Free to a Good Home — 1 MW E-Cat Plant

I think this is terrific news: Leonardo Corporation and Hydro Fusion (E-Cat Licensee for Northern Europe) are offering a free 1 MW E-Cat plant (low temperature) to a customer who is willing to operate it as a pilot project. The only thing the customer pays for is the heat the plant produces — which should be cheaper than any heat they are paying for at the moment.

A press release published by Hydro Fusion today states:

Hydro Fusion is looking for a Pilot Customer for the first ECAT 1 MW Plant to operate in Sweden. The customer will only pay for the energy produced by the ECAT, i.e. Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation will take responsibility for all associated costs including: the plant itself, installation and any transportation costs. In return the Pilot Customer agrees upon

  • Scheduled Installation time by late fall 2013.
  • Hydro Fusion and Leonardo Corporation to use the Pilot Plant as a Showcase where external customers can be introduced to an ECAT 1 MW in operation.

The price tag on these plants is normally 1.5 million USD, and from what Rossi has said, so far only two have been sold. The customer who agrees to take the plant must be willing to allow external customers to come and see it in use. This will of course be a very useful marketing tool for Andrea Rossi, and a working, visitable plant should go a long way to convincing hesitant customers of the reality of the E-Cat.

My guess is that this will be a popular offer. There is little risk involved here, since there are no upfront costs involved, and if the plant doesn’t work it will surely be fixed or removed (Rossi has mentioned a 2 year warranty in the past).

  • ACG

    Is this not the same for all power companies? The wires and the pipes are free. You just pay for the current or the gas.
    So with the E-cat installed you will be paying for the electricity to produce the reaction and for the heat as well.

    Now if the E-cat came equipped with a heat to electric generator we could do some talking. I do not need a lot of heat, in fact i have too much heat as it is. What I need is electricity.

    Ah.. keep your e-cat and send a heat to electric generator my way.

  • Dave

    It’s funny they’re willing to let someone use an E-Cat but were too scared about trade secrets to allow a real independent 3rd party test that they could have supervised 24/7 and required an NDA from the tester. Also, Rossi has claimed that a factory has been using an E-Cat to heat the building for years now. Why doesn’t he show off *that* installation?

    • Roger Bird

      Dave, Rossi doesn’t really care very much what we think, only that we be here to share his excitement.

  • Felis Ferens

    >Free to a Good Home

    Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project would be a good home

  • lenrdawn

    Roger wrote: “This should be a good lesson for skeptopaths and skeptics. They need to ask themselves “Why didn’t I see this coming?” And the answer should be, “Because you are unable to read social/soft evidence. You need to work on that aspect of your character/personality.””

    Interestingly enough, it would be exactly the same if it turns out to be the other way round. Suppose this turns out to be a scam, they’ll probably tell you that you are unable to read social/soft evidence. As always, it is all a question of perspective and the same things you now interpret as evidence in favor of Rossi change to the opposite if you look at them from only a slightly different angle.

    • AB

      I don’t agree with Roger on that.

      Assuming that the e-cat is real (which seems highly likely to me after the third party report), I think the pathoskeptics won’t see it coming because they jumped to their conclusion that it was fake far too early. Without having any concrete evidence that it was fake, I might add, which makes their conclusion faith based. Then add the human nature of desiring coherency in one’s own beliefs, and it becomes difficult for them to fairly evaluate new information which contradicts their beliefs.

      I’ve been following this since early 2011, and I remember exactly which group was 99% certain that they had the correct answer to the question whether it was real or not. It were the vocal pathoskeptics. In contrast, most other people expressed cautious optimism or interest, but no certainties. There was not one single “true believer” as far as I remember.

      • Roger Bird

        I never said that we believers started out as “true believers” that got lucky. I said that the skeptopaths have a poor social sense, like thinking that Levi would be delighted to throw his career away. Regular ol’ skeptics of the good mental health variety would obviously start out believing the old Coulomb-is-Monster paradigm and it would be very difficult for them to change. They would have invested a great deal of energy into trying to break through the Coulomb Barrier in their work or the work of people that they were close to. I started out believing that Coulomb-is-a-serious-bother, not being a nuclear physicist. And I tended to not take theory as seriously as observation.

        • lenrdawn

          “I said that the skeptopaths have a poor social sense, like thinking that Levi would be delighted to throw his career away.”

          Not sure that’s a bad assumption. People, even scientists, are throwing away their careers all the time. For love, for money, for simply making mistakes and trying to correct them somehow. Sometimes it is just blunder. I wouldn’t count Levi as any kind of social or soft evidence either way.

          • Roger Bird

            But a bunch of Levi’s from different countries makes for a “social sense”. And lots of people don’t throw their careers away. It is extremely rare. I can’t think of any instance except when the person thought that the truth demanded it, like Alfred Wegener.

            • AB

              I think somebody who believes that people are (knowingly) throwing their careers away all the time qualifies for poor social sense.

              This seems to be a version of the pathoskeptic pattern of thinking in which “most/everyone else” is somehow stupid/incompetent/delusional/etc, which is very handy because it can be used to “explain” everything and is difficult to falsify.

        • Jordi Heguilor

          ” I said that the skeptopaths have a poor social sense, like thinking that Levi would be delighted to throw his career away.”

          Scientists throw their careers away all the time, look at Pons & Fleishmann. If they had followed the proper procedure, they would have never received the backlash they did.

      • AB

        Also, one flawed heuristic used by the pathoskeptics is roughly the following line of thought:

        “The probability that it is a scam is far higher than the probability that it is real, therefore the e-cat is most likely false.”

        This is a statistical statement which has no relevance when it comes to evaluating whether an individual claim is true or not.

      • lenrdawn

        I see you point, but it, too, works on both sides. For instance something like

        “Then add the human nature of desiring coherency in one’s own beliefs, and it becomes difficult for them to fairly evaluate new information which contradicts their beliefs.”

        does apply to both sides. Even if Rossi makes obvious mistakes (like it happened in the past with statements that were either simply not true or typos), surprising amounts of energy are put in by some “true believers” to make some sort of far fetched sense of it or explain it away as hints at the catalyst or clever distractions. Just like many skeptics see indication of fraud behind even the most innocent remarks or perfectly expected delays like we’ve seen with the release date of the report where Rossi was simply a little too optimistic at first – as if that was a crime.

        You’re certainly right with the observation that many or even most skeptics made up their minds very early in the game (which doesn’t mean they are wrong, of course, but it certainly means they were expressing mostly unfounded opinions at the time).

        • AB

          Even if Rossi makes obvious mistakes (like it happened in the past with statements that were either simply not true or typos), surprising amounts of energy are put in by some “true believers” to make some sort of far fetched sense of it or explain it away as hints at the catalyst or clever distractions.

          I like concrete examples, can you give me some?

    • Roger Bird

      Good point, lenrdawn. I am not sure that I fully embrace it though. The skeptopaths that I “know” do have pronounced atrophies of their social sense. For example, one lives completely alone. We have not defined and discussed and I want to define and discuss “true believers” here. Since I have a true believer hanging on my every word, I will put more thought into it and do a post. There might very well be something wrong with true believers, but I doubt that it would be lack of a social sense. It would be letting one’s building of one’s model of the world be propelled by hope or wishful thinking. I’ll think about it.

      • Jordi Heguilor

        Oh, c’mon, Roger! Skeptopaths may be nit-picking, and sometimes not much fun, but it’s true believers who spend their life in their garages trying, for the millionth time, to reinvent the “water-powered” engine, the “magnetic” motor, the “plasma” engine.

        Their motto could be: “True believers. Brought to you by a complete ignorance of the Laws of Thermodynamics.”

        • Roger Bird

          Those people are I think a different breed than my sister-in-law, bless her heart. But I know the kinds of people that you mention. She would come to me and believe me when I told her that her perpetual motion vacuum cleaner would never work. She would abandon it based upon what I say. I think that the true believer wants to believe and that is what drives their belief. I suppose that the skeptopath also has wants that drive him/her. Perhaps they are the same animal in many ways. The skeptopath wants “it” to be untrue, and the true believer wants “it” to be true, and evidence is not really something that either wants to bother with.

  • Gérard2013

    The dark forces are at war with all their powers against Andrea Rossi and others. The violence of their attacks is proportional to their fear of change. Relevance increasingly evident.

    The reality more undeniable that dethrones what we know in physics in general and nuclear in particular. For believers of deception, this is the last battle before their capitulation.

    Politicians will arbitrate in favor of this new energy. Politicians have already started refereeing for cold fusion and new fire.

    In French

    Les forces obscures entrent en guerre avec toutes leurs puissances contre Andrea Rossi et d’autres personnes. La violence de leurs attaques est proportionnelle à leur peur du changement.
    La pertinence de plus en plus évidente. La réalité de plus en plus incontestable qui détrône ce que nous savons en physique en générale et sur le nucléaire en particulier.
    Pour les croyants de l’imposture, c’est la dernière bataille avant leurs capitulations.
    Les hommes politiques vont arbitrer en faveur de cette nouvelle énergie. Les hommes politiques ont déjà commencé à arbitrer pour la fusion froide et le nouveau feu.

  • Mike Cheek

    If I’m understanding it, it looks like this produces hot water at 120 C (248 F). 1 MW converts to 3,412,141 BTU/hr. If you assume 60F (15.6 C) water in (it would be in Sweden after all) then you can generate 18,150 lbs/hr water (36 gpm) or 8,231 kg/hr (8.2 m3/hr) of scalding boiling hot water. More water, of course, if your initial temperature is higher.

    Couldn’t be of benefit everywhere – but this could be an excellent match for a power plant to preheat boiler water makeup – or heating a building – or maybe a large laundry complex. It’s just not hot enought to be a good electrical generator – right now. But it could help a power plant be more efficient – still a valuable and worthwhile endeavor. If it is possible for them to refine design and increase output temp then a lot more possibilities can open up.

  • artefact


    Science of the Times: Frauds have no place in world of science

    • artefact

      From the text: “BRRRING! That’s the sound of the alarm that should be going off in your head right about now. The inability, or even reluctance, to have a third party verify results should be a clear indication that whatever this con artist is selling, it won’t stack up next to a pile of horse apples”

      • Roger Bird

        We live in a free country. The NY Slimes is free to say whatever they please, even when they are wrong. In fact, I hope that they keep it up.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Good boys and girls never question anything they’re told.

    • Martin Leonard

      The new mac pro looks like Rossi’s reactor. There could be injunction delays here.. but for who?

    • Roger Bird

      I have hated the New York Slimes for years. I am so glad that they said this. This will hurt them when it becomes obvious that LENR is real.

      • Redford

        Well actually it’s already done in a way, isn’t it? Putting Rossi’s as exemple of missing 3rd party replication while it’s actually the pretty big news it just happened do make them look silly.

  • Bento
    • fortyniner

      Wow – the fightback commences. This is about the most ‘in your face’ pro-nuclear propaganda piece I have ever seen – it would be very interesting to know who exactly is behind it. If the film lives up to the comparison made in the trailer with Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’, expect the most lavish serving of glossy disinformation and half truth for a generation.

      • Roger Bird

        Please, the film is not fighting back against LENR. It is fighting back against the current public distaste for nuclear. I know that this will come as a surprise to you, but not everyone knows what you know, not everyone has your perspective. 99% of the people involved in this film have no clue that LENR even exists.

        • fortyniner

          Roger, you have an uncanny knack of causing offense, when I’m sure that is not your intention. I am entirely un-surprised by your news that 99% of people are unaware of cold fusion, and have said much the same thing myself in the past.

          Among those who are aware of the imminence of cold fusion, and the threat it poses to them, will be top executives in the nuclear industry and others such as bankers who are heavily invested in this sector. If the nuclear industry has decided to use outright heavy-duty propaganda, it is probably for a number of reasons, one of which may be that they know that they are almost out of time. They can no longer wait for people to forget about Fukushima, and may have decided to go on the offensive.

          The hope will be to try to tie nuclear fission to the broadly successful ‘global warming’ sc*m, by persuading people that a ‘clean’ new ‘nuclear power v2.0’ is just around the corner – before the mass of people become aware of cold fusion. If successful they may calculate that this could undermine the impact of LENR when it arrives in the public awareness, by presenting an apparent alternative and attempting to share the moral high ground already claimed by the AGW herd.

          Given the public mistrust of nuclear fission, and the ongoing evidence of the inevitable consequences of using it, it seems unlikely that a film could have much effect, but perhaps they hope to emulate the success of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in establishing an untruth in the public perception on a massive scale. I’m sure they will have no trouble at all in assembling a battalion of ‘climate scientists’ to publicly support a fake consensus that nuclear fission is the only possible solution to the AGW ‘problem’.

          • Roger Bird

            But if they are promoting fissile nuclear, then how is that make the crowd afraid of LENR?

            • fortyniner

              That isn’t what I’m suggesting. I think that the intention is to use the CO2 myth as a vehicle for their own purposes, i.e., to try to brand fission power as the only ‘solution’ to ‘climate change’, and so automatically marginalise anyone (read cold fusionists) who come along a bit later and make similar claims.

              If they can establish that link firmly in the public mind, they can then take advantage of all the work already done to put the AGW myth in place, including the automatic vitriol aimed at ‘deniers’. This would potentially enable them to use similar distorted terminology to imply that anyone who opposes nuclear fission must also be a ‘denialist’ and ipso facto, be ‘for’ pollution, destruction of the environment, turning the planet into a dustbowl, etc. etc.

              This is how propagandists think – they don’t merely want to make over a tarnished image – they want to entirely turn such an image around. To do so they will use any leverage to hand in order to paint black as white, no matter how inappropriate in real terms.

            • fortyniner

              Roger – replied but auto-moderated.

              • Roger Bird

                Are you sure that you didn’t moderate yourself because my insights and ideas are so smashingly right-on?

      • GreenWin

        Not sure who financed the production, but Time Warner’s CNN is distributing. Looks like nuke industry suppliers are feeling the stranded asset syndrome. One positive for LENR is the lecture on overblown fears of the word “nuclear.”

        The rest is four purported enviros who have a nuclear epiphany. They offer no new solutions for radioactive containment or waste mitigation. Beyond Nuclear has its own pushback:

        • Roger Bird

          Too long and not relevant enough for me to read.

        • fortyniner

          Thanks, GW, good find. The author does a spectacular job of demolishing the propaganda onslaught that the film almost certainly heralds. It’s just a shame she seems to accept the CO2 myth without question.

          • GreenWin

            Further review of this well written “Nation” article reveals at least one film backer to be Paul Allen – Msoft.


            And this brings up a fascinating, even exciting scenario. Mainstream Media (Time Warner etc)is positioning this film as a “schism in environmentalism.” We can expect a huge flux of impassioned debate ala the talk following screening at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.

            On the one hand, the film over-hypes climate doom and inadequate renewable resources to justify “a second look” at nuclear. Expect this debate to escalate to fever pitch; a full-on shriek, mud sling, hair pull and eye-gouging ultimate fight throw down. Now, imagine this…


            As the dust and smoke settles, there appears at distance an awkward figure; a skinny, tilting man… followed by an older, slow moving Panza. They amble forward, across the battlefield.

            What if we had a nuclear energy w/o ionizing radiation? Without radiative waste. Or stupefying, crippling costs. Is it possible we have the makings of a truce, brokered by the least likely of two characters, who have impossibly perfected the art of tilting at windmills?

            • Roger Bird

              Love your picture.

            • fortyniner

              I see your line of reasoning… but my intuition continues to point to a straightforward and cynical propaganda onslaught on behalf of the the nuclear industry, that will probably be picked up by a number of vested interests facing inundation. Obviously my imagination is somewhat short of iconic!

              • Roger Bird

                The environmental movement back towards nukes has been underway for several years now. So someone finally got around to doing a fancy video about it. In my opinion, this undoes your idea that it is part of an anti-LENR conspiracy.

    • AB

      Traditional nuclear power is dead. Catastrophic disasters are fortunately not common because the number of nuclear power plants is currently 434.

      If we decided to generate most of our energy via traditional nuclear power, then we would have disasters much more often because nuclear powr only accounts for less than 2% of our needs at this time.

      This would mean a Fukushima/Chernobyl/Three-mile Island at least once a year somewhere on the planet.

      There’s also still no solution for the radioactive waste. In short, scaling traditional nuclear power up as it stands would be a crime against future generations.

      • Sven Brus

        Conventional Nuclear development / roll out is not dead ,yet.
        There is a lobby who wants to implement a new, smaller form of reactors that would be placed under ground.

        While its supposed to be much “safer” (yes we heard that before) it would be deployed close to every mayor city.

      • fortyniner

        The title of the file may be apposite – when Pandora opened her box, all the evil in the world escaped. Even thorium reactors will not be able to save the industry, which is terminally tainted.

      • Roger Bird

        There is a solution to fissile nuclear waste. There was a TED talk about it with two MIT young people. I heard Bill Gates is getting involved. The solution is a money maker, so Bill got interested.

        • GreenWin

          The TWR reactor has distinct benefit over Gen 3 types, especially in burning spent fuel rods. But as with any fission-based system, there are great hurdles and safety issues (extra long fuel rods, sodium cooled, conversion/burn algorithm) as detailed in this Russian paper:

          Bill would be more intrigued with LENR if he was briefed.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    When Westinghouse and Tesla teamed up(at Niagara), didn’t they sell electricity?

    When Edison formed Commonwealth Edison, didn’t they sell electricity?

    • Jordi Heguilor

      Yes, but they started by PRODUCING electricity. I see a difference…

  • Chuck

    This is an interesting, but peculiar business proposal. As I understand it, HydroFusion will install the 1MW unit. The customer pays for the electricity and the heat produced. This is where I get lost.

    Does the customer pay for *all* heat produced by the unit, or just the heat in excess of whatever electricity he supplies (and is already paying for)? Regardless, how does HF propose to measure the produced heat? Or will HF assume that there’s 1MW produced as long as the unit is supplied with power? What if the load isn’t constant–does the customer have the option of throttling the unit down to meet the load?

    As always, the devil seems to be in the details.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I would expect that the customer pays for the net heat delivered. It would be Rossi’s and HydroFusion’s problem in producing that delivered heat at a profit.

      If they didn’t produce and deliver heat at a profit, then the entire exercise would be a failure.

      • fortyniner

        From a commercial POV, yes, but the publicity would be invaluable (assuming the details of running costs, teething problems etc. didn’t emerge).

      • Roger Bird

        Obviously the suppliers would have to use the local power available to run the plant. I doubt if they would want to run at a loss.

    • AB

      My interpretation is that Hydro Fusion / Rossi take the role of heat supplier. This would mean that the customer pays only for the delivered heat and nothing else.

      This would also mean that, if the plant is installed and delivers the promised heat, the pathoskeptics will argue that Rossi is once again faking input power (and thus delivering heat at a financial loss for the purpose of tricking the public).

    • Charles

      Uh, couldn’t Hydro just move the meters they used in the ECatHT tests?

      • Chuck

        Well, we’re talking about “wet steam” at 120C here, not photometrically measuring the color temperature of a hot body. So, no, I don’t think that would work.

        Note that energy delivered will depend on a number of factors, including the temperature of the delivered product, the temperature of the water input, the pressure of the generated steam (unless hot water was envisioned–and then we’d still need to know the pressure involved) as well as the flow rate of the water.

        And then, there’s the issue of what will be done when the demand for the heated water/steam is below the 1MW level–can the 1MW unit be controlled by the customer’s equipment?

        My point being that the more one delves into this proposition, questions start arising–perhaps not as exciting as LENR, but essential to a successful installation nonetheless.

  • Owen

    Think about this from the customer’s point of view. It would be a huge public relations bonus to be the first to publicly demonstrate LENR heated buildings. The company or organization involved would get endless free promo in hundreds of newspaper articles and TV appearances. They would be viewed as on the cutting edge, a leader in the field. This would give them a positive business image that’s hard to obtain with just paid advertisements. The positive public perception could be more valuable than the heat from the reactor.

    • Christopher

      True that

    • fortyniner

      True, and probably Rossi’s best hope, as well as being a good match to the rather inflexible characteristics of the 1MW unit.

    • Roger Bird

      And, of course, vice versa. If the E-Cat Plant was a failure, then the company would look bad.