Cogar International Energy Corporation’s Hydro-Electric Reactor

By Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

Cogar_prototype_400I’ve posted a new page at PESWiki, and for historic archive purposes, I’m going to copy the opening text as it appears there today.

– – – –

On December 1, 2012, I conducted an interview with Raymond Catania, Vice President and Director of Marketing at Cogar International in Pasadena, California, USA.

Their Hydro-Electric Reactor is “an electricity-producing technology which uses a scientific principle known as the Multiple-Compression Propulsion System (M.C.P.S.) to generate electricity in commercial quantities.” Their website states that they are taking orders for products in the range of 100 kW to 1 MW that they are building one at a time.

If I understand correctly, the technology involves a closed-looped air flow, with a jet engine producing wind, and with propellers to harness the wind produced. It sounds like a classical perpetual motion boondoggle, but the inventor is sure he has a way to tap into external energy in the process. Ray was not able to articulate how that worked, but he said that the concept had been passed by a number of mechanical engineers who seemed convinced that it might work.

I’ve been sitting on a page I prepared to post at PESWiki following the interview, since they were awaiting some results.

Then, On April 5, 2013, I contacted Ray again to find out how things have been going, and he told me that though they have had a few setbacks, that they are making progress. They’ve been working to improve the efficiency, addressing various mechanical issues. Then, on March 27, they had an independent, third-party group test the device using a load bank. The analyzer scrutinized everything, component by component, and produced a report.


According to the data as it was calculated, as the power input increased, the power output increased significantly more. With a resistive load of 50 kW, the input required was 90 kW, for an efficiency of 56%. But by the time the resistive load bank was 200 kW, the input required was only 190 kW, for an efficiency of 105%.

On April 5, 2013, I spoke with Robert Tomasian, the Engineer who conducted those tests.

He sad that the above report represents the best results he has observed in the two years he has been involved in testing this technology as a sort of science project interest of his.

With wind harnessing involved, and a jet turbine operation, at just a cursory glance, you would expect that the losses would be profound, yielding a system efficiency of somewhere between 20% and 30%, so that Cogar’s getting numbers close to 100% efficiency should capture significant scientific evidence that there is indeed some kind of anomaly going on there that should be investigated.

“According to Betz law, no turbine can capture more than 16/27 (59.3 percent) of the kinetic energy in wind. Practical utility-scale wind turbines achieve at peak 75% to 80% of the Betz limit” (Wikipedia)

Even though “overunity” is usually thought of as being “over 100% efficient”, actually, “overunity” should set as its benchmark things such as the Betz coefficient. So “overunity” in a wind-based system would be anything surpassing 59.3%.

While interesting an efficiency of 105% is hardly in a range that can be considered useful. Getting approximately as much energy out as you put in, doesn’t leave you with a gain to be productive, let alone justify the expense of building the mechanism, other than for scientific research to study the phenomenon, characterize it, so it can be optimized.

I asked Robert about the “power factor” portion of the results. He assumed a power factor of 85% for all data sets, based on the name plate value provided by the manufacturer. He said that this value was conservative. However, in my experience, power factor does not stay the same as the rotation speed of the motor increases. At least on the smaller systems I’ve measured, you can see a difference of 10% to 30% in power factor, usually increasing, from low to higher rotation speeds.

That phenomenon actually predicts that that name-plate rating (based on averages) of 85% would give false positive results at lower speeds, and false negative results at higher speeds, so it could be that the efficiency on the higher end, above, is even better than 105%. The bottom line, though, which Robert agreed with, is that until power factor is also measured for each data set, the results are not nearly as accurate as they could be.

Bottom line is that this definitely looks interesting, but it is a very long way from being ready for practical deployment.

– – – –

Continue at – includes links to their official website, videos.

Here’s a video they posted in June, 2012.

# # #

See also: