Rossi: Hot Cat Performance ‘Decisively Superior’ to Low Temperature E-Cats

Maybe it’s just me, but from comments he has been making on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, I am getting the feeling that Andrea Rossi is paying more attention to the Hot Cats (high temperature E-Cats) that he is testing inside the shipping container, than to the 1 MW plant he is overseeing there.

Comments yesterday indicate that things are going very well with the Hot Cat in terms of performance. A reader asked him today, “presently ( I mean now) do you think that the small E-Cats, the ones of 10-20 kW, are competitive with the Hot Cats ?”

Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi

Sylvie Lacoste:
I noticed that you underlined “I mean now” to avoid the crystal ball ( he,he,he…). Well, I mean now I think the Hot Cats have a performance decisively superior to the low temperature small E-Cats.
Now I can see them compete, the Hot Cat inside the computer container vs the small E-Cats. We can have much longer ssm with the Hot Cats.
Warm Regards,

Rossi has already said that the low temperature plant is capable of long self-sustain periods, partly due to a ‘clustering’ effect, where one reactor is able to provide energy to another reactor — so ‘much longer’ ssm with the Hot Cat could be very impressive.

Having self sustaining E-Cats running at very high temperature should mean that this technology is going to be very suitable for electricity production as well as heat production. From what Andrea Rossi is saying, this sounds to be the kind of technology that could make electricity generation from any kind of fossil fuel or conventional nuclear obsolete, since the fuels involved are so cheap and are consumed in tiny quantities, and there is no pollution, radiation or radioactive waste produced.

But lest we get too carried away by the prospects of this technology, we are reminded by Rossi in a comment to Hank Mills yesterday: “The data related to the COP, as well as all the publishable data, will be given after the end of the test and R&D on course. I have the duty to remember that the final results could be either positive or negative.”

  • Omega Z


    Yes, The Hot-cat “IS” what people are trying to replicate.
    It does get a little confusing at times. Also discussed here is the Lt 1Mw pilot plant in operation. I’m not much aware of any here trying to replicate the Lt E-cat.

  • Omega Z

    NO. After the current 1Mw pilot plant test, If all goes well, those will be available in the Industrial market & of various scale.

    Different E-cat systems WILL have to go through their own pilot tests.
    Rossi is still doing R&D on these other devices as the Lt. 1Mw plant is in pilot test. Just as when Apple introduced to market the I-phone 5, I-phone 6 was already under development & testing. But they still had to go through Beta versions before they came to market. Tho very similar, they are different and have to follow protocol. And that process will go on and on.

    Or have you not paid attention to what Rossi has said. R&D is perpetual.

  • Roland

    The replication attempts reported in this forum share a particular assumption. The replications attempt to reproduce a hot cat variant with a fuel formulation revealed by the Lugano report, with Rossi’s acquiescence, for a variant that has functional properties very different from the hot cat or the previous low temp E-cats designs in prior demonstrations.

    The assumption is that the revealed fuel formulation will function outside the specific parameters and characteristics of the, apparently, unique device tested at Lugano.

    In so far as there are obvious commercial applications for both the high and low temp variants, and that refinement of both approaches are proceeding, we will see products in both temperature ranges come to market.

    The misdirection you sense is subtler.

  • jousterusa

    I think you’re correct about the disproportionate amount of time and energy spent on the Hot Cat I think the prospect of making $1.5 million for one Hot Cat is distracting for IH and Rossi. It is cash in hand for costly operations and shareholder payback. But the billions will come from the home E-Cat, when it’s ready to power and heat our homes indefinitely for $3,000 or so..

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      I think Rossi is held up with Underwriter Lab (UL) approval & maybe has just moved on or is still waiting. They are probably as difficult as our patent office if not more. Hope he is sticking in there, miss not seeing them at home depot already as he ounce thought was a quick approval thing. Well think again is my guess? Jim I think you are right on on monetary gains jousterusa .

    • Omega Z


      The deployment of this technology will require huge amounts of resources(Cash). Some of the early complaints about Rossi by some entities was to even consider the home market as a starting point.

      George Miley was encouraged to & has worked towards NASA’s RTGs for Spacecraft & Satellite energy devices. They have deep pockets to cover the large up front costs of a new technology.

      Just as with Computers, Corporate Entities will cover much of this start up & R&D costs. This will lead to Cheaper & a more reliable consumer products when they become available.

      Not only does Corporate have deeper pockets, They can justify the higher costs. They will utilized 95% of the technologies output 24/7 year round. It will pay back fast even at the higher prices. Home owners will be lucky if they use 30% of it’s yearly output.

      In the end, the home consumer may not have it as soon, but once available it will be cheaper, better & spread faster. Beyond that, Business will pass on savings in their consumer products. 2/3rds of the energy you pay for today is that, what you don’t see. In the products & services you pay for. It’s all part of the cost.

  • Axil Axil

    The Hot cat high temperature will produce electricity with 90% effecency. It will also produce high quality process heat for inductry. Very hot is very good.

    • mcloki

      Axil will they be able to build drop in replacement boilers for Coal and Gas electricity power generation plants?

      • Axil Axil

        Such a product will save 90% of the value contained in a coal, gas, or nuclear plant. This will be one large scale reactor type that will be developed early on for LENR development companies.

      • Omega Z

        “will they be able to build drop in replacement boilers”
        Yes & they probably will initially. But power plants are design specific & the efficiency likely wont improve much.

        Ideally, you would want a power plant designed specifically for LENR technology which I would expect to follow. In that case, you could use Supercritical CO2 systems that may be able to exceed present efficiency twice over. Theoretically it could be higher then that, but in real world use probably not.

        By building new LENR plants, they could be smaller & close to use instead of highly centralized. This would reduce the size & scale of the present grid with additional cost savings.

        • mcloki

          I agree on building new. I was thinking more along the lines of existing plants being more quickly retrofitted. No Environmental impact studies, no land needs to be bought. Just a shutdown of the plant. retrofit the coal boiler section and restart. I can see a business wanting to get another 10 years out of a generator especially when all the existing power lines and infrastructure are already there.

  • US_Citizen71

    …and what business doesn’t do the exact same thing? Apple denied the existence of the Apple watch for how long?

    • mcloki

      Till they showed it and could take orders.

  • So, the low temperature E-Cat is rumored to now have a COP over 20, and sometime up to 80. What does that mean for the “superior” Hot-Cat’s COP?

    • It means that it’s likely that the theoretical COP (after startup energy costs) approaches infinity (another way of saying energy required for control is the only required input; it can provide enough heat to sustain itself until exhaustion of the fuel).

      Think of it like this. When you start a fire you provide some energy up front and then the fire burns through its fuel without needing any more energy input. It provides its own heat in a positive feedback loop, keeping the reaction going.

      LENR appears to do basically the same thing with heat being the primary driver of the reaction. So you provide some input energy up front and then just let it run on the heat from itself. The difference being that if LENR is not controlled appropriately it will temporarily get too hot or cold and squelch the reaction.

      So these higher and higher COPs are simply a reflection of Rossi’s team learning how better to control the reaction near its critical points to prevent squelching with the minimum amount of energy necessary.

      Cavemen discovered chemical fire. Looks like we’ve discovered nuclear fire — the characteristics are quite similar. Can quantum fire be far behind?

      • Mats002

        I don’t think so. It took caveman eons to understand the chemistry behind their (our) old fire. Understanding the core reason behind the new fire might take another set of eons. That did not stop them from using it, neither will it stop us.

      • BroKeeper

        LENR only a transitional step to Zero Point Modules (ZPMs)? Interesting from the standpoint on what we have learned in a relatively short time, the atom’s nuclear intricacies, from LENR research alone. But screams the dangers of infinite power verses infinite energy. Let wisdom and character catch-up first.

    • bachcole

      Although rumours are sort so sketchy, in this case, “superior” to this rumour is very encouraging.

    • Omega Z

      COP will always vary. The number that will matter is the Average COP over a given period of time. With the Pilot Plant, that will be the average COP over 1 year probably with a disclaimer variable of plus/minus 10% or what ever deemed appropriate. It will also require the incorporation of the control panel energy use. This considered I think COP=30 being the most optimal.

  • AdrianAshfield

    It is not difficult to visualize Hot Cats replacing the combustion chambers in a gas turbine. The efficiency might not be as high as using natural gas but who would care? This could be done from a micro turbine all the way up to full sized ones..

    • Omega Z

      “The efficiency might not be as high as using natural gas but who would care?”
      Because if it isn’t as efficient, you need to add generating capacity.
      A 10Kw reactor is always a 10Kw reactor even if you have infinite COP. If the efficiency is 20% rather then 33% you would have 2Kw electric instead of 3Kw available. In terms of power plants, you would need to increase their total numbers by 50%. At multiple Billion$ each, your savings are quickly dwindling to a loss.

      Also, at small scale for residential use, Efficiency is very hard to achieve. Not to mention small scale usually translate to small/short life cycle & replacement often.

      “air conditioner” Pardon me if I’m wrong, But I’ll assume your talking about heat absorption chillers. They are nowhere near cheap. After purchase & installation costs, That alone would eat up a very large portion of you lifetime savings in current energy costs.

      And they still require about 500watts for operation. In fact, If you took that cost of a HAC & invested it, it would probably cover most of your utility costs for life.

      • AdrianAshfield

        Omega Z,

        The game changes when you have almost free energy. Of course you would do the sums to see whether it would pay to use the waste heat rather than a more efficient compressor refrigerator. WHA chillers are not as expensive as you make out and are in common use.

        Micro turbines already have a long life and I assume would last longer at a lower operating temperature and without the waste products of combustion. I assume that with a generator one would have infinite COP.with battery standby to operate the E-Cat controls.

        • BroKeeper

          With the latest high efficient Hot Cat makes this argument moot when considering economic COP verses device COP alone. Domestic E-Cats are now within reach for heat and soon enough for electric generation.

        • Omega Z

          An In-law last fall installed a new high efficiency Heating(Furnace) & Cooling system(Heat pump 5Ton) self installed at wholesale price about cost $5K.

          A 5 ton heat absorption chiller prices at $30K plus addition parts necessary uninstalled. Last I checked, a 5 Ton unit was the smallest available. The primary unit is about the size of a side by side refrigerator that sets outside the home.

          Overall, An ammonia system is economical on very large scale. The most efficient ones use ammonia as the primary fluid. Not legal for residential use. A past business partner worked with these. He loved the pay. It falls under Hazmat & the big buck$. He once pulled/drug a guy out of a service room where a line had burst. Damaged his lungs & ended his career. The other guy wasn’t so lucky. That’s why ammonia systems aren’t available for residential.

          Micro turbines do not have a long life. That is what is holding them up. There is 1 company trying for a 10 year device, but that is based on 3.5 hours a day. The problem with small is you have little torque & they offset this with high rpm’s. At 20K to 30K rpm, they don’t last long. Their measured in the single digit 1000’s of hours lifespan.

          Batteries. The Tesla Powerwall 10Kwh system when you figure kilowatts, average charge cycle life, comes to over 30 cents per 1Kwh. This does not include the electricity or the source of it. I’ve read where someone calculated the Tesla Lithium-ion battery at 18 cents per 1Kwh if he can get the price down. This also doesn’t include the electricity costs.

          Now, As I’ve posted before. Build it and they will come. Meaning, If E-cats are available to the market, someone will be innovative enough to find an economical way to make it happen. I believe the biggest reason something economical isn’t available today is a cheap, efficient & reliable energy source hasn’t been available. However, it will take a while.

          Then it comes back to how much energy we use, how & when. Note the E-cat & all it’s hardware needs to operate 24/7. A Power Plant can produce 10Kwh & supply 3 to 5 homes. As an individual, you need 10Kwh access 24/7 so it’s there when you need it. It’s not cheap energy if it’s 90% wasted. Add to that, the average home will need at least 50Kwh’s or 5 E-cats to supply all power needs.

          • AdrianAshfield

            I don’t know about current absorption coolers nor am I interested in getting familiar with them. I just know from first principles that there are smaller ones than a 5 ton unit and that they don’t cost $30k.
            See RV coolers here
            I don’t see any great problem in developing one to suit the waste heat from an E-Cat.

            Likewise, contrary to what you write, some micro turbines already have a long life using air bearings.
            PBS in the Czech Republic make a 25kW unit that is probably about the right size for the lower efficiency of one powered by Hot Cats.
            Obviously one would be designed pretty much from scratch to suit this application but the potential market is big enough to make that attractive.

  • Daniel Maris

    I say, let’s see the 1 MW plant in operation…then we can get excited about the hot cat.

  • With the wild nature of the Cats, clustering seems to make a lot of sense.

  • oceans

    Dr Rossi is saying that his new Hotcats will fit inside a desktop size computer case > ROSSI: Now I can see them compete, the Hot Cat inside the computer container vs the small E-Cats.

    • Omega Z

      You misunderstood.
      There are 2 shipping containers. One contains the 103 reactors of the 1Mw pilot plant & all the apparatus(Exchangers Etc). The 2nd holds the computer control room for the pilot plant. It is that 2nd container where they are studying the Hot-cat R&D while monitoring the Pilot plant.

      I would suspect the Pilot plant is being well behaved overall as they can focus on other things while it is in operation.

  • Colibric41AC

    but cold cat is easiest to replicate.

    • Arnaud

      Do you have the recipe?

  • Gerard McEk

    To construct a long lasting hot cat is still a challenge. Nevertheless from energetic point of view the hot cat would be the direction to go if conversion to electricity is desired. I believe that there will be a market for both and even for a combined unit. Maybe is the solution to pre-heat the hot cat to say 800C by an Ecat or a gas flame and use a focussed, pulsed magnetic field to control the SSM, generated from a distance (from the hot environment).

  • Observer

    Note: He is saying the new Hot-Cats have much longer ssm than the older generation small warm-cats. He is not comparing the new Hot-Cats’ ssm to the new 250KW warm cats’ ssm.

    • Omega Z

      If Rossi actually means the OLD E-cats, we know he always claimed COP>6.
      The 1Mw Pilot plant uses a different version Model B. Anyway, Rossi doesn’t always provide much clarity on these things. Leaving the particulars for those of us who overly speculate.