COP of 1 kW E-Cat QX Unit (“Greater than 6”)

In exchange between Steven Karels and Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics Rossi provides his statement about the overall COP of the industrial E-Cat QX module they are currently working to bring to production:

Steven N. Karels
April 29, 2018 at 9:27 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

1. Since, as I understand it, you now have an encapsulated 1kW thermal output module which you can connect in parallel to produce a 1 MW thermal output system. Is this correct?

2. I also understand that each 1kW unit has its own control system. Have you been able to estimate the average effective COP of a 1kW module?

3. I also understand that the grid pattern for a 1MW thermal output system would be four racks (or two racks with front and back insertions) with each rack containing 25 modules horizontally and 10 modules vertically (e.g. x, y). Is this correct? (Four surfaces with each surface supporting 250 modules).

4. At full output power, what will be the environment between the racks? Specifically, will humans be able to access the modules for replacement purposes without shutting down the entire system? If so, what temperature range would such maintenance personnel experience?

Andrea Rossi
April 29, 2018 at 10:27 PM
Steven N.Karels:
1- yes
2- > 6
3- the combinations can be modified
4- about 30- 35 C degrees
Warm Regards,
A.R.

At the Stockholm demonstration last year, Andrea Rossi calculated a COP of around 600 when comparing his calculation of power going into a QX reactor and the power produced by that reactor, however that calculation did not include the power consumed by the control system; Rossi did not provide that information.

From what Rossi has said, currently his team are developing a 1 kW module which is comprised of 13 individual 80 W QX reactors as their first industrial product, but larger reactors are currently under test.

The important thing that customers will want to know with respect to the E-Cat is how much money will they be able to save if they adopt it as an energy source, and so the amount of power consumed by the E-Cat’s control system will be very important. Rossi’s statement here about an overall COP – which includes the power consumed by the control system – greater than 6 from a 1 kW module is at least a minimum starting point for us to think about.

  • Gerard McEk

    If it is 6, it’s great for heating your home, maybe (depends on investment and operational costs), but surely not enough for generating electricity.

    • Omega Z

      COP>6 -“Greater then”

      This doesn’t surprise me as Rossi has pretty much always stood by his standby statement of greater then 6. Anyway, Rossi’s statement indicates a minimum of COP greater then 6.

      That would provide 2 to 1 conversion or 3 to 1 conversion using Super-critical CO2 turbine setup. I’ve stated in the past that to really be economical, one should have COP>10.

      • Leonard Weinstein

        Even a COP of slightly over 6 is more than enough for electric generation if refueling cost is low enough. Capitol cost of Super-critical CO2 generation (probably about 40% conversion for a 50 MW output) is likely to be fairly high initially, but the small generator size and low operation cost over long times make it very practical, and mass production of the generators would make them even less expensive. Even with 42% of the generated energy going to operate the QX (at a COP of 6), the capitol cost would eventually be recovered. If the COP were as large as 8, only about 1/3 of the output would be needed to operate the QX. At a COP of 10, the power for the QX would be about 1/4 the output. The differences do not look that significant even for just over 6.

        • Dr. Mike

          To your “real issues” of refueling cost and complexity, it might be good to add reliability.

        • Omega Z

          The economics would be very slim when taking into account that your investment is in 2 complete turbines and generator plants.

  • Dr. Mike

    If the system COP is only a little greater than 6, it might be concluded that the controller is delivering some power (perhaps high frequency?) to the QX devices that was not being measured at the Stockholm demonstration. If 13 QX devices making up a 1KW module were really only consuming 5-7W of electrical power from the controller, it would be hard to imagine an optimized controller design that was not at least 10% efficient. This would have resulted in a minimum system COP of 14-20. Of course, if the actual system COP turns out to be much higher, something like 50-100, then Rossi has made a true statement that the system COP is greater than 6.

    • causal observer

      Accuracy versus precision. Why is 6 an important threshhold?

      • cashmemorz

        Competition would be a prime input to this number. Brilluoin has a COP of 3 max. A barely useful improvement on COP when measured against amounts of energy released by traditional fuels. So double what the competition has to show as a minimally substantial difference in that area. Also that particular COP of 6 was used in the year long test as the minimal expected by the partner in that test, Industrial Heat. That experience points to a historically required minimum of 6. This value of COP then would be used as input to what others would require as a minimally agreed on value for the COP. This is so as to receive the maximum that is available in the currently evolving market. At least to not get anything less than what others had recieved when dealing with Ross. The potential customers will always want to get at least as much as what was available earlier. A larger COP would be better, but Rossi does not want to offer more than he was ever willing or needed to do. This gives Rossi a big buffer between what he could in reality provide and what he must provide. If push came to shove, Rossi would then be able to offer a bit higher COP. without getting beyond what he can do safely and with a guarantee of being able to provide. No need to offer too much more than the competition has to offer. In the end a good business decision, where Rossi does not promise any more than is necessary to stay in the game.

        • Vinney

          Agreed, and for special applications (and a much more expensive installation) he can install higher COP capacity in the near future.
          This model of reactor may have many IP protection mechanisms that limit its capacity.
          The average COP over the duration of the fuel may be in excess of 10.
          Increased capacity may be available to customers with special requirements, at a later stage simply by upgrading the control system software and firmware, assuring the entry level model will meet customer growth requirements with improvements both in efficiency and output for many years.
          Most importantly, its the high temperatures that the Ecat QX reach that indicate its future application potential.

      • Dr. Mike

        A COP of a minimum of 6 seems to only be an important number for Rossi. (This was supposed to be the minimum number in the contract with IH for the COP of the 1MW reactor.) I believe that Rossi would have a successful product if he can deliver a system COP of 6 or greater, provided that his product is as reliable as the more costly alternative heat sources that his system will be replacing. However, if Rossi can deliver a product with a system COP somewhat higher than 6, it is more likely that his product can find its way into more markets, such as, electricity generation.

      • Richard Hill

        an off-the-shelf diesel genset can be regarded as having a COP = 6 if you can usefully use the waste heat.There would be no market for a device with COP = 6 or less.

        • Omega Z

          A diesel genset can only produce COP=1 when you tally the electricity plus waste heat. That would include the heat lost in the mechanical losses. Also COP=6 is very useful if you’re using electricity to produce heat for needed operations.

          • Vinney

            Electric heaters produce up to three times as much heat as they consume, is. 1kw heater produces up to 3kw heat energy.
            So it is at least twice as effective as an electric heater.
            Also, you correctly say that it will have a COP of 6 as minimum.

          • Dr. Mike

            Do you really believe that there are electric heaters that produce three times as much heat energy as the electrical energy they consume?

          • Richard Hill

            The Daikin heat pump just outside my office produces 3.2 times the amount of heat energy as the electricity it consumes:. 22.4kw heat out 7kw electricity.in.

          • Omega Z

            ->”The Daikin heat pump just outside my office produces 3.2 times the amount of heat energy as the electricity it consumes”

            Heat pumps produce COP=1 at optimum. Heat pumps merely move heat from 1 place to another. However, If you want to follow your thinking, As outside temperatures drop, COP drops and can become negative. As in every 3 KW in will only produce 1KW heat out. At that point, you’re better off to just use a space heater and leave the heat pump turned off. I’m pretty sure a heat pump used in Antarctica could result in COP=Negative 10 most of the year.

          • TVulgaris

            I think that would depend on the design and working fluid….

          • Dr. Mike

            A heat pump- yes, an electric heater- no.

          • Vinney

            Sorry, I was looking at Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP), but resistive heaters are close to 100% efficient.
            You are correct.

          • Dr. Mike

            And I agree that it may be best to compare Rossi’s new product to the efficiency of existing heat pumps for some potential applications of his new product.

    • Omega Z

      This is Rossi’s old standby guarantee statement of greater then 6 since 2011. To my knowledge, he has never stated that a product to market with a higher COP then that.

      When asked about COP on JONP associated with Stockholm or elsewhere, his response is usually- high enough. I can guess that should he provide a higher number and a manufactured for sale product turns out lower, his distracters will be all over it. Something as silly as, “You stated COP=100 and it’s only COP=95. We always new it was fake…”

      • Dr. Mike

        At this point in time there doesn’t seem to be any reason for Rossi not to quote the system COP that he has measured, except perhaps if the COP has been measured to be just a little above 6. As I stated above, a measured system COP of just a little more than 6 might tell Rossi’s competitors that the QX is being supplied with some additional power that has not yet been disclosed.

        • Omega Z

          There’s 1 very good reason not to quote a COP obtained in R&D. Not everything accomplished on a desk top translates to production models. OLED technology is one example. Said to be mass produced within 2 years and so cheap you throw it away when it develops problems. Only about 15 years later have they been able to scale it up on size due to manufacturing problems and even now it is expensive.

          Carbon nano tubes thought to be the answer for the space elevator. Years later before they discovered a way to produce it in large continuous lengths only to discover that every so often a single link comes out flawed and having little strength.

          Even a COP>6 could ultimately not be achieved when the technology is put under a heavy work load. So it is prudent on Rossi’s part not to provide larger numbers until they can confidently say what those numbers may eventually be. Even when such a number is given, I’m certain Rossi will give a number that’s conservative of whats possible. Kind of like a 500 watt speaker(peak) is meant to be operated at 250 watts.

    • LarryJ

      The COP of the 1 MW prototype industrial reactor tested at Doral Florida for a year was reported by the ERV to have had an average COP of around 50. It is hard to imagine that the final product would produce close to an order of magnitude less. I think Rossi is just waiting for the day of his announcement to state the actual guaranteed COP along with all the other details that he has deferred until that day.

      • Dr. Mike

        I agree that “it is hard to imagine that the final product would produce an order of magnitude less (COP)”. To achieve a system COP of 50 or greater in the new product the controller power must be 20W or less. If Rossi’s new product has a system COP of less than 20 or so, one might conclude that the 1MW reactor which ran for a year at Doral really did not achieve a COP of 50. Of course, if one carefully read the deposition testimony and other pre-trial evidence from the Rossi vs. IH lawsuit, one might also conclude that the Doral reactor never came close to delivering 1MW of heat output.

        • LarryJ

          Dr Fabio Penon was retained by Leonardo/Rossi and Industrial Heat/Tom Darden to arbitrate the one year test of the 1MW prototype industrial reactor tested at Doral Florida. Dr Penon was the Expert Responsible for Validation (ERV). When the test concluded IH defaulted on the contract, however Leonardo had the ERV’s report which concluded the test was a success. Tom Darden’s expert legal team were left with the difficult job of having to either discredit the ERV, Dr Penon and/or his report. They threw in the towel on the first day of arguments and relinquished the ecat IP, all licenses and the test reactor which would suggest that they had far less faith in the depositions than you have. I think I would put my money on Dr Penon, a highly credible physicist and Tom Darden’s very expert legal team that the ERV’s report accurately describes what transpired during the one year test of the Industrial Prototype reactor. The COP column in the appendix is especially interesting, showing a COP in excess of 100 on many days. Here is a link to the ERV’s report as submitted to the court in evidence.

          https://113452-323143-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Expert-Responsible-for-Validation-Ing-Fabio-Penon-Nuclear-Engineer-for-1-MW-E-Cat.pdf

          • Dr. Mike

            Thanks for the link to the ERV report, but I already reviewed it carefully when it first came out. I too believed this report represented accurate measurements taken by Penon yielding quite good results until the the depositions and other evidence were released. Penon believed Fabiani was sending him (Penon) data from his (Penon’s) computer, but in court document #245-20, Fabiani testified that he was unable to access Penon’s computer data so Fabiani just sent Penon his (Fabiani’s) own data. The ERV report was not based on independent data. The pre-trial evidence indicates that the Doral reactor was not producing anywhere close to 1MW of output heat as there was no place for the heat to be dissipated.

          • LarryJ

            I assume from your comment you assume that if some part of Penon’s data was based on Fabiani’s data then it was obviously not independent and was falsified. I wonder why Darden’s legal team didn’t pick up on that? Maybe they don’t share your faith in depositions. I read that his legal team was composed of some of the finest lawyers in America but hey, what do they know?

            The notion that there was no place for the heat to be dissipated was just conjecture along with the ideas that there was no customer and that the produced heat, if true would have cooked the operators of the reactor. None of it was tested in court and was just hearsay. Depositions do not tell a full story and Rossi never had an opportunity to respond to any of it.

            If Tom Darden’s very capable legal team thought there was a way to discredit Penon’s report they would certainly have pursued it but they did not even try and given what was at stake that implies a ringing endorsement of Penon’s report. It was unassailable. The average COP of the 1MW prototype reactor tested at Doral was approximately 50 and the ERV’s report was tested by a carefully prepared court case.

          • Dr. Mike

            “and Rossi never had an opportunity to respond to any of it” Actually, Rossi did have a chance to respond to the depositions of others in the many hours of his own depositions, answering questions from both IH’s lawyers and his own lawyers.
            “None of it was tested in court and was just hearsay.” Actually, the court did accept Smith’s reports as evidence from an expert witness, whereas much of Rossi’s expert witness report was rejected by the court. Your claim that the question of dissipation of heat was “hearsay” indicates that you may not understand the legal definition of “hearsay”.
            Darden’s legal team did bring out through their deposition questions of various witnesses that the Penon report data was not independent, Rossi was the customer, and heat dissipation was a key factor in discrediting the claim of 1MW of output heat, and they set the groundwork for showing there were several major discrepancies in the Penon report data. As far as Darden deciding not to continue with a trial, it was most likely that the projected monetary recovery was way less than what the legal costs would be to continue going forward with a trial.

          • LarryJ

            Still hammering away on those depositions I see. The ones that only got tried in the blogosphere and which the jury never saw. Darden’s lawyers saw them though and in fact were present for all of them and still they didn’t think they had a case. Funny that.

            Rossi chose to place his evidence before the only audience that really mattered and that was the jury. Since the trial ended so abruptly he never got to say his piece. Seems his legal counsel was worth their fee.

            The heat output of the 1MW Doral reactor was never officially discredited except perhaps in your mind and the blogosphere. If it had been then Darden’s lawyers would have had a case which clearly they did not. Darden was being sued for breach of contract, remember and the ERV’s report was pivotal to ratifying the contract.

            And you think Darden’s legal team withdrew because the potential return was too paltry to make it worth their while and this after already having gone through a lengthy and expensive discovery process and then starting the trial. Let me remind you that in addition to the ecat IP, Darden walked away from the licenses for North America, Central America, South America, Russia and China. Just about the entire industrialized world except for Europe which Rossi held and Australia and SE Asia. I wonder how many billions of dollars it would take to interest a money man like Darden. 1 billion, 2 billion, 10 billion. You gotta be kidding. They walked away because his very competent legal team advised him that discrediting Penon or his report was going to be a tough uphill battle and if he lost he might be on the hook for maybe a quarter billion dollars which he might spend the next 15 years appealing plus losing the ecat. He wisely took his very expensive counsels advice.

            The Doral industrial test reactor had an average COP of approximately 50 and that was some time ago. I think there is a good chance that today’s reactor is better.

          • Dr. Mike

            The depositions are sworn testimony. If someone testified differently in court from their deposition, they would be asked by the questioning lawyer as to whether they told the truth in the deposition or were now telling the truth in court. The key questions asked in the depositions will be asked again in court.
            Your statement “Rossi chose to place his evidence before the only audience that really mattered and that was the jury” is totally false. He chose to settle the case without collecting the $89M that was due him if the 1MW plant really worked as claimed.
            What E-Cat IP and technology did IH walk away from? What was the value of the licenses? IH tried to build E-cats, but they did not work because Rossi had not transferred the knowledge on how to build the devices as was required by contract after payment of the $10M. A license to build and sell something that doesn’t work really isn’t worth very much.
            I agree with conclusion that one might expect that today’s reactor should be better than the reactor used in the 1MW plant. I guess we will know by the end of this year if today’s reactor can achieve a system COP of 50.

          • LarryJ

            What people say in sworn depositions or otherwise is subject to interpretation and sometimes, believe it or not, people are not entirely candid or honest. That is why we have courts which you appear to think are entirely unnecessary when you have depositions. Anyway I always enjoy watching you flog your dead horse depositions that in the end meant nothing and did nothing to convince Darden’s legal team that they had a case.

            The settlement was a total victory for Rossi. There is no way he would ever have expected to see any money. Everyone knows that any financial award would have been appealed for years. He got exactly what he wanted. He got his IP back, he got his licenses back and he got Tom Darden off his back. As a bonus he got the reactor that was built and owned by Tom Darden and which had significant R&D value. Tom Darden left with the lint in his pockets. Speaking of which, this all transpired less than a year ago. What do you suppose those licenses that you just called worthless are worth today on the eve of the ecat’s industrialization. I think I even read you giving lip service to the notion that the ecat might have a COP of 6. Even that puny result must be worth a few bucks, right but Darden lost it all.

            The Doral reactor was an astounding success showing an average COP of 50 over the course of the 1 year test and Tom Darden’s legal team saw no way to overturn the ERV’s report causing Tom Darden to take a huge financial hit in the process.

          • Dr. Mike

            It is certainly too bad that you do not understand the court deposition process. Both court testimony and depositions are subject to the same perjury laws (but I agree that people are not always honest). I also agree that IH lost a lot of money in dealing with Rossi, but the licenses without the technology really were worthless. You are certainly welcome to believe anything you would like about the 1MW plant. However, I will base my judgement of the 1MW reactor’s performance on the scientific evidence. I am also quite willing to wait until the end of the year to see if Rossi can really demonstrate a viable commercial product.

          • LarryJ

            My point with the depositions has always been that the experts, ie Darden’s legal team did not think they were sufficient to discredit either Penon the ERV or his final report on the Doral reactor. As top notch lawyers they knew exactly how Rossi’s lawyers would pick that testimony apart in front of a jury and as a result they advised Darden to walk away. You were far more impressed than they were and they took the depositions.

            Your other points about the licenses having no value without technology transfer and earlier saying Rossi lost in the settlement because he didn’t gain any financial reward make no sense. Let me give you a simple example of the financial award case.

            Suppose you sold a car for $5000, the buyer paid by cheque but the cheque bounced and you had to sue the buyer for $5000. After some negotiation the buyer agrees to return the car. You think you should get damages but the legal fees just don’t justify it so you agree to the settlement and get your car back. Your friends say, Mike! You got hosed. You never got the $5000. Now the way you’ve been arguing I suppose you would agree with them but most people would say, No I got the car back and I can sell it again.

            It’s the same with Rossi. He sold the licenses for $100 million with an $11 million down payment and a balance owing of $89 million. IH defaulted on the balance. Rossi sued, got his licenses, his IP and the reactor back and kept the down payment. You say, he lost because he didn’t get the $89 million. Well, not really, because now he can sell the licenses again and since their value would be much higher than they were when first sold to IH in 2012 it is actually a huge win for Rossi. He would not expect to get back both the licenses and the payment. As soon as the question of ownership of his IP and licenses was settled he immediately held another successful demo in Sweden and acquired a new partner under very favourable terms I am sure.

            Now these licenses he retrieved are the same licenses that you are currently calling worthless because you say Rossi never transferred the IP, Well even if that were true it would not affect the licenses. Those licenses allow the holder to produce and sell ecats in the named territories which happened to be most of the world. As long as IH held them no other business would consider going into business with Rossi. He didn’t own the IP or the rights to sell to most of the world and as a result he was dead in the water. Tom Darden did own them and this is what he gave up and what you say he walked away from because it wasn’t worth fighting for. Imagine what he could have sold them to a third party for. This was his brush with possibly becoming the wealthiest man on the planet. He didn’t fight over it because of the inconvenient fact that the Doral reactor worked as reported by the ERV and nothing Tom Darden could do was going to change that, He overplayed his hand.

            In the period between when Rossi sued and when his lawyers told him to stop talking Rossi said on his blog that Darden offered him a substantial amount of money to stop the test. The last thing Darden wanted or expected was a successful test. The way the contract was written, as long as the test phase was incomplete he owned the tech at no further cost. If the test succeeded he’d have to pay out $89 million to Rossi plus who knows how much to develop the tech in his own territories. That was never his plan. He wanted to sell investments on future potential. He misjudged Rossi and the ecat badly.

            So to summarize:

            Darden’s lawyers knew they could not discredit Penon or his report which was critical to defeating Rossi’s lawsuit so they advised Darden to walk away

            Rossi recovered all of his IP, licenses and the test reactor in the settlement and IH got nothing. The settlement was a big win for Rossi, especially since the value of the licenses would have risen substantially since first sold to IH in 2012 and recovery of the IP allowed him new partners.

            Penon’s report stands unchallenged by anyone that matters and it states an average COP of 50

            Rossi has a new partner no doubt under favourable terms

            Things have been rocking and rolling ever since with a commercial reactor possibly on the market this calendar year (Amazing how that evolved out of the Doral reactor that you claim was a fraudulent hunk of junk)

          • Dr. Mike

            Darden’s lawyers did a very good job of bringing out the relevant facts in their deposition questions. This doesn’t mean they were going to recover any of IH’s $11M investment because they unfortunately accepted the first test results and paid the amount due as required by contract. I don’t believe IH presented a strong enough argument to recover much if any money already paid. What would anyone have paid Darden for the licenses? Nothing without proving the technology worked. Since it appeared at the time that only Rossi possessed the technology, it seems likely that the licenses only had value to Rossi. Now that he has moved on to the QX technology, all Rossi would have had to say is that this is a new technology, Darden only holds the licenses to the old technology.
            There is actually a way to verify if the old technology could produce a COP of 50. Run a test using some small portion of the old reactor with a water flow sufficient that steam is not produced. Measure the water temperature rise, the water flow, and the total electrical power going to the system. My bet is that this experiment will never be run!
            I do see that you have so much faith in Rossi that you have lowered his chances of demonstrating a commercial reactor by the end of the year to “possibly”. Let’s both hope that when he does have a system ready for the market that he achieves his minimum system COP of 6 in a public demonstration ran by an independent party (not Penon or some other family friend).

          • LarryJ

            The ecat licences covered all ecats and the QX is an ecat covered by the same patent as the Doral reactor. Darden’s licences covered all ecats.

            If you think those licenses had no value then I am talking to the wall.

            Like Rossi I cannot see the future. He hopes to have a reactor on the market this year and I hope he succeeds, so I said possibly.

            I see by your comment about Penon being a family friend you are once again implying fraud. Earlier you implied that Fabiani falsified the test numbers. It is more than difficult to have a rational debate about the ecat with an individual who regards Rossi as a fraudster.

            I think Roland in the comment above yours captured the essence of it.

            Watching your debate with Mike unfold, and the tenor of his prior commentary, does lead me to speculate that Mike is either deliberately obtuse or immune to rational discourse for reasons unknown.

          • Dr. Mike

            Do you really think Rossi was bring honest with the issue of the “customer” who was so happy with the steam being received, wanted to pay IH for that steam? How much steam was really used by the “customer”? Who was the “customer”? Please use Rossi’s deposition testimony to find the answers to these questions.

          • LarryJ

            Thanks but no thanks. I know who the fraud is in this discussion

          • Roland

            Hi Larry,

            If you jump into the way-back machine and follow the narrative arc of endless delays in starting testing, the attempt to buy Rossi off when he went ahead with the test under his own steam, the emergence of IH’s PR and legal team’s attacks and, (with a brief Google) the major employers of these firms and what work they historically did for those principals, it became starkly clear to the strategically minded that the IH deal was always intended to cripple Rossi’s prospects.

            I fully agree with you that the contest with IH ended with the optimal outcome from Rossi’s, and the planet’s, point of view. The way-back machine will also reveal that I editorialized, and indeed lobbied, for precisely this outcome and, needless to say, I’m immensely pleased that truth prevailed in the courthouse. I also agree that the inferences you’ve derived from the outcome says volumes for the credibility of the ERV report.

            There are two seminal documents we can turn to that attest to simple reality of Rossi’s technology as observed first hand by accredited scientists and engineers. The first is the Lugano Report.

            The detractors quibbled and speculated endlessly about minutiae without ever offering a rational explanation for the changes in the isotopic distribution in the before and after fuel samples. Any explanation, regardless of the terminology employed, must, by definition, involve a nuclear reaction. Under the circumstances LENR is an appropriate description and I, and others, await the explanation while ruminating on the scientific data accumulated to date as that data reveals a previously unsuspected physics that holds great promise for the long term prospects of the biosphere.

            I agree that the COP as documented in the ERV report has been validated by the outcome of the court case as being beyond dispute and must henceforth be regarded as scientifically valid data that has to be accounted for in any rational debate on the subject.

            I agree that these base line COP results likely represent a minimal expectation for the performance of subsequent generations of technology as this older technology is no longer under consideration for manufacture.

            The turn from single units that produced >20KW at Doral to the tiny examples of the next generation speaks to a desire to observe the interaction of fractional grams of fuel with the control mechanism because of the speed with which the much smaller mass will react to changes in control inputs; the point being to isolate precisely which inputs are necessary conditions and which inputs are creating noise and squandering energy.

            I would suggest that what Rossi describes as recent progress in the control mechanism follows this arc of learning which resonances and field effects are critical to process. The indicators of progress are the ability to initiate and end the reaction rapidly, control reaction rates with precision and successfully scale up the mass of the device while maintaining a consistent level of control over a reaction that is decidedly less nimble.

            Watching your debate with Mike unfold, and the tenor of his prior commentary, does lead me to speculate that Mike is either deliberately obtuse or immune to rational discourse for reasons unknown.

      • nietsnie

        Maybe the important difference between the two is that the Doral version required constant maintenance for its high COP, whereas the QX reflects a recognition that requiring a team of engineers in the trunk for each installation is ultimately more expensive per kwh besides being suspicious to regulators tasked with approving an apparent nuclear device for use in a food factory. Relatively lower COP, but a set-it-and-forget-it operational style, may be seen as the sweet spot for success for sales to manufacturing businesses. If Con Edison gets on board that calculation could change.

  • Ewin Barnett

    If these devices come into commercial use with a total cost that is merely the same as conventional heat costs, the savings will be counted on the emissions side. This is a technology with zero emissions, Should this device and the one being developed by Dr. MIlls (Brilliant Light Power) come to the point where widespread use is possible, environmentalists will face an existential problem.

    If enviros are truly in favor of material human progress but whose objection is mainly about the “pollution” of CO2 as a driver of “climate change”, then they should be in favor of rapid adoption. If they have been using CO2 all along as a smoke screen (so to speak) and their real object was to decrease material human progress, welfare and comfort, they will protest this new technology, but based on what? I can only suggest that it might be on the grounds of “heat pollution” or that they are “risky” because they are “untried” or “controversial.” In my opinion, the Rossi devices have a greater vulnerability to being called risky, We should be prepared to jump to the defence of LENR-related technologies when totally unfounded claims and hyperbolic doomster objections are made in the public media. It was the general mainstream media that killed off LENR for a generation in the wake of the premature announcements by Ponds and Fleischmann.

    At this moment. we are on the verge of commercial viability of two different LENR-related technologies. If either is successful, this will not only be a sea-change of improvement in the human condition, but it will start to change the world power dynamic, generally for the better. I say generally because there are some nations that can only feed their Muslim-majority populations by exporting crude oil. What happens to the world price of oil when LENR-based technology starts to displace oil in powering ships, railroad locomotion, over-the-road trucking, process heat, electricity generation, building heating, etc. How will Iran or Saudi Arabia change their behavior? How much of our current spending for military force is rooted in the need to protect the vast flow of energy in the form of oil? We are in for some big changes, cleaner air and lower energy costs.

    I say to Rossi and Mills: faster! I wish all success to them.

    • LarryJ

      The adoption of this technology should have a profound effect on the world economy and that should benefit both oil and non oil producers alike. Oil producers will take a hit at the start, especially those with very poor quality oil like Canada’s tar sands but the potential for manufacturing and agricultural gains should make it up in the long run.

  • Dan Galburt

    I think Dr. Rossi does not want to advertise the true COP of the QX until he is ready, and rather than saying the information is confidential gives the >6 answer. He probably hasn’t finalized the specification for the COP yet.
    Rossi has consistently walked the line between keeping his followers informed and keeping many things confidential. Rossi has been very optimistic regarding his progress, but so have nearly everyone in the hot fusion field. The ECAT will be accepted as a proven device only when it is sold and multiple third parties report on it’s performance. I hope we don’t have to wait to long.

    • Ophelia Rump

      He is simply not revealing his specs to potential competitors until the product hits the market.
      This is a strong indicator I believe that he and his team have reason to believe that there is potential competition already hot on his heals.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    If a 21 kW QX system were used with a 7 kW Stirling cycle electric generator (a commercially available object), with about 33% conversion efficiency (quoted by the manufacturer of the Stirling generator), and if the QX produced just 6X the electrical input as high temperature thermal output, the result would be 14 kW of lower temperature thermal energy from the cooling end of the Stirling generator, plus 7 kW of electrical energy. Half of the electrical output would go to operate the QX and 3.5 kW would be available for other uses. The 14 kW of thermal energy could heat a home (if it were well insulated), and supply hot water. If the low temperature output is hot enough (easy to do for the system quoted by Rossi), it could also produce air conditioning with a heat driven cooler (evaporated salt type). 3.5 kW is easily enough to supply a home, drive blowers, and pumps, etc. If the COP is significantly more than 6, the situation is even more favorable. The main issue is cost and refueling, and if these are too high, the approach may be less practical. Thus, speculation at this point is not useful. We have to wait for more details.

  • Omega Z

    It boils down to what the masses want.
    Note the verdict is still out on cell phones and brain tumors. Would you want to tell the peeps they can’t have there toys for the next 30 years until the results are in. I’ll be behind you all the way. As far back as possible. Blood spatters a lot. 🙂

  • LarryJ

    Patience Grasshopper. A watched pot never boils.

    • TVulgaris

      IONS could statistically defeat that proposition.

  • causal observer

    Find a reputable bookie who will give odds of 1 in 20+ that Rossi will have a widely recognized, commercially competitive LENR-based heat producing device for public saleby the end of 2019, and you might make some good money betting against Rossi. I would seriously consider putting a good chunk of change on that bet, going the other way.

  • Gerard McEk

    Just to give you some idea what COP means when producing electricity: if the QX has a cop of 5 and you can convert electricity to heat with an efficiency of 40% then the overall COP will be 1. There will be no electricity left for other purposes then to drive the QX. If the QX has a COP of 20, then you will be able to produce 7 times as much electricity then what is needed to drive the QX.

  • malkom700

    Only pure environmental effects are essential, for example, for mining, wind turbines, power lines etc. It is also certain that it will cause a huge cataclysm in the world.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    what’s the COP of ITER ?

    • Omega Z

      what’s the COP of ITER ?
      Currently, it is infinite- wait for it – – Negative COP.

      • TVulgaris

        Nope, it is >0, just incredibly small, and that’s averaged over the “experimental” duration.
        When fusion is occurring, for a few pico-seconds, it’s enormous.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Infinite COP goes Bada Big BOOM!

    • malkom700

      Investors have certainly made calculations before investing in factory applications. The effectiveness of future products will surely increase gradually.

  • Omega Z

    There is no more infinite COP then there is infinite mpg..It requires fuel.

    Also, if you chain 1 E-cat to another you have already obtained maximum cost benefit which is the cost of the fuel per kilowatt of energy produced.

  • sam
  • cashmemorz

    Just compare what the transistor had to go through in development time and then it had very good theory to allow the transistor to develop along expected lines from the 1930’s until the first reasonably good transistor radio was available, in the 1960’s. Thirty years. The e-cat has no such theory to support it and still has to go through those iterations to make sure it doesn’t get into the market before it is reasonably good like the transistor radio was. Other wise the first prototype might have been out but with bugs that would make your type very happy that it was a false type of device and then you would really have good grounds for complaining, why it is as it is. The whole scenario has to be taken in proper context. Patience is a virtue.

    • Bruce Williams

      This is a very mature reply, thank you for your wisdom.

      • cashmemorz

        No need to overdo it. I just don’t like hearing knee jerk remarks.

    • LION

      Hi cashmemorz,
      I appreciate your sensible answer, MARTIN would agree with you.

      https://vimeo.com/9438745

      Too close to the sun-BBC Horizon
      SEE Martins comments from–17.20 to 18.00—-his views help keep things in perspective.

      Until all the wrinkles are sorted out an Experimentors life is a difficult and challenging one, though a wonderfully engageing and rewarding one too.
      All the best.

  • sam

    Lawana Turnbill
    May 2, 2018 at 4:53 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Does your technology consist more on the physics of the reactor or on the electronics of the control system?

    Andrea Rossi
    May 2, 2018 at 7:29 AM
    Lawana Turnbill:
    On the Physics of the reactor.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Frank Acland
    May 2, 2018 at 8:23 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    1) Will it be possible to operate an E-Cat plant at a fraction of its maximum rating, for example operate a 1 MW plant at 500 kW?
    2) If yes, would you do so by turning off some of the modules during the plant’s operation?
    3) Will it be possible to add modules to an existing plant after it is installed, in order to increase power, for example make a 1 MW plant into a 1.5 MW plant?

    Thank you very much,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    May 2, 2018 at 10:22 AM
    Frank Acland:
    1- yes
    2- you do it through the control system
    3- yes
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Not really. I mean, heat pump heating systems often get a COP of say 4 or 5. You put in say 1500 watts of electricity and on the other side out comes 7500 watts of heat. Now to be fair, the heat pump is only “moving” heat from outside. They work really great down around 0C, or even down to say -8C. (17F). So for climates that only go a bit below freezing in winter, but are mostly in need of air conditioning, then heat pumps are great for heating.

    In fact, I would suggest that if outside temp is 0C or say 5C, then such a device likely could be self looped. (the heat could drive a sterling and generate enough electricity to power the whole unit). However, without that heat differential, then you not going to get a high COP. I would guess around 10 COP is when you can start to self loop, and below that number you not going to get very far.

    So if we had some magic way of converting heat into electricity, then lower COP’s would instant become VERY valuable. As it stands now, a min of 6 is required, and for LENR to take off, I think a 10+ COP is required.

    Albert D. Kallal

    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I may be totally delirious as well as senile but I seem to remember
    that 50 years ago, the goal was to have deuterium-deuterium fusion (so, the
    world’s oceans would essentially be an unlimited source of fuel) then they
    scientifically lowered the bar and the goal became the easier tritium-deuterium
    reaction. So (IF I HAVE IT RIGHT), like the E-Cat, lithium will be consumed to
    make tritium for the hot fusion reactor. So, which (hot fusion vs the E-Cat)
    will most efficiently use the planet’s lithium? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

  • causal observer

    Start reading posts from October 2017 and read forward.

  • sam

    Steven N. Karels
    May 3, 2018 at 4:29 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    You posted that you can control the thermal output of a single eCat reactor module…

    1. Over what range of thermal output can you effect control? (e.g. 25% to 110%)?
    2. If you turn off an individual module, i.e., 0% thermal output, while adjacent modules are running, how long does it take for the turned off module to become fully functioning after being commanded to turn on, (seconds, milliseconds, minutes)?
    3. What is the maximum percentage of nominal output that a module may be continuously operated at (e.g., 150%), assuming operating temperature range was maintained?

    Andrea Rossi
    May 3, 2018 at 11:07 AM
    Steven N. Karels:
    1- any
    2- seconds plus the obvious transitory of the T curve
    3- depends on the model. If it is a 1 kW module, it will be 1 kWh/h
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Axil Axil

      Regarding: “Over what range of thermal output can you effect control?”

      When the thermal output is adjusted up of down, does the black body temperature(1 ev) change with the
      thermal output?

  • PhysicsForDummies

    Hi Nelson. May I ask why you categorize Rossi as a genius? Do you have any evidence of IQ tests or accomplishments etc. that would be worthy of such a strong word? I haven’t seen any working inventions or papers or reports to justify this claim. I guess we might look at his PhD thesis in Philosophy, but I personally don’t think any philosophers qualify as geniuses, sorry. Plus he was unable to convert Kelvin to Celsius on his blog until he was corrected by us non-genius readers.

    • Nelson Vogel

      I believe that to develop a LENR power generator is such a complex challenge to achieve, that only someone with very high IQ can solve it, otherwise the other high IQs and PhDs of the world would have done it before Rossi. My concept of genius is someone that makes an invention, or produces a proof of new theory, that allows changes in the world as we know, so the next years will confirm if he fulfill this category. As engineer, my cheers for Mr. Rossi and team, that like Nicola Tesla aimed, are in the way to give humanity a solution to save our planet, and colonize the others in our solar system.

    • Omega Z

      Oh, So your one of those kind of people.

      I may be mistaken, but I believe Rossi’s PhD thesis was the philosophy of physics.

      One can absorb and retain all the knowledge ever published and that does not make one intelligent. It would merely make you a magnificent storage device. Real Intelligence is the ability to extrapolate beyond such knowledge. To think beyond the obvious. Note IQ is not an accurate measure of intelligence. It is greatly flawed.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.