a hammer to it, plug a 110V version into a 220V line and vica versa, drop it in water while it is running, put it in a highly enclosed space, overload it, remove all loads suddenly, etc. They want to be sure it fails softly and safely.
      That Rossi will not even let independent testers verify it works let alone work safely means he’s a very long time away from UL certification. The inventor does not declare the device is safe, that’s the job and duty of the testing agencies. Also, a gadget of war has very different use conditions and misuse scenarios and consequences than devices of peace and/or usage in the general civilian population.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        It is not clear if UL certification is needed. There is also CE, EU, and other “equivalent” certifications. In addition, there are certification agencies for commercial boilers that are not UL. It might be possible to certify that a device is “UL” listed if you can show that it has components that connect to the power lines that are all UL certified.

        Devices that emit radiation (accelerators, Xray machines, Gamma Ray irradiation machines) all can get certification to operate. I am not sure UL is the primary certification source.

        My guess is that if Rossi’s device performs as he says it does, the overwhelming economic benefit will be such that he can negotiate with the certification agencies to develop a certification plan that allows the device to be marketed quickly. He could play EU, CE, UL off against each other to make the selection.

        • Omega Z

          EU, CE, UL all have very similar requirements and in nearly all cases are recognized by one another.

          The primary difference is between whats acceptable between Industrial, commercial and general public. Many products begin in commercial/industrial and with a safety history have been granted general public use certification.

          Bear in mind being uncertified has legal consequences. Some being very severe.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Still, I ‘ll bet he can play one off against the other to be the first to certify. As for the consequences, it is usually up to the local authority. Some will accept a non-certified device, others will not. If you install a non-certified device without local approval, the legal consequences of damage to life or property are severe.

            Primarily, it influences the market potential. It may be feasible to sell the device in some countries without any approval, but the world-wide market will need certification.

          • Omega Z

            “some countries without any approval”

            True, but Rossi has said he will not sell uncertified product. And those countries that he could slide on haven’t the financial resources to be much of a market.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I agree, but he could sell a boatload of them to government, university, and industrial research labs without any approval. Probably enough to generate enough pump-priming cash to get the commercial product off the ground.

          • Omega Z

            I doubt he would make that much and at the same time Universities and research labs would focus on circumventing his patents.

            A better option and one I think Rossi is taking is to sell a few(heat only)plants under tight oversight that will validate his technology. This will open the financial doors.

            That will be the end of Rossi’s sales in that respect. All his focus will be on producing reactor devices for other corporations like G.E., Siemens etc who will develop final products to market.

          • In my province the governing safety authority does NOT recognize CE. It recognizes several other electrical certification marks (UL, CSA, TUV, etc.) but not that one. The fire insurance policy at my institution of employment requires that all electrically powered devices have more than CE. I heard once that CE marked equipment models aren’t actually electrically tested, but manufactures using that mark are simply building according to some voluntary code.

          • Omega Z

            “but manufactures using that mark are simply building according to some voluntary code”

            I believe you are right that it reads “voluntary compliance”. But there are consequences if you do not.

            In my state, if you are in a non accident related pull over for suspected DUI, a breathalyzer test is considered a voluntary compliance law. So if you’ve had a couple drinks and aren’t certain if you’ll register under the limit(0.08), you may think about not complying. After all, if you blow positive, you’ll receive a 6 month license suspension and fines. However, if you don’t voluntarily comply, your license will automatically be suspended for 1 year. “So, Pick your poison”.

        • Rene

          CE is a weak rating since it’s voluntary. And yes, there are other strong certifications. I mentioned UL only because the person I responded to used UL approved as an example.

          Anyway, the main issues are: does it work, and if yes, is there adequate protection, either intrinsic in the design or external to the reaction device, that cannot be mangled, damaged or removed by the average consumer without the device going into safe mode.

    • georgehants

      LilyLover, all agreed except that it is obvious that our society should have a way of rewarding Mr. Rossi for his initial work (if genuine) and he should be publishing openly everything he knows so that others can help get the technology to those that need it.
      There is still a little good in the World, below a link of Amira from the Netherlands, thirteen years old soprano helping caring and sharing.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_rSJb_s5tk

    • If it can give you any hope: Rossi is now coming to Sweden which recently topped a poll as the ‘goodest country in the world.’ 😉

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/sweden-goodest-country-in-world-good-country-index-a7061341.html

      • Buck

        Mats, are you able to share more on your statement?

        “Rossi is now coming to Sweden”

        • He has said for a long time that he wants to have a base in Sweden for production and he still talks in those terms. But let’s see how this plays out this fall.

      • Steve Swatman

        The “goodest” country in the world… I like that.

    • Wholewitt

      Do you understand that UL and other testing labs are for the protection of the public? They find flaws in the design so items won’t injure or kill people. They serve a vital purpose and your reliance on a god is a stupid idea. There is no god as is seen every day with disasters. The safety requirements are done before selling, not before doing demos.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Clovis, do you understand how the power in a system of two resistors in series is distributed? In case that you don’t, see my comment below. AR’s method (determining only the power across one element) works only if the ratio between the second and the first resistance is very small. So observers would have to take AR’s word that the reactor is virtually a conductor (or a voltage source). He could just as well go without any measurements during the demonstration, and simply claim that the device reaches a certain COP. I cannot see anything “negative” in exposing this point.

    • Dr. Mike

      Not only is there the issue of how power is distributed in 2 series resistors, there is the issue of only the dc power being measured in the 1 ohm resistor. Rossi claims the output of the controller is proprietary. Assuming the controller is outputting some signal other than a dc voltage, this non-dc power is not being counted in the total power input to the QX device.
      Another issue is that it is not likely the controller will have 100 outputs to control 100 devices. It is likely the devices will be connected in parallel across a single (or a few) controller outputs. This means the 1 ohm resistor is an integral part of the device to prevent current hogging when QX devices are connected in parallel. Therefore, the input power to the device must include the power dissipation in the 1 ohm resistor.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I agree with the concept that the DC measurement is not the only input power if there is, in fact, a complex waveform present. A DC current meter connected to an AC source with a resistive load will measure 0.0 amperes, but obviously, there is power being dissipated. Rossi did claim that it was DC, though. The fact that the published picture shows a scope in the background implies that at least there was the possibility of a more complex waveform present.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Andreas, I think you are reading more into the power calculation Rossi mentions than might be justified. Rossi danced around the direct power measurement in the paper, claiming that the resistance of the QX was smaller than that of the series “load” resistor. He specifically refused to tell us what the voltage across it was, claiming it was not to be divulged. In the statement above, he says “What counts is how many Wh/h arrive to the E-Cat, not their origin”. Okay, but in order to calculate the Wh/h, you need to measure both the voltage across and the current through the QX device as is required by the laws of physics.

      I think that one must wait until the actual demo to see how he will measure the “Wh/h” of the QX.

  • Omega Z

    The devices in the 1MW plant were certified for the purpose it was used for. The SGS certification was shown here on ECW several years back.

    For general use, a different set of rules apply for certification. Their are severe legal consequences for products that are not certified should anyone be harmed or suffer financial loss due to damage caused by such devices.

  • Dr. Mike

    The “controller” also certainly has an output mode to start up the QX device with some type of high frequency signal (perhaps a high voltage pulse). I don’t believe anyone thinks that this energy needs to be considered in the input power for a COP calculation. However, any other high frequency power supplied to the device while it is operating should be included in the input power for a COP calculation.

  • Warthog

    “UL is just a red herring. Lack of certification did not stop the good doctor from selling heat to IH for a whole year.”

    Not really. The requirements for experimental prototypes and items for general sale to the public are vastly different.

  • Go Rossi :)

    I think you can say with Rossis upcoming test we will have the perfect answer to what the COP is of the effect but not of the E-Cat including the controller.

  • Omega Z

    “he must make the test 100% transparent.”

    Not for us he doesn’t.

  • Simply said: This demo will once again use completely untransparent power measurement with lots of unverifiable loopholes.

    A waste of time.
    Better watch a David Copperfield show. There you explicitly pay for being fooled.

  • Steve Swatman

    But does Rossi care that much about the US market, afterall its only 350 million out of a 7 Billion market, Yes it might be an important market, however it is small in comparison to the whole world potential.

    • Omega Z

      Remind me not to hire you for my marketing department.

      The ready made market is closer to about 3 Billion, 2/3rds of which is Europe and the U.S.. The U.S. is a little more then 4% of the population, but about 20% of the energy market. Would you turn your back on 20% of the energy market.
      ————————————–
      You’re sell high end custom cars, you build a sales network for the powerful and elite. They are used to financing everything.

      You’re selling packs of discounted steak, you send people door to door in the lower middle income and poor neighborhoods. They have the cash in hand. Know your product, Know your market.
      ————————————–
      The developed market has the means to finance new technology. They will pay the higher price of 1st adoption thus paying for all the major costs of ramping up production. Leading to lower prices for the less fortunate in the world.

      • Steve Swatman

        No problem with not been employed you OZ, As you said, 350 million US market, super wealthy? yes, controlled by the Current energy giants yes,

        ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

        EU 700, million wealthy? yes, open to innovation in energy? to a degree, still controlled by energy giants? to a degree,

        …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

        The rest of the world, Starving for energy, starving for cheap energy.

        ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

        I think Europe is more likely to take up The industrial e-cats, when they are ready for marketing, After all we have some major concerns on energy, and are beholden to energy suppliers like Russia, Quatar and now the US LNG , the energy supplies are close to war, In fact trade wars are in full spring, The US even sanctions companies doing business with Russian energy companies in the last lot of sanctions, So halting Nordstream 2 a lifeline for the EU for when it kicks off in Ukraine,

        ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

        The US in its isolation is doing fine with its Fracking oil and gas energy supplies.

        But hey, you might be right, and the US will rule the world with Mr Rossi’s inventions first.

        Personally, I think they are more likely to hold back technology, especially if they cannot hold the world to ransom with it.

        One thing about Mr Rossi’s e-cat and QX, they will be cheap to produce, cheap to run, and producing cheap energy, an economical advantage for which ever group jumps on the uptake first, Countries with their own energy supplies and infrastructure will be fighting this tech, hammer and tong. As we already in the west where energy companies are lobbying massively to tax and hold back renewables and slow down uptake in every possible manner, But hey, lets see what happens.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    What Rossi has stated rings true to me. For a small device of 20 watts out, the inefficiencies in a bench supply might dominate the line power of the supply, so measuring line power at the QX device makes sense. For the controller, a similar statement can be made, but ultimately, the power consumed by the controller must be added to the QX device input power when considering the overall thermal source COP. For now, I would be happy to see that the QX device power out verses electrical power in has a demonstrable COP greater than 6, the minimum COP for important commercial application of LENR.

    If there is a “preconditioning” period to get the QX operating, I could also ignore the watt-hours for startup, provided that the operation period is much, much longer than the startup period. If, however, the operating period is short with respect to the startup, question about energy storage arise. For example, the startup period could be charging a lithium ion polymer battery, cleverly hidden, that would then be discharged to show a “sustained COP” with a big number. For example, a 2200 mAhr 3-cell LiPo of nominal 12 volts could provide about 24 watts for an hour in a package about the size of a pack of cigarettes,

  • GiveADogABone

    Speculative but my take on current knowledge :
    1: QX has 20W heat output at CoP 100 – requires 0.2W electricity
    2: QX produces up to 9% electricity (call it 5%, so 1W)
    3: Supply AC output of QX to an AC-to-DC converter with an output of 25V DC
    4: AC-to-DC converter efficiency 50% – max output 0.5W
    5: Feed 0.5W max to control module (controlling DC current to about 0.1A, irrespective of QX impedance at an efficiency of 50%)
    6: Max output power of control module available 0.25W
    7: As stated in 1: QX requires 0.2W electricity

    Conclusions:
    1: The QX makes enough electricity to power itself.
    2: The bias current of the QX is set to (i1+i2)/2 in the diagram below.
    3: The 24V starter/safety battery supplies no power under normal operating conditions.
    4: The impedance of the QX varies from V1/i1 to V2/i2 and back at the AC electricity frequency.
    5: The CoP over the QX and its control gear is beyond infinite. With electricity production to spare, I have no idea what CoP means.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b7c9254277a98a1f8f0363a681e48ca2999e9ba22ca100f8de51b0cf0cd12201.png

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Interesting conjecture. You could be right. Given that Rossi will not divulge the voltage across the QX, it might be negative meaning that it does generate electricity!

      • GiveADogABone

        It is important to distinguish between ‘negative differential resistance’ and ‘negative resistance’. The impedance of the diagram is in the positive quadrant of the I-V plane. The negative differential resistance is in the i1-i2 range where the alternating AC is generated. That is why the DC bias current must be (i1+i2)/2.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_resistance
        Examples of devices with negative differential resistance are … and gas discharge tubes …

        In a passive negative differential resistance, r(diff)=dv/di0.

  • Paul Smith

    Rossi will demonstrate QX for his customers, not for us.
    That is why I believe that the informations we will receive will be few and inconclusive.
    He doesn’t want to make data public that could benefit the competition.

  • Omega Z

    If the controller requires 50 watts to operate and the QX only puts out 20 watts, you know what will be said. It has negative COP. The fact that it could control 100 QX devices at 2 kilowatt output would be totally ignored. The only number that really matters is how much the QX consumes and outputs. The controller power has no bearing at this point and time.

  • Jarea

    God!
    , how long to see a product! i am waiting since 2008!!!!!

    • Omega Z

      You’re obviously psychic considering Rossi didn’t go public until 2011.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi has always offered the policy of 50% down placed in escrow and no money changes hands until the customer is satisfied. This sounds like more then a fair policy for a new technology. It’s not only a guarantee that the technology works, but that it will work as advertised and meets the expectations of the customer. So just waiting for a product to come to market.

  • Omega Z

    “Rossi caved on his lawsuit and did not get a penny”

    Actually, Rossi got to keep all the money, the return of all to do with the E-cat and full return of all IP. If the QX works, Rossi won back Billions in value that otherwise would have went to IH/Darden instead of only getting million$….

  • Karl Venter

    Hi Chris
    I tend to agree with you
    October demo is going to be nothing new to us
    Still more questions
    Will it get him Investors – doubt it
    Does he have all the investors he needs?
    no investors no production

  • Omega Z

    Rossi kept the $11.5 million plus the return of the 1MW container along with the 4-250KW=1MW Frankies within the container, the 6 cylinder E-cat and all the other devices built by IH/Darden along with the relinquishment of all IP. I wouldn’t call that nothing.

    • Rossi had that already without spending a million or more on his lawsuit to get an additional 80+ million, an attempt that failed. HI did not want the container or his machines they tested hands-on and found did not work. HI had already lost the 11+ million. They never expected to get that back. Rossi lost the 80+ million he wanted plus a million or more on legal expenses. It was a game of bluff poker and Rossi folded his hand because he realized he could not win. Now to save face Rossi is pretending all he really wanted was his IP back, but the evidence shows that is simply not the case. Rossi wanted the big check.

      • Omega Z

        I’ll take the Woodford reps word for it. It was about IH wanting to hold onto the IP.

  • Rene

    Products which were?

  • sam

    Prof
    August 17, 2017 at 10:26 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Can you give us information about the charges of the 1 MW plant:
    1- did you recover the charges?
    2- are you analyzing them?
    3- can you share the results?
    Cheers,
    Prof

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    August 17, 2017 at 4:43 PM
    Prof:
    1- yes, from all the reactors
    2- yes
    3- no
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.