Updated E-Cat Reactor Has Achieved Self-Sustainability

According to latest discussions on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Rossi himself has confirmed that his high heat unit has achieved self-sustained mode.

The self-sustained mode is more or less the “Holy Grail” of energy research. When a source of energy is self-sustaining, it means that it can run indefinitely without the use of external fuel sources, or the introduction of another catalyst.

The E-Cat 600C is, according to Rossi himself, running at self-sustained mode for about 50% of the time.

Andrea Rossi

Dear Hank Mills:
Basically I agree with you.
About 50% of the time goes self sustained in our tests.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

This self-sustaining mode is good news for those who want to go completely “off the grid” with their energy consumption. Those who don’t want to depend on coal-burning power plants at all will welcome the opportunity to start their E-Cat and then just allow it to run.

When asked if infinite COP, or self-sustained mode, would mean loss of control of the energy output, Rossi said, “No.” This implies that the inventor has developed a method of controlling the reaction taking place, exclusive of the external catalyst.

Currently, it is assumed that the reactions taking place in the E-Cat can “run away” to the point where the nickel would overheat and melt, stopping the reaction completely. The E-Cat reaction must be stabilized, and further assumptions are that this is done through electrical resistors.

Rather than the E-Cat needing electrical input as fuel, it must need periodic electrical input to control the reaction.

However, Rossi still remains closed-mouthed about the core catalyst. International patents aside, this is probably a good idea on his part. Achieving self-sustained mode is a major step forward for an invention aiming to change the energy system.

14 total comments on this postSubmit yours
  1. It would be prudent to not read more into what “Rossi said” than what he intended. This idea of 50% of the time in self-sustained mode is not what most would define as “self-sustaining”.
    It would be better to say that the device’s ‘duty cycle’ is 50%. That is 50% ‘on’ producing energy without input, and 50% ‘off ‘ when it consumes energy. If the ‘off ‘ cycle were to consume as much energy as produced during the ‘ on ‘ cycle then overall the machine would be at zero in terms of energy consumption or generation. As he clearly stated it is in fact at a 1:5 ratio with purportedly (we’re still taking all this on his word) consuming 1 part while ‘ off ‘ and producing 5 while ‘ on ‘. (whether he means 1:6 rather than 1:5 is a topic in itself and best addressed by Rossi. I presume the latter.)
    Self-sustaining as you seem to infer is not currently considered possible by anyone. That would be even more incredible than a perpetual motion machine. What, I believe, you intend by the term ‘self-sustaining’ would be a mode where the e-cat has need only of the hydrogen fuel (and whatever other consumables there may be in the process) to produce its excess energy (energy above whatever it needs as input).

    If Rossi is correct and a COP of six is a theoretical maximum for the e-cat as a heat producer then the burden would now fall on designers to optimize the efficiency of using such a heat source for whatever task they are fitting it to. (It certainly does not always have to be generation of electricity)
    Conversion to mechanical work is of course limited by the Carnot efficiency which roughly means that the efficiency is directly linked to the difference in the input and output temperatures of Mr. Rossi’s heating device. (Hence the importance of 600 deg. )
    I know nothing about how the e-cat works, or is controlled, but it is strange that a runaway heat condition could be halted by ‘heat resistors’ i.e. adding more heat to the reaction! But I remain open to being surprised at how this is done.

    • You are right, but at the same time what Rossi says is, at least until the E-Cat theory gets published, what we have to follow to keep track of the development stages of the device.

      • sustainability is typo in the title of this article. O.O

        • Corrected it. Thanks!

    • Add a generator and battery to an ecat and the input electricity needed would be stored. So really the ecat can be self sustaining if the stability and heat is as claimed.

      I do have doubts that the claims are completely genuine however or they would probably be demonstrated for legal reasons if nothing else.

    • “Self-sustaining as you seem to infer is not currently considered possible by anyone. That would be even more incredible than a perpetual motion machine”

      Why are you saying that? Perpetual motion is another thing.
      In the E-Cat you have a fuel that is a nickel+hydrogen mix, when it is “burned” (partially or completely, who knows) the reaction ends.
      The same happens with gasoline+air mix (or another “chemical” fuel). You start the reaction (combustion) and it stops when the fuel is completely consumed. You don’t need to provide energy while the combustion takes place.
      This is by far different than “perpetual motion”.

  2. I wouldn’t say “holy grail” of energy or it’s what is needed to live off the grid.

    A non sustaining ecat could allow someone to live off the grid if it powered a generator and a battery it could supply its own needed electricity and thus also be considered self-sustaining. I’d say stability is 10,000 times more important than self sustaining.

    The longest Andrea Rossi has ever demonstrated a stable product is 18 hours. Perhaps stability should be the priority instead of self-sustaining.

    • Stability is very important, of course. Without stability, there would be no long-term efficiency.

  3. Having watched SRI, Milay(sp?) et al. It seems that the production of excess heat in a cyclical manner is no longer even worth questioning.Repeated hundreds of times(.http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/cold_fusion) And I am exultant that we are finally breaking through the fog of the physicists who require radioactive emissions to conclude something with excess energy is happening. Can we please move onto the demonstrations of reliabilty and control!
    I now appreciate that it took 5 years for the Wright Brothers to convince the public that they could fly heavier than air planes. I’m cheering for Mr. Rossi, Brillouin, Black Light as well as SRI. They will soon make the controls breakthrough that will move us forward and begin to loosen the grasp of the oil/hot fusion controlled politico system that has succesfully delayed this technology’s emergence for 20+ years.

  4. does any one even know what Country Mr Rossi claims to be operating out of currently ?
    I Am here in Miami and there is no evidence of any secret robot operated 1,000,000 E-Cat a year factory ???

  5. Let’s assume the steam is hot enough to get 35-40% efficiency when driving a turbine and generator then lets assume a COP of 6 meaning that one sixth of the net energy output must be fed back into the unit from the produced electrical output. .4-.166= .234 of the output is left as useful enelectrical energy. A 1 MW reactor would would then produce 234 KW of power after 166kw had been siphoned off to keep the reaction going. Is this what Rossi calls “self sustaining”? Or is he saying that he is merely breaking even? In that case all the electrical energy output would be used to to keep the reaction going with no surplus output. This would imply a considerably lower COP of about 4–not such good news . Even then we have the caveat that it is self sustaning only half the time. What about the half of the time that it draws energy? How much energy? If we consider a whole duty cycle is it a net producer of energy at all? I’m skeptical.

    • While self-sustaining the e-cat requires no electricity.

    • In your math you are not including the heat produced as a valuable product from the ecat. If you just consider the heat as a waist product then the performance level is skewed a bit.

  6. An off-grid-product will have far less conflicts with the interests of the energy-companies, maybe -

    The energy-companies actually don´t think about synergy-effects ?

    Energy is power – power needs control – who is in control ?

Submit your comment

Please enter your name

Your name is required

Please enter a valid email address

An email address is required

Please enter your message

© 2014 All Rights Reserved