Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make Power Plants of Any Size

I think we have learned from Andrea Rossi about the future of the E-Cat — and it is modular. Some comments on the Journal of Nuclear Physics point to a new concept which has been brought about by apparent success of the E-Cat X. While we still don’t know exactly what it is, but it seems from what Rossi has been saying that it is an E-Cat that can be made in quite small modules which can then be assembled together to make whatever size power plant you might need.

Here are some recent comments from the JONP on the topic:

Q: The E-Cat X will be conceived in reactors of many dimensions, or you will make small modules that will be combined to pile up any power is needed?

A: November 30th, 2015 at 8:35 AM

I love the idea of small modules to be piled up. The Universe is made by elementary particles.
Warm Regards,

“I understand that if the E-Cat X wins, it can make up also for the 1 MW plant, that could be made by the E-Cat X modules, while if the 1 MW Ecat wins, she cannot make up f
or the E-Cat X . . . This being said, I hope both win.”

Andrea Rossi

Frank Acland:
Thank you for the correction of the typo.
The basic E-Cat X will be a module with a small power ( we still have to define it).
Such modules can be assembled to reach any power level.
Warm Regards,

It’s a fascinating concept which makes the E-Cat X all the more intriguing. If you can put E-Cat X modules together to make a plant of any size, it must be much simpler in assembly than the E-Cats we have seen so far. We don’t yet know how large a single E-Cat X unit might be, but there are some artists impressions of a domestic E-Cat X on the website here:

Rossi has commented on these concept drawings saying:

Daniel Badoual, a scientific journalist, has made them as a free interpretation of how a domestic E-Cat could be. The idea is good and we had from him the permission to use them with his courtesy.
Is an interesting concept.


Whatever the domestic E-Cat X looks like, I think if it works, and can be made into modules that can be combined, that the current E-Cat plant Rossi is working on could quickly become obsolete.

40 Replies to “Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make Power Plants of Any Size”

  1. Just one 10Kw module would be enough for my home’s needs – but when is Rossi going to rig them to produce electricity? Here in Florida, I don’t need much heat!

    1. There are lots of non-electric cycles that can use heat for airconditioning (or refrigeration for food storage)…..see any of the thousands of motor homes that ply our (USA) roadways. The technology is VERY well-developed and mature (as well as safe).

  2. So, from that drawing speculation that E Cat X produced electricity is unfounded. Clearly all the inputs and outputs are for water or steam. I’m not convince a real product would look anything like this, the scope for overheating would be substantial and what happens when the water supply gets cut off. While a certified domestic unit is clearly years off I see no reason why such units should not already be being installed and tested in private sites. Let’s see a real picture of a real device working in situ?

  3. Wow, imagine adding an e-cat to your domestic hot water system… no need to remove the existing water heater just put in on the line and the hot water can circulate through. Depending on the initial cost, life expectancy and operation cost could cut cost significantly. I’d be happy with a 50% cut.

    1. Yes even a 5 kW heater would help, and those could be connected parallell as Rossi does, to achieve the needed power.
      But Mr Rossi may have other thoughts, depending on his Greede.

    2. This is much like a design Rossi has propose all along. An Inline install with a conventional boiler system. The E-cat would provide base-load & the conventional system would kick in for peek demand.

      Note, this was intended to be a 10kW system which will not heat most homes when the temperature drops very low. 10kW is approximately 34K Btu’s. About the equivalent of 3 burners on a cook stove.

  4. while great to hear.. its hard to get excited as we just dont have the numbers needed for power input vs output to put this into context. one thing the 6 month test has taught us is that what we think we know is not always accurate.. so until the on going test is finished.. its just information to be filed for future consideration.

  5. Finally, going back to basics – lego-like blocks – fun to play with and can be scaled up easily.
    I believe that Dr.AR is deliberately misleading with that picture. E-Cat X cannot be anything else other than Electric. Call it fake hope, but you’ll see.
    I’m sure both will win. It’ll be a battle between reduced cost due to large scale production or large sized plant. I’m sure today the 1MW plant wins on the cost side. Large scale 1MW would be unsellable to the extent Home-E-Cat-X will be. Therefore, E-Cat-X (Electric) will soon achieve cost reductions more than 1MW plant could, and win thereby in the long run.
    I get that, Dr.AR is the one who’s developing it all. But, I can foretell.
    Have a good day, everyone.

    1. “E-Cat X cannot be anything else other than Electric.”

      The “X” might refer to a short-circuit of the coil when the reactor is in self-sustaining mode. Just speculating.

          1. The E-cat X-> X is a place holder that will eventually be replaced by a number. The X specifier will remain until it’s made it through the proving stage.

            When asked about a picture of the E-cat X or a description, Rossi said it is very similar to the Dog Bone in the Lugano test.

            The Dog Bone reactors are for R&D only. Nothing like a marketable product. They use them because they are cheap disposable & quick to manufacturer test devices.

  6. I am not clear on what this is supposed to mean?.
    The first 1MW plant was “many” reactors stacked together. Over 100 to my understanding.
    The current 1MW plant has (4) reactors stacked together .
    What is supposed to be the difference? To my knowledge, this has been the eCat’s design from day one. Even 3 years back it was multiple reactors linked together.
    The artwork is from an artist, not Rossi. It is not based upon the eCatX.. Rossi stated it was an interesting concept, not that it was even close to reality.
    The modular concept is a good one it would seem. It might allow for replacement / maintenance without bringing the entire system down. Provides some redundancy etc. So I agree that a modular approach is a good thing. I just do not see what is new or different here. It has been this way since the beginning of the large capacity plant.
    What am I missing?

    1. Hi Bob,

      Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about this till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and mockups were published.

      I too had hoped that the 250kVA module was a single reactor as this would have had significant implications for scaling as the take away for me was that that Rossi was so certain of the control mechanisms that the risk of a meltdown of the larger reactor was non-existant. As it turns out small modules are still the order of the day…

      1. It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors is a powered activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say that the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that becomes mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining threshold. At low temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these reactors are comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat up, the alumina shell becomes electrically conductive. At high temperatures, the alumina becomes magnetically transparent and this allows the ENP to leave the activator an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes the LENR reaction.

        Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature.

  7. In my opinion, the fundamental nature of the Rossi effect is based on magnetism. The catalytic particle that produces the reaction is magnetic in nature. This particle is produced by heat pumping and EMF stimulation. The nature of this Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP)is reflected by the behaviour of the E-Cat itself and reflect how the E-Cat operates.

    The EMP can exist at low energy pumping where the energy coming into the particle is equal to the energy leaving the particle. This is similar to the way Rossi keeps his reactor under control. Too much external energy pumping will result in the E-Cat going critical.

    The same process of over pumping happens with the ENP. Overpumping brings it to the stage where it becomes self-sufficient requiring no additional EMF input. The energized ENP can get EMF from the environment around it not requiring external heat or EMF simulation to be applied.

    The same is true for the E-Cat. When the E-Cat is subcritical, it requires heat and EMF stimulation to be applied. But when it is “over stimulated” it begins to meltdown since it has become independent from externally applied stimulation.

    The ENP can live as long as it can catalize energy production from the material around it. The ENP can live for days on its own as it brings in energy from the environment to sustain its internal LENR reaction processes.

    Magnetic confinement increases efficiency of the reaction. Such confinement saves the externally applied energy that produced the ENP from being wasted.

    The ENP can leave the reactor if the material that makes up the reactor enclosure is transparent to the optical and magnetic nature of the ENP. This might be why electrolytic cells have difficulty in sustaining powerful LENR reactions. In this case, the ENPs escape the glass beaker reactor enclosure and all the input energy that was pumped into the ENP is wasted to the environment. outside the electrolytic cell.

    If the cell is made of material that can contain the ENP both optically and magnetically, the reactor will be efficent. Alumina is antiferromagnetic and will confine magnetic particles thy to escape the reactor shell. Another method of ENP confinement that Rossi might use is a solenoidal confinement coil that keeps the ENPs away from the reactor walls in the center axis of the reactor.

  8. Electricity generation at the point of use without any input is what Steorn claims. If they can pull it off it will be competitive with the E-Cat in certain applications. So far power density for Orbo is small, but they are just beginning.

  9. The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency.

    Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% of heavy water.

    That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell’s glass reactor shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are produced through the action of neutral Erzions.

    The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to the magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR reaction that keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water bubbles. The ENPs become energetically self sufficient in the water of the cooling pool where the ENPs remain viable for hours.

    If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron plate placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode would prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the ENPs blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated.

  10. “E-Cat X cannot be anything else other than Electric.”

    My guess is the E-Cat X is an E-Cat encased in a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell.

  11. This might be a little premature and off topic, sure the topic will come up here to about IH new patent. I commented on AP article, “Obama says parts of climate deal must be legally binding” which appears in Stars and Stripes on 1 Dec as follows:

    This anxiety about oil coal and co. messing up the environment, to such
    and extent that we all got to now worry only about that; bringing all
    leaders of the world together to ponder the next step. When will these
    leaders of the world come to realize that the current energy mix of
    fuels is about to be OBE’d. First the 25 August 2015 patent awarded to
    Andrea Rossi; and now the further worldwide applicable patent awarded to
    Rossi’s business enterprise, Industrial Heat, are setting a pace that
    will soon overwhelm fossil fuel worries. As everyone knows; “…
    Although other alternative and renewable energy sources, such as
    hydropower, wind, and solar energy, have helped reduce the need for
    fossil fuels, there remains a need to reduce or replace the use of
    fossil fuels with cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative
    energy sources along with a need for systems and devices for generating
    energy from such fuels. …” (copied from the awarded patent’s
    BACKGROUND). Well the time has come to say byebye to fossil hegemony;
    this next year 2016 will clearly point energy sources in a new, clean,
    cheap, and accessible direction.

    (Got to keep drum beating.)

    1. I guess this is the old patent application (based on the Lugano report), which was published in US and now applied for world patent. I see no mention of a grant.

  12. See:
    Polyneutrons (Axil Axil)

    There has been about a dozen observations of Exotic Neutral Particles(ENP) that have been described in various ways. Each of these ENP have generated their own individual theories doing the course of LENR research. Beside the Surface Plasmon Polariton(SPP) which is my contribution to LENR theory, the one that is most deeply researched and close to my way of thinking is the EVO by Ken Shoulders. But each of these variants of the ENP can teach us something unique about the ENP which is the cause of LENR. The Leptonic monopole, for example, provides enough math to can choke a horse.


    When taken all together, all these observations provide a near complete picture of how LENR happens and the reasons why it does’t.

  13. Hank Mills
    December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full reports, it gives us something to think upon.

    1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode?

    2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable?

    3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt plant in self sustain mode.

    4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage?

    Andrea Rossi
    December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
    Hank Mills:
    1- no
    2- confidential
    3- no
    4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers when the Mouse is turned on
    Warm Regards,

    Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse reactor clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One of them explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to be stimulated.

    I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements field coil that keeps the Magnetic Neutral Particle(ENP) inside the Mouse, the LENR reaction in the Cats take off because the ENPs can get through the hot alumina and then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction.

    The fuel mix in the Cat must be richer and more LENR reactive than the fuel mix in the Mouse stimulator.

    1. The Cat is a container inside a slightly larger container. The slightly larger container is the mouse which in turn is heated from the outside. Mouse produce LENR with COP a little over 1 and that LENR stimulates the Cat to LENR larger and longer in SSM.

      1. Is there any more information available about this container configuration? Pictures, words by Rossi, original posts? Where did your knowledge about this configuration come from?

          1. Brokeeper

            December 1st, 2015 at 10:40 AM

            Dear Andrea,
            In response to Frank’s question, when you “the E-Cat X will be a module with a small power”, is this because of control issues with high temperatures modules; safety concerns should a runaway occur; and/or internal feedback loop limitations used to assist with input and SSM control that is not reliable with larger/powerful modules?

            With much respect,

            Andrea Rossi

            December 1st, 2015 at 12:33 PM

            It is because to control many small units orchestrated in parallel is easier than to control a big one. Besides, under the manufacturing point of view makes higher the economy scale.
            Warm Regards,
            This Rossi responce to Brokeeper states that each reactor in the SSM configuration is an identical subunit of the reactor cluster that can be individually produced by automation. This contradicts your assumption that the cat and mouse are integrated in one layered unit.

          2. It is possible that many integrated mouse-Cat units are produced and orchestrated in parallel.
            This QA of Brokeeper is not conclusive from what I can see.

          3. Andrea Rossi

            October 11th, 2014 at 6:21 PM


            No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse vanishes.

            Warm Regards,


          4. Curiosone asked:

            Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ?

            Note that Rossi answered “in that kind of reactor” refering the “Hot Cat … Third Party” in the question which was asked two days after the Lugano report release.
            This imply that it is possible to have different charges in mouse and Cat, but in the Lugano test it was only one charge.

          5. And as I recall, the Lugano test did never go into the ssm-mode. The reason was said to be that COP was harder to calculate when going in and out of ssm. Somehow Rossi accomplished to make mouse with COP of over 2.

      2. I think this has to be the case, to have the ‘cat’ isolated to the internal most part. Because otherwise the multiple ‘cat’ portions could just drive each other, unreliant on the ‘mouse’ control

  14. In the Lugano report we see a heating 1.5 minute alterning with 2.5 minute without heating.
    At this rythm the heat curve is not amortized, but divergent, that denote excess heat.
    A way to enslave is to compute the 2 divergent coefficients then adapt the heating and EM excitations.
    The same is possible to adapt the cats and mouse heating and EM excitations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *