Rossi Working on E-Cat Jet Engine [Update: More AR Comments]

Here’s an interesting revelation from Andrea Rossi. It came about because I was confused about something that Rossi wrote on the JONP a few weeks ago, and I sent him an email asking a question. Rossi asked me to post it on the JONP. Here’s the exchange:

My email:

Dear Andrea,

You mentioned on the JONP that the Hot Cat could be useful with a gas turbine:

“If we will be able to get positive results, the ranges of temperature will be enough high to allow gas turbines or very good efficiencies with the Carnot cycle, especially in co-generation or three-generation assemblies.”

— but I don’t understand how a gas turbine would work since you have no combustible fuel.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Rossi’s response on the JONP:

Frank Acland:
Perhaps you remember that we made R&D also using gas as a fuel. That line of R&D has been carried on and we are now preparing for a pilot jet engine gas fueled hybridized with an E-Cats assembly. This is exactly what I am working upon during these very days, while the work of the third indipendent party is going on with the hot cat. Obviously, the technology of the Hot Cat is strictly connected with the gas fueled Hot Cat. But remember: I still must say that:
Warm Regards,

I am not quite sure what is going on in this system. The ‘gas cat’ idea is where instead of an electric resistor is used to initiate the e-cat reaction, gas is used (which can work out much cheaper in places where natural gas is less expensive than electricity). From my understanding, a gas turbine requires some combustion within the turbine — so I’m not sure how a hybridization with an E-Cat would work in this situation. I am sure we have people here who could comment better than I on this situation.

UPDATE: A couple more JONP comments from Andrea Rossi on the jet engine development:

Mark Saker:
So far all we want to do is test the operation of the Hot Cats in a ” hybridized” old and not flying jet engine on the bench. After that we will think to the possible applications, if the results will be positive. But could be negative, so for now we are just at the R&D level.
Warm Regards,

Hank Mills:
Thank you for your good questions, useful to make clear that:
1- we are trying to use gas as fuel instead of electric power, because gas is very cheap now in the USA: this is R&D
2- jet engines do not necessarily have to fly: they can make co-generation and tri-generation, heat generation.
3- all our mail lines of R&D remain open
Warmest Regards,

  • Chris I

    Delete what you like, but that’s not what I meant.

    If you want to see how astrology may often work, look up the pygmalion or Rosenthal or placebo/nocebo effect especially in relation to self-fulfilling prophesies. Add confirmation bias and a dose of cherrypicking.

    • bachcole

      I can’t delete emails using the email client or else I delete all emails from, and I don’t want to do that. Doing so by hand is not always reliable, as you can see by my response.

      I was studying the placebo effect since about 49 years ago. How old did you say that you were? I was USING the placebo effect for the past 45 years. I know all about the placebo effect. I know all about cherry picking. The only real reason that you discount my observations and cry “placebo effect” is that you are a materialist. Your experience has been limited to the material-physical world, so you have naturally built all of your thoughts, science, and personal philosophy on materialism. This is the most natural thing in the world. I am not a materialist and I never can be because I have had spiritual experience. But I suspect that your problem is more than just experience limited to the physical world. I suspect that you are hard-hearted, have few friends, and are arrogant. Is this true? Do you believe that you have a monopoly on the truth or at least have a monopoly on epistemology, i.e. that your materialistic science is the ONLY way to understand the world?

      I suggest that you read “Flatland” by E.A. Abbott. Or I can give you the short version. You are like a 2 dimensional creature trying to understand the 3 dimensional world and 3 dimensional creatures. But you are different from many of your fellow 2 dimensional creatures; you are absolutely positively certain that there is no such thing as a 3 dimensional world.

      I also did not think that there was such a thing as the spiritual world or transcendental reality or ultimate reality, being outside of Plato’s cave. I know now since about 44 years that material world is the dream, and the reality is the spiritual world.

      • Chris I

        Of course you’re an expert on cherrypicking, you’ve just done it on my last post. As for your ad hominem (and personal) attack, it is highly unwelcome. You know absolutely nothing about me and you sure ain’t guessing it right.

  • Chris I

    But I did understand what you said and you did rant about astrology.

    Read what you like and don’t read what you don’t desire to…

  • Chris I

    Well than why did you get so uptight about astrology? Why did you mention bigfoot, when there are better examples? The word “debunked” is more redundant for astrology, chemtrails, Hartman nodes, Bach flowers and homeopathy.

    Chicken headed cowards is not the right wording. They all work each on their own field and can’t be bothered with all the rest. Unfortunately, there is the difference between what esteemed colleagues are working on and what most consider bogus.

    If they can’t be bothered much with things outside their own field, all the less can they be bothered to examine something better than those who scoffed at it. They can’t be bothered. Just like you did not look further into Nessie. It’s easier to just say what most others say. What obligation do you think they’re under?

  • Chris I

    I don’t agree with saying astrology has not been debunked and I disagree that your method would be necessary. I do agree this method would not make much sense; as you say, one could hardly objectivise the comparison. Think instead of giving horoscopes to people of the wrong sign and even for the wrong day (week or what) and then interviewing them. It would be less difficult to devise the questionaires to suit the purpose. In any case, the basic principle is well known. Many people have been able to do it for debunking rather than for deception.

    BTW, before the days of research institutions, many an astronomer was the king’s astrologist; it was the best way to be patronized for this kind of endeavour. Galileo was more fortunate, he had the Medici family’s hign interest in culture and philosophy on his side and he could afford to decry astrology.

    Bigfoot? (yawn) I don’t know of there being as much evidence for it as for the yeti. The Sherpa have always had to protect their livestock from it and lately they believe they’ve finally got rid of it. The only thing is that it might not be a hominid or any kind of primate. Some have linked it to a known species of plantigrade which is called the meti in areas not far away. The conjecture is that it might be often seen walking erect and yeti could be a variant name by which the Sherpa call the same thing. Muchless interesting than a real live hominid, or even just a knew species, nevertheless this might be the answer to the riddle. I think more effort could have been put into it. I also think Nessie would be well worth investigating more than so far.

    One factor is that research does not always take a great interest in things. In some cases greater interest would by appropriate (e. g. cold fusion). In other cases, the lack of interest is quite understandable. There’s a mighty difference between these different things. And you ought to think again about deeming it easy to search for bigfoot from above with IR imagery. The problem isn’t just penetrating the foliage; try scanning NW USA with Google at the required scale and then let’s talk about what a task it would be.

  • US_Citizen71

    A thought just came to me, Rossi must have found a way to either use a more solid form of nickel or is stabilizing the nickel powder in some type of high temperature aerogel. A turbine will create a lot of vibration from the turbulence of the air being pushed through the compressor vanes. It will manifest as sound and as physical vibration of the entire unit. These vibrations should be able to move a nano powder around quite a bit causing all kinds of technical fun. Unless that has been already been solved the first run of the gas turbine experiment will likely end spectacularly like one of the destructive tests. Any thoughts?

    • Obvious

      I think a video of the test would look really cool.

  • CancunKurt

    I was just explaining why mainstream science abandoned cold fusion. You are preaching to the choir here, I have been onboard fir years

  • US_Citizen71

    Take a deep breath you are getting worked up over nothing. Gas turbines are what the current generation of natural gas electrical plants use for power generation. ( ) Micro versions are used in several CHP setups. Turbine doesn’t always mean airplane.

  • mcloki

    Rossi should be doing this jet turbine research. It’s just going to end up being a hybrid electric generator. LENR is just a tool and the next few years everyone will be finding new and interesting ways to use LENR for their own end. That guy who’s making cars, Home heating. desalination plants, Smelters? It’s endless, so let a thousand projects bloom, or more precisely how are you going to stop them from blooming?

  • georgehants

    Why is there a person below actually debunking Astrology when science does not have the slightest Evidence to show that it is not a genuine science.
    I am not saying it is, I am asking how can science be so dim as to deny so many possible phenomenon by dumb-brained “opinion” alone.
    Scientific and logical answers please, but all scientists will probably run away and hide.

    • CancunKurt

      Because it does not conform with objective observations or has any valid theory worth exploring.

      In cold fusion, the observations was the badly tried experiments afterwards and the fact that the main characters did not produce much even when given oppertunity.

      In astrology, everyone should be able to see the effects, yet only a few does.

      • georgehants

        CancunKurt, thank you for being brave enough to reply.
        Interesting to see if you give fair reply’s to these query’s on your reply.
        To who’s “objective observations” does it not conform, as it obviously conforms correctly to those who believe it’s results?
        Why would it make the slightest difference if it has a valid or invalid theory?
        Good that you agree that the scientists who failed to find anything performing the early Cold Fusion Experiments where completely incompetent.
        Who are you suggesting gave the true Rebel scientists the ” oppertunity.”?
        Nobody gave them the opertunity, they like all good scientists took it upon themselves to do the Research and not just give dumb-brained “opinion” like the rest of science.
        Are you saying that by only producing a little extra energy that proves it is not worth Researching?
        Why would it matter if “the main characters did not produce much even when given opportunity.”
        Would it not be worth Researching even if nothing was ever found?

        • Obvious

          I have a report link regarding this side topic. It is quite detailed, but you can skip to page 187 to get to the time twins section (it starts at page 175 so don’t panic). I have no desire to do the wizards vs aliens conversation that the astrology topic may wander into, but this report does contain a good summary of the modern arguments against general astrology. You can use it to refine pro astrology arguments, if you prefer.

          Part of the modern argument against astrology may be flawed since that the usual newspaper astrologists may be hacks vs real astrologists that would obviously be foolish to flaunt their power in a daily newspaper. 🙂

          • georgehants

            Obvious, very kind but I have learnt to disregard almost all so called scientific writing on any subject beyond a steam engine and then I am very careful.
            I would rather follow the common sense and logical arguments that I have put forth above.
            I am very happy for you to answer Factually any of those queries.

            • ecatworld

              I think arguing the merits of astrology is way off-topic here. If anyone wants to discuss the topic I would suggest going over to the forum and starting a thread there.

              • georgehants

                Admin you may note that I am not “arguing the merits of astrology” but discussing the scientific approach to topics such as Cold Fusion.
                To use another example of the same incompetence is I think perfectly reasonable.
                If the failures of science regarding Cold Fusion are to be censored and hidden away please make that clear.
                Thank you.

                • ecatworld

                  The thread is about an E-Cat jet engine, and astrology is a topic far removed from that. I know people get off topic in these conversations, but we are a long way from home here.

                • georgehants

                  Admin you may note that I am not “arguing the merits of astrology” but
                  discussing the scientific approach to topics such as Cold Fusion.
                  To use another example of the same incompetence is I think perfectly reasonable.
                  If the failures of science regarding Cold Fusion are to be censored and hidden away please make that clear.
                  I note that Mr. Rossi has taken the same route of bowing to the establishment cover-up.
                  Thank you.
                  Please state that you do not wish discussions on the incompetence of science regarding Cold Fusion on page.

                • ecatworld

                  Discussions of cold fusion are almost always on topic, I’d just rather not have these threads get into debates about astrology, as most people don’t come here for information about it.

                • Obvious

                  George, I get what you mean, I think, but I don’t see how you can logically argue your point about the failings of broad brush “science” regarding various subjects when you Dogmatically ignore the science about the subject you specifically asked about. (The specifics need not be expanded on here) If you offhandedly ignore evidence as presented (whatever the subject, and especially if you don’t agree with the premise) then you are maintaining the same type of close-minded position as those that you are complaining about. IE: refusing to look at some type of evidence because it does (or might not) not fit your viewpoint. This is self-censoring, and doesn’t require the broad brush “establishment” to cover anything up. If everyone falls into the same logical traps, then who lets us out?

                  I don’t agree with everything in the Wikipedia, but is still useful. For example:

                • georgehants

                  Obvious, I agree it can look that way but you must see. —–
                  My point is not to look at or discuss if Astrology or any subject is genuine, only to discuss the scientific situation regarding their dismissal, without adequate competent Research.
                  Without un-biased, competent, open Research then no subject can be debunked or denied.
                  I will say again my point is the ridiculous refusal of science to look sensibly and scientifically at subjects outside of their reductionist religion.

        • CancunKurt

          “obviously conforms correctly to those who follow it’s results?”
          I have not seen anything supporting this fact, only the opposite.
          Just people who want to simplyfy the complex, just like religion.

          If you cannot show objective observations or a valid theory how are you going to get people interested in research?

          I am not here to give evidence, since all mine are not objective observations but personal experiences, but if you claim something it is up to you to prove it, before it is up to others to disprove it. That is how it works.

          Cold fusion was rightly disregarded with f&p cause they could not prove their claims. And afterwords they had the chance to step up their game but did not.
          Right now, however, the scientific community is still tainted by that and the opinions of warm fusion money wasters that are keen on keeping their money and does not easily accept they ate barking up the wrong tree.

          • georgehants

            CancunKurt, it is unpleasant for me to see that you have no concern for the possibly millions who have suffered in the World because of the 24 year delay in competent Research by the establishment of proven Cold Fusion.

    • georgehants

      Just for those “scientists” that are consoling themselves saying, you can’t prove a negative, I am not asking for definitive proof, just fair proof.

      • Chris I

        I am not asking for definitive proof, just fair proof that could slightly justify your claim that the debunking of astrology by science is ridiculous.

        • georgehants

          Chris, like most scientists you are either purposely or unknowingly missing my point.
          Like Cold Fusion many other subjects are debunked by science on incompetent religious like grounds only.
          This needs putting right as it causes much harm.
          If you wish to continue defending such an incompetent organisation then you will have to do better than your efforts so far.
          Why would you wish to defend such a unscientific organisation, when you have the proof of their incompetence undeniably in front of you?

          • Obvious

            Like most opinionators you are either purposely or unknowingly missing the point.
            Like the Spherical Earth many other subjects are debunked by opinion on incompetent science like grounds only.
            This needs putting right as it causes much harm.
            If you wish to continue defending such incompetent opinionating then you will have to do better than your efforts so far.
            Why would you wish to defend such an opinion-based group, when you have the proof of the science undeniably in your GPS?

          • Chris I

            Well, I guess we’re even, since neither answered the other was asking.

            You mustn’t thing I’m defending such an unscientific organization. I only asked what’s ridiculous about their debunking of astrology.

  • georgehants

    “Not Fit to Be Printed”: The Suppressed Alchemical Papers of the Great Scientist Sir Isaac Newton

  • Pekka Janhunen

    True. But consider this: In case (A) you have 1 MW thermal plant producing 300 kW electric output and using 150 kW gas thermal input. In case (B) you again have 1 MW plant, but producing only 150 kW of output and using no input because 150 kW is circulated back through a battery array. The capital cost is similar in both cases. The cost of 150 kW gas heating typically corresponds to only 50 kW of electric power, however. Hence in case A one sells 250=300-50 units worth of electricity and in case B one sells only 150 units. It’s wasteful to use electric power for heating if a thermal source suffices. (Even better would be to somehow store the heat produced by the Cats and circulate it back when needed, but that’s another story.)

  • Bernie777

    Just a minute, Rossi has said the Thermo Cat is in production. Rossi’s is now doing research.

    • winebuff

      More research and no products. Seems we could put out some product to
      Create an income stream and bring more people to the party. I think we are decades from this product having a true effect on the world. I dont want to be negative but this thing is going to get bogged down by R+D, gov, and multinational corps.

      • US_Citizen71

        The low temperature Ecat is currently the only one for sale. The only use for it that I can think of outside of an industrial process would be for heating. Unless he decides to package a single reactor cell in something like oil filled radiator styled heater I do not see many buyers. This means R&D must continue in order to develop a salable product.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Everything indicates Rossi needs a low time constant very responsive (highly modulate-able) throttling system to control his LENR reaction. Hence he needs gas as that throttles faster than LENR itself and is cheaper than wall electricity. (I.e. it starts to get to hot and he has to turn it off within say 1 second.) It also indicates that his combined cycle efficiency of generating electricity is less that say net COP of say 1.5, i.e. it is not economically workable to run on self generated electricity. Hence the need for cheap modulate-able natural gas.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe this has been proposed before. Instead of having a jet engine, have a rocket engine (no intake, just an exhaust). Instead of an airplane carrying kerosene fuel it would carry water. The water would be sprayed onto the Hot-Cat to create steam (the propellant). After all, what is in the exhaust of a jet engine? The kerosene (liquid) when it burns with air (from the intake) is turning into hot gasses (CO2 and steam). This would allow the plane to fly higher (even into space) because it needs no air. The range would be limited to the amount of water it could carry.

  • Andrew

    Currently there are two things stopping humanity from really exploring our solar system. A power source and an engine. We have both pieces. coupled with an efficient power source could kick start the space age. I think this is where things are going to be headed.

    Even with a conservative estimate it could cut the travel time to go to mars from years to months.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes explore space as never before because the asteroid belt has all the fuel we need. Hydrogen (from ice) and nickel (the iron-nickel asteroids). Take all the building materials from space (not out of the gravity well of earth) as Gerard K. O’Neill envisioned.

      • Obvious

        I always thought that hollowing out a nickel iron asteroid might be the cheapest large space station. You could toss out chunks from the “back” to push it around to where you wanted it.

        • BroKeeper

          Be careful or your wife may push you out to give it extra boost.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I do not believe 99% of scientists believe LENR is bunk. The scientists I have talked to say “I don’t know”. Like you I look at the data on both sides, at the end I just have to go with climate scientists that are independent, have no ax to grind, and the number of these scientists just overwhelms the skeptics.