Rossi Now ‘Far Less Skeptical’ About Jet Engine (Update: Rossi Increasing Time Working on ‘Game Changing’ Application With US Engineer)

Remember the E-Cat jet engine?  In March 2014 Andrea Ross reported on the JONP that he was “preparing for a pilot jet engine gas fueled hybridized with an E-Cats assembly.”  A few weeks ago I asked Rossi what had happened to this engine and he said that he had had to postpone work on it while working on the 1MW plant and the E-Cat X, but he intended to get back to work on it once the current testing was over.

Well it sounds like he has gotten back to work on it. Rossi was asked by a reader last week about the status of the project and he replied:

“I am already studying also on it, but I am still at the stage of the equations; I am working on it helped by a very good engineer, whose brother works in an aircraft manufacturing concern. It will be the priority after the heat and electric power issues will have been consolidated. Got some good ideas, now in fermentation.”

And today he made another comment about why he was getting back to work on it:

Andrea Rossi

James Watt:
Because a US engineer I am working with has given me a detail that has sparked a very good idea. It has been impossible not to work on it. I was very sceptic about engine applications of the E-Cat, now I am far less sceptic. It has been a detail, but a detail that has ignited the New Fire in the engines.
Maybe I am totally wrong, maybe not, but I am going to try.
Warm Regards,

UPDATE: (Dec 21, 2015)

Rossi has made this comment about the jet engine work on the JONP today:

Andrea Rossi
December 21st, 2015 at 8:27 AM
Ugo Pezzotti:
The 1 MW E-Cat is stable, but we are noticing a decrease of the efficiency in one reactor, probably due to the charge: this is very interesting and we are monitoring this fact very carefully.
The E-Cat X is so promising, that I have increased the time dedicated to the jet engine design, in collaboration with a US engineer with high skills in the matter. This has been a game changing issue, because 2 months ago I was oriented to consider futuristic this kind of application in a measure to discourage immediate attention.
Warm Regards,

It’s good to see a change in attitude here, and that AR is taking outside advice. Many people have hoped and predicted that LENR use in engines would be possible, and perhaps the breakthrough idea that Rossi is working on will bear fruit.

  • Gerard McEk

    So the 1MW reactor performance is deteriorating earlier than expected. It will probably be the COP, after 10 months of high COP, I expect. I am sure AR has not really encountered this in a setting with many instruments. He will learn a lot. I wonder if adding e.g. H2 would be helpful to reverse this.
    It is good to read that Ecat X is still very prommissing, even so much that it looks as if a jet engine can be driven. People with knowledge of this must be able to list the required parameters like temperature, controllability, energy density, etc that are required to make a jet work. That could tell us more of the Ecat X.

    • US_Citizen71
      • Gerard McEk

        There were not much technical details in that report. Looking to the time that all happend, it was probably much too early for such a development. Both nuclear fission and jet engines were in their infant stages. I do not think that we can learn much of that for the development of a LENR Jet. Even of the organizational mistakes that were made. These types of mistakes are still made, because nobody reads them.

    • Omega Z

      On JONP, Rossi has said he used various fuel mixtures in the reactors, but the charge size is identical. He likely new this was a possibility. The question I have is if this is an intentional part of the test. Unveiling an unknown.

      As to use for Jet engines. Hopefully we have people here at ECW that can enlighten us as to details. Calculating the needs is not simple. It is not a simple matter of Kilowatts, Horsepower, Btu’s or Heat. They do not convert directly to Thrust. There are additional perimeters to be taken into account. Probably need to start with thrust & work your way back.

      • builditnow

        Much of the information you need about converting jet engines to LENR is in this NASA document. Starting P16.

        These conversions have already been done by the US military with a nuclear fission powered aircraft which reportedly flew. The power performance is practically identical to jet fuel powered jet engines.

  • Jam spread to thin gives a poor sandwich.

  • mcloki

    Slow to orbit LENR engine would be great. The possibility of powered descent make it awesome.

    • Omega Z

      Powered descent is the Holy Grail of de-orbiting.
      An electromagnetic rail is already feasible to launch material in bulk to space.
      NASA had designs for a 12 miles long rail aligned with a mountain side in the 60’s. 24 miles long would allow G forces low enough to launch people. They calculated 2KW per pound launch costs. Return trips were the issue.

      • builditnow

        A scram jet (supersonic inside the engine, capable of close to orbital speeds) might work with some kind of plasma injected into the engine. Perhaps some of the hotter versions of LENR type heat would work, or, an electric arc approach. One advantage is that the lack of oxygen at high altitudes is not an issue for the LENR scram jet.

        • Omega Z

          Nuclear Thermal Rockets.
          NASA did R&D on this in the 60’s. Rather then chemical action, they proposed thermal. Heating(with a nuclear reactor) the hydrogen as a propellant rather then burning it results in doubling thrust. They envisioned doubling & tripling payload size or size reduction allowing single stage rockets.

          I can envision an aircraft that takes of conventionally then rocketing into space. A totally reusable space craft. Although, the rail gun launching of bulk materials into space is also highly viable & even cheaper.

          Maybe this is why Rossi’s right-hand man Fabiani mentions Star Trek in his lifetime.

  • I saw Jay Leno riding a jet motorcycle.

    • builditnow

      I have a sense that 1000hp would give vertical take off and landing in a single-seater using a fan propulsion approach. The fuselage could be the “wing” with small control surfaces, much the way a rocket flies and maneuvers.
      The ww2 P52 Mustang had about 1500hp and could achieve 437mph at 25,000 ft.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • HS61AF91

    Such news makes one’s heart feel good. Sending vibrations of encouragement through the LENr tunnel.

  • builditnow

    If the Hot-Cat or X-Cat is reliable, jet engines could be our first introduction to LENR electricity and heat. Fundamentally a simple system with a conversion efficiency of 20% or more.
    Most of the technology is well developed and readily available. Turbines producing electricity are in most modern jets for when they are sitting on the tarmac.
    Additionally the power output of a jet engine is huge for the size and weight, flying cars could be a real possibility. There is a big effort going in in Silly Con Valley (and elsewhere) to figure out the traffic control of self flying drones, initially for the delivery business. This knowledge and experience could lead to automated self flying cars. The early phase could be piloted air taxis while the automation is figured out.

    But first, a small 1kW X-Cat charger for electric cars, retrofitted, based on a micro turbine generator. This would be a big shake up for the car industry and could arrive (relatively) quickly.

  • Rossi and Industrial heat need to call up GE Aviation for help.

    • Brokeeper

      The reverse may be true.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      I think that they would be better off contacting GE Power instead. In Madison, the local utility has a dual-turbine powered co-generation facility that is essentially a 767 strapped to the ground with a huge thermal exchanger to generate steam from the engine exhaust. The system is explained here:

      It can provide 100MW of electric power (50 MW from each engine) and another 60MW from a steam turbine driven off the exhaust heat. Alternately, it can provide steam for process heat or building heating.

      I toured the plant both before and after it was put into service. The engine room is quite small, but the steam generator is 20 to 30 times larger (my estimate) Surprisingly, the compressor room to compress natural gas (to be injected into the engine at high pressure) is easily 10 times the floor space of the engine room.

      Just think how much smaller it all could be if the fuel was stored in the engine!

  • artefact

    From JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi December 21st, 2015 at 11:37 AM
    As a matter of fact the E-Cat X has the potential of strong surprises.
    Again Merry Christmas to you and our Readers
    Warm Regards,

  • Sean

    Its a pity Sir Frank Whittle was not alive to see this. I am sure he and RR would adopt LENR as the next step in aerospace technology. The engines of today are very efficient due to hotter cores. Other refinements are the single crystal turbine blades. So they can easily take an ECAT heat source. But take a look around you, look at the these amazing electric motors fitted to UAV’s and now some aircraft. I think it will come down to the Ecat producing immense amount of electricity. Noting that electromagnetic is far more powerful than combustion of gasses, (as proved by the BAE Rail Gun in the US Navy). So I propose the next generation of a Jet is one driven electrically. Given that a distant possibility of an EM drive. Lets see what the future brings.

  • Bob

    I personally am disappointed with “….increased the time dedicated to the jet engine design”.
    For one, how can he be working on jet engine design when he cannot even say that his effect has been verified!?! This is one of his statements that simply makes him look bad. He has been giving the impression that the results were going to be negative on the 1MW plant or at least there was concern the tests would be negative. Now he is talking about jet engines and giving them more time?.!?
    Home use…. has this been forgotten? The main reason he gave that home units were held up was certification. That running industrial plants would assist with that certification. If the 1MW plant is a negative, this will push home units back even further. Home units has a huge market. Now he is concentrating on jet engines? Home units would be a magnitude less complex that a jet engine!!!
    If he thought home unit certification would be tough, evidently he does not have a clue about aerospace certification! Try getting a completely new concept engine certified. Home units would be child’s play. With that in mind, he is concentrating on jet engines? To what result?
    He posted recently that the eCatX would be only a 1KW unit. If a 747 requires 90 MW to take off, lets see… 90,000,000,/ 1,000 = 90,000 eCatx reactors! Yet the home units are not a priority? Which would be more likely to make it to market, a home, ground based unit requiring 15 reactors or an airborne jet engine requiring 90,000? I shake my head in complete bewilderment!
    I am seeing what Mr. Fabiani was stating about the issue of jumping from one project to another before anything was completed! I for one, want to encourage Dr. Rossi to concentrate on the 1MW plant and then electrical production and then home units. That is what the world needs. Jet engines are way…. way…. way…. down the road and way down the list of what the world needs.
    It is Monday morning and I think the wait may have just gotten a bit longer…. 🙁

    • Brent Buckner

      You wrote: “He has been giving the impression that the results were going to be
      negative on the 1MW plant or at least there was concern the tests would
      be negative.”

      Some people inferred that; I do not feel that Rossi actually implied it,

      I am not so worried about Rossi pursuing his muse, as I expect that IH has the requisite rights and information to pursue commercial development without Rossi in their spaces in Research Triangle and China.

      • Bob

        I am hope so, about IH pursuing on their own, but I currently am in doubt of it. Rossi’s right hand man stated himself that Rossi allows no one to handle the “secret sauce fuel” (my wording) but himself. Not even Fabiani, who has been with him for several years apparently is trusted with the fuel..
        Based upon various replication attempts and the publish patent instructions, it appears that the secret fuel ingredients are missing and that is the Ace Rossi holds. Without it, no one seems to have been able to reliably replicate.
        Also, I get the feeling that while Rossi and IH / Darden have a relationship, it must be somewhat distant. Rossi does not mention them at all any more (used to somewhat frequently) and we hear nothing from Darden. This is not too surprising, but I get the feeling that Rossi has written the contract to where he holds all the cards.
        But then again… who knows! I just know that one should learn to crawl, then walk, then run before they attempt to fly. Jet engines, in my opinion (that does not count with Rossi, I know) is not where his time and attention should be.
        Fabiani must have been correct when he stated that the project of the day is a moving target. (My wording)
        Another day is about done…. I continue to wait for really significant news….

        • Brent Buckner

          I very much doubt that IH/Darden signed a contract wherein Rossi holds all the cards. This isn’t Darden’s first rodeo, and Woodford’s due diligence on their IH investment would have doublechecked that.

          • Bob

            Pehaps.. But It is logical that if Darden and Woodford has millions involved, they probably would be pushing… “Dr. Rossi, concentrate on the 1MW plant. That is where our money is, not futuristic jet engines. We need return on our investment….. stay on course… get it done” That is if they had significant contractual control over the situation.
            But then who knows?
            Evening has drawn nigh and I retire for the night…. still dreaming of solid news!

            • Brent Buckner

              I suspect that their control comes in part through the 1MW test. Basically, Rossi would get to do things his way (subject to disclosures, patent production, etc) and he’d get a major payout *if* the 1MW test delivers according to parameters that would establish it as a viable commercial product. I don’t think Rossi would have signed a deal whereby he would have to act as a directed employee. I think IH would have signed a deal that gave Rossi a lot of latitude if he hit milestones toward commercialization, and gave IH a lot of latitude if Rossi didn’t hit milestones.

              • Bob

                Good points and certainly logical considering the players involved. ( At least what little I know of them).
                If your scenario is correct however, at some point Darden/IH will require a more “standard” business plan to introduce the eCat into commercial sales. There would be dead lines, certifications, published performance standards, etc. and most importantly, the secret sauce revealed, at least internally. I do not believe Darden would allow Rossi to be the only one to load all the production eCat’s reactors or to even make the fuel for that matter..
                For all his creative work, Rossi seems to lack a bit in this area. Will he turn over the reigns to someone else on this? A very interesting question.
                A new day and I look forward to the Holidays…. perhaps waiting for a special present!

            • Omega Z

              What do you think Rossi should be doing while setting in the container day after day when there are no problems. He has stated that what he learns from the X-cat may be applicable to the Low temp 1MW plant. Making it a much better product. He has said that the material they developed for the X-cat may make the Low temp plant more dependable.

              This sounds like a very wise use of time in my opinion. Of course he could use that time napping or watching YouTube videos. Regardless what he does, a 1 year test is a 1 year test. You can’t speed that up. In the mean time, he is learning more about LENR technology.

            • Roland

              If you read Tom Darden’s views on the subject (yes he’s thought about this) you’ll learn that he is well aware that Rossi is a fountainhead of ideas, and that he heartily approves.

              There’s a team working on the engineering aspects of developing stable commercial products, and a creative genius feeding the process with fresh insights…

    • LarryJ

      Eeyore strikes again

    • Warthog

      You simply cannot tie down a creative mind. Rossi has already demonstrated incredible focus in getting to this point. Now that he has more resources available for broader research, you can’t blame the guy for using them.

      But I detect an aroma of skeptopathicity around your postings. If you are always so “disappointed”, then why not just go elsewhere.

      • Bob

        I am skeptic that the U.S. government knows what it is doing in many cases, but that does not make me un-patriotic.
        I am skeptic that my church has all the correct answers, but that does not make me a heretic.
        I am skeptic that the new Star Wars movie is as good as the original ones, but that does not make me Darth Vader from the “dark side”.
        I am skeptic that McDonald’s Big Macs are good for you, but that does not make me a vegetarian.
        I am a skeptic about many things in life. That does not make me a bad person.
        The scientific method is valid. It is inherently skeptical. You develop a theory, you test that theory, you analyze your data, you THEN draw a conclusion. One should not state “my opinion is correct” and then only pursue that which will gives evidence that supports my opinion. In contrast, one should try to disprove it.
        I.E. one should take a skeptical approach.
        So yes, I am skeptical about many things. That is a good thing.
        I believe that LENR / Cold Fusion / whatever is a phenomena that has been tested and seen by several. I believe that enough evidence (people involved, etc) indicates that Rossi has something. The facts ALSO strongly points that Rossi struggles in many areas. This is the way life is.
        I am not threatened when I read posts from the Church of the Positive Thinking and Believers that Rossi will save the world. (Sarcasm noted!) And I would never ask people to change their views because they do not match mine. I might ask someone to explain their view so I can understand it better. I might even give some constructive criticism once in a while, again to better reveal the truth. However, that said, I will strive to be honest and open with my thoughts,
        never coerced to devoid my critical thinking.
        I visit this site out of convenience and enjoyment. Most of the people are open minded and balanced. Some lean towards “everything is golden” and others lean towards “this is strange”. But for the most part, it is a positive place.
        As far as me going “some place else”, I have chose not too. I can also make the response that you can certainly choose not to read my posts!
        I wish all a good day and a Happy Holiday as I for one, continue to wait for a meaningful present!.

      • US_Citizen71

        I for one think ‘Bob’ is a good reality check for us we sometimes get to the point that we are preaching to the choir. On the other hand I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘Uncle Bob’ turned out to be Krivit or MY.

        • Obvious

          This site is infested with moles, plants, and serepticious cheerleaders IMO

          • US_Citizen71

            Of course it is! But you can’t have debate without two sides and without debate we are just conducting ‘Group Think’ ourselves. The moles, plants, etc. keep one of us from having to play devil’s advocate. : )

    • US_Citizen71

      One thing to keep in mind is any knowledge and know how Rossi develops playing around with a jet engine will translate well over to a turbine for power generation. If he can make one spin he can make the other spin as well.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Oil hit an 11 year low today, everyone is jockeying for market share. Pundits say “over supply”, probably true to a point, put hard to believe it is the reason for a 100+ to 36 fall.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Oversupply for what time frame? Why are they oversupplying now when they were getting twice the price not to long ago with half the supply therefore making their long term holdings more valuable? Whatever would motivate holders of vast oil reserves to dump product when they have been successfully squeezing and starving markets for decades?

      It is as if they see an abrupt end for demand of their product in the near future.

      • roseland67


        If that was true, and I’m not saying it isn’t, then
        oil would never again hit $ 100.00/barrel.

        We have been waiting for almost 5 years for an LENR product and so far nothing, so I would not equate cheap oil with an inevitable introduction of LENR based energy, rather, I would suggest simple supply and demand economics, as they have done in the past.
        If, after these massive over supply gluts are brought back in line with consumption and production, oil $$$ again will begin to rise as they have done in the past,
        (As for a date, I’ll offer a guess of May, 2017).

        We shall see

      • Omega Z

        All of OPEC aside from the Saudi’s want to cut output to boost prices.
        Who do you think They want to cut production? The Saudi’s.
        If the Saudi’s cut production, who looses market share for years after? And if the Saudi’s cut production, their foe(IRAN) will increase their production to take that market share. Geopolitics…

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Right, there is some mysterious market force out there telling the owners of that supply their oil in the ground is not going to be worth very much in ten years.

  • Brokeeper

    This is awesome news. Not only the fact AR is working on a jet engine model but collaborating with a high level US engineer from a major aircraft manufacturing concern (assumed from earlier post above) is demonstrating the validation of Rossi’s work by
    interested parties throughout the aeronautics sector, be it commercial or its tightly connected military (I’m thinking GE).

    • roseland67


      Temper your enthusiam, AR suggested a very good engineer, (very subjective term here, do you agree?), not a high level US engineer, he also indicated “whose brother works in a an aircraft manufacturing concern”.
      It may be commercial, or military, yes, but it also may be and is more probably neither.
      This is how rumors start, grow and spread.
      When AR says “I am working with GE aircraft engine”, then we can get excited.

      • Brokeeper

        Thanks, I will try.

        • Brokeeper

          Naw, sorry I tried but couldn’t obey.

      • Owen Geiger

        This engineer has already helped Rossi come up with a breakthrough idea to improve the jet engine. Sounds to me like he’s a very, very good engineer. Darden has very good contacts…

  • Omega Z

    “or” says the flat earther.

    In October, Industrial Heat signed papers on an R&D center & manufacturing plans in China. At about the same time, they announced plans to build a 20,000 plus square foot R&D facility in the North Carolina’s Triangle. I highly doubt this is for a 1 man band operation.

  • greggoble

    I’m excited by the many successful replications of the E-Cat reactor. I guess that advanced U.S. research labs as found in NASA, Boeing, Bechtel, SpaceWorks and many other nations’ labs may have successfully replicated this low energy nuclear reactive environment. Applied engineering is in the works. Thumbs up to micro-turbine application and the mention of SpaceWorks.

    A notable talk at ICCF5… in 1995
    “A Development Approach for Cold Fusion” by Bruce Klein, Bechtel

    Abstract: A plan is presented for the investigation and development of the cold fusion effect, ultimately leading to implementation of commercial devices. The plan represents a methodical approach for identifying and addressing theoretical, scientific, engineering, and economic concerns. The plan is presented from the perspective of a large architect/engineering corporation which performs work in established energy industries and which is not currently involved in cold fusion. The plan consists of a number of phases designed to establish the corporation’s level and method of involvement in the field. The phased plan provides a number of decision points; at each decision point a commitment to a higher level of funding is made on the basis of additional information which has been generated by the plan to that point. In this way, the corporation can control its financial outlay, yet funding is appropriate so that pursuit of the plan is not hampered.

    OmegaZ Thanks for the turbine bit, it helps me understand… all you need is heat. The nice thing about LENR thermal is you don’t have to worry about keeping a fire lit (fuel flow, air mixture, or an errant flame out).

    Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft Feb 19-20, 2014
    NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)

    Slide 22
    • Turbomachinery (performance) is constant regardless of how heat is added

    SpaceWorks Advanced Propulsion System Concept Studies
    Customer: NASA LaRC 2009-2010

    Slide 22
    SpaceWorks conducted separate vehicle design studies evaluating the potential impact of two advanced propulsion system concepts under consideration by NASA Langley Research Center:

    The first concept was an expendable multistage rocket vehicle which utilized an advanced Air-Augmented Rocket (AAR) engine. The effect of various rocket thrust augmentation ratios were identified the resulting vehicle design where compared against a traditional expendable rocket concept

    The second concept leverage Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), a new form of energy generation being studied at NASA LaRC, to determine how to utilize an LENR-based propulsion system for space access. For this activity, two LENR-based rocket engine propulsion performance models where developed jointly by SpaceWorks and LaRC personnel.

    LENR and Microturbines

  • US_Citizen71

    One thing to remember is that only the cores, a layer of TEG material and heat fins will likely be needed. Much of the mass and volume of the 1MW plant is the fluid heat exchangers and associated plumbing, pumps and control systems. The cores likely only make up about 1/1000th or less of the volume of the shipping container.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      I think this a key to the application of the technology. You have to heat the air quickly in order to make the LENR turbine feasible. It is also important to have the enclosed volume of the air as small as possible in the area of the heat exchanger. It argues that the fuel should be mounted within the hot portion of the engine.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yeah, a retrofit of a kerosene burning 747 is probably no the answer. Totally new designs will come online as LENR evolves. With LENR much smaller aircraft could have the range of today’s jumbo jets.

    • US_Citizen71

      A redesign for sure! The wings could be made with much less metal as they wouldn’t need to house or support the 1000’s of kg of fuel they now have to. Also the lack of a liquid fuel system means the pumps, plumping, wiring and other control systems, usually with at least one backup wouldn’t be needed either. This would reduce the total weight the airframe has to support and change the center of balance of the plane. So the airframe could be lighter and other pieces and parts likely would need to be moved around to keep the plane in balance. I would expect it to take at least 20 years before planes will be powered this way as the certification for flight will be more rigorous than what is going to be required of a home unit. So I won’t be holding my breath, but fully expect it will happen eventually.

  • Omega Z

    As you point out and Rossi has said, jet engines are not his forte. However, the E-cat X is. As the E-cat X is applicable to Jet engines, So are Jet engines applicable to highly efficient electrical generation.

    This is not sidetrack, but a progression to Electrical generation that perhaps, also applies to Jet engines & transportation. It is all relevant.

    You along with a few others still equate all this with Rossi, the 1 man band. I would have thought after the Fabiani interview, most everyone would have realized by now that this is well beyond those days.

    There are several dozen people involved now. That there are those interested and/or connected to it’s use other then for low grade heat production should not be a surprise.

  • builditnow

    Aircraft jet engines typically operate at around 1200C internally, ideal for a hot cat or X-cat.
    Controlling air flow over the reactors would provide the cooling needed to control the cats making any heating power unnecessary once the cats were up to temperature. The energy required to control air flow would be small, about equivalent to the energy required to control the throttle on your car. COP could be very high. A big R&D effort for aircraft.
    However, a hot cat powered micro turbine generator could be a lot simpler and be a nice add on to an electric car.
    When home, plug into your house and run the meter backwards, (while the power grid still exists).

    • Gerard McEk

      Just from curiosity point of view: How do you start a jet that does not eject burning hot gasses. You probably need an electrical motor/generator for this? What is the efficiency of an open circuit micro turbine? Wouldn’t a closed circuit CO2 turbine be preferable?

      • Omega Z

        “Wouldn’t a closed circuit CO2 turbine be preferable?”
        Strictly for the purpose of generating electricity, These may be the choice, but they are as yet unavailable & unproven. There is a project in process to build a prototype supercritical CO2 system.
        “How do you start a jet that does not eject burning hot gasses”

        The same way you do with a jet that does eject burning hot gasses(Primarily superheated air). An Electric starter or a start cart that pumps air to start the jet engine turbine/compressor spinning. (Just applying fuel & a spark will not start up a jet engine, but it could blow up.)

        The front “intake” of the jet turbine actually compresses air.
        The Fuel superheats the compressed air(creates extreme pressure) which exhausts/thrusts out the back in the process spinning the turbine(back end) which drives the compressor at the front intake compressing more air.

        Very much like superheating water in a confined vessel. When you open the valve, the escaping superheated water flashes to steam producing high pressure. Jet engines merely use compressed air in place of water. Compressed cool air provides optimal performance.
        One type of closed loop system would be to heat a fluid that superheats the air for thrust. So a 1400`C reactor would get you about 850`/900`C fluid that would superheat the air to about 500`/600`C. This isn’t going to fly.

        If you were to use a closed loop CO2 turbine system there would be no exhaust/thrust. It would require a propeller as you would have a prop engine.

        How to start a jet engine

        • Thomas Kaminski

          So if the compressed air was presented directly to the 1200C fuel rods, could it be heated to a high enough level to produce useful thrust? I do not see how introducing a secondary fluid, like CO2 improves the system. It introduces a second set of heat exchangers that must, by nature, be less efficient than directly heating the compressed air.

    • Omega Z

      Recall that the Lugano team hit 1400`C for a period of time.
      One of the promising thing about the X-cat, Per Rossi, X-cat would have the ability to maintain those temperatures. Not just for a short time.

      That’s also a positive for power generation as you could provide 800/900 degree C steam which puts you in the gas turbine efficiency range(50% plus) with co-generation..

  • Roger Barker

    A jet engine you say! There are no bounds to this wondrous technology! I just can’t wait for the
    real life applications of LENR to come to appear. As the counter says we’re three months from
    hard realization of the eCat. This wait will be agonizing, that’s for sure. With the recent claimed
    violation of Turkish airspace and the ensuing shootdown of the Russian jet, we are on the brink
    of war. LENR will go a long way for countries to realise they don’t need to fight for oil any more.
    Its going to happen soon, we all here at e-catworld know this. When will the rest of the world
    crack on to what we’ve known about for years? What we’ve shared and experienced to date.

    • Omega Z

      Wars have been fought throughout history long before Oil.
      LENR energy should reduce the frequency, but it will not bring them to an end.

      Note whats happening in the M.E. harnesses ideology for war, but in reality, It’s really all about people who want to obtain power over a select group of people. Should they succeed, they would merely extend their horizons.

      Such entities after having been left unchecked for an extended period of time take on the characteristics of the Hydra. To end this, It is necessary to repeatedly cut off the heads & burn the stumps.

      The external issues, Russia/Turkey, the China sea come about from a lack of world leadership and a Power vacuum caused when the dominate power disengages. We don’t study history to know history. We study it to know people. People are creatures of habit. We repeat ourselves.

      • georgehants

        Omega, a reply I put up to a comment from Peter on another page, seems to fit your comment equally.
        From the earliest days the clever un-educated people would wave and cheer whichever invading army was passing through or staying.
        This group of people probably constitute 80% of any population, just wishing to get on with their lives, not caring who is in control as long as they are left in peace and who can blame them.
        The Romans where well aware of this and exploited it with great cleverness, never directly interfering in local religions for example, beyond banning human sacrifice.
        It is as you say the rich, powerful etc. that are mis-educated 2000 years later and no sign of things improving.
        Our democracy’s are, I think, little more than weekly disguised dictatorships by our psychologically disturbed controlling masters.
        How long will this open Internet last?

  • pg

    There’s at least two of us, so I’ll stick with we. pal.

    • PG: In a sense Rossi did that as he allowed for both fuel and hardware to be tested by reputable scientists in the lab in Switzerland.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “Airliners typically have a fuel fraction between 25 and 45 percent…”
    A direct cycle LENR powered jet engine would be the way to go.

    • So how many megawatts of heat would you need to run a 747 sized aircraft?

      • artefact

        I read: 747 needs 90 MW to get into the air.
        90 / 4 (engines) = 22.5 MW per engine.

  • pg

    Mr Rossi, give us the working e-cat and we’ll be far less skeptical about engine application too.

  • It is possible to use weed killers. BUT there is evidence that they also give you a pain in the kidneys.
    Some CO2 in my lager is not to bad.
    But none in my ale.

  • TPaign

    Whether the e-cat COP is 6, 20, or 40, I’m still betting that we will simply manufacture synthetic hydrocarbon fuels (kerosene jet fuel included). At these COP’s, Shell or Chevron could manufacture and deliver to market synthetic jet fuel for under $1.50 USD per gallon.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      out of what?

      • Ophelia Rump

        How about from CO2 from the air, they can already synthesize that.
        Then we can deplete all the CO2, start an iceage and kill all the plants, while disabling the trigger which restarts breathing in the human body.

        It seems like a perfect plan, what could go wrong?

        • tlp

          Remember that CO2 returns to air when you burn synthetic fuel. Similar as biofuels are carbon neutral.

        • The watermelons, that’s what!

    • Agaricus
      • GreenWin

        These schemes ring hollow for two reasons:
        1) Wringing water from air – must be moist air to be economical
        2) it is carbon based fuel requires combustion with attendant emissions

        Lipids from biomass can also make fuel and plastics – eventually cheaper than fossil explore/drill/refine/manufacture cycles.

    • The sun does it for free.

    • US_Citizen71

      With a LENR fueled jet engine a cargo plane could fly non-stop from Shanghai to London on less than a $1 worth of fuel. Which sounds better to you?

  • artefact
  • Gerard McEk

    As I have said already in 2011, the best proof for the new energy source (now The New Fire) is a completely self sustaining power unit, so I welcome this development. It is only possible with an reasonable efficiency using a very hot heat source, so Ecat X will be used. A closed circuit using CO2 turbine would be perfect not only from compact design and power level point of view, but also the usage of CO2 and keeping that out of the atmosphere. Would be a cracker in the Climate Summet in France (30 Nov – 11 Dec)!

    • What’s wrong with having CO2 in the atmosphere?

      • Ophelia Rump

        Plants grow and you end up weeding and mowing the lawn.

        • Lucky to have a lawn to mow….Or not.

          • Agaricus

            I gave up on grass some time ago, but moss and algae look fine from a distance.

            • GreenWin

              Forests are nice places to have a picnic. Aside that… who needs ’em? Pests.

      • Gerard McEk

        Environmentalists can’t stand it, it takes their breath, however plants like it and lets them grow. So what is more important: the environmentalist or the plants?

        • Without the plants where would the environmentalist’s bee.

  • Greg Leonard

    I think the key is the new controllability which he seems to be getting with the E-catX. That would open up transport as an application.

  • artefact

    “Pekka Janhunen November 26th, 2015 at 12:29 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    If by engine you mean some kind of reciprocating engine with cylinders, there exists something called “Sanderson mechanism” which is allegedly an efficient (low friction, low bearing forces) way of turning reciprocating motion in rotary motion or vice versa. I mean, something which is supposedly better than a crankshaft. If you google “Sanderson mechanism”, you find descriptions and video. An official website seems to be I have no experience, but someone recommended about 5 years ago.
    best regards, /pekka

    Andrea Rossi November 26th, 2015 at 12:38 PM
    Pekka Janhunen:
    Thank you for the interesting information, but we are trying to make a completely different toy.
    Warm Regards,

  • bachcole

    I prefer that he focus on THE test and other small projects. I don’t want him losing his mind because his ideas are blowing out of his subconscious faster than he can process them.

  • Agaricus

    You could power an electric hybrid car with about 20kWe (about 18 cores @ 30% efficiency). Not much danger of burning your tyres though.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      You don’t need 20 kW (e). About 12 should do, part of which, in cruse mode, would recharge batteries. In addition, you need modest battery storage for acceleration. This is all that fast electric cars use on average once they have accelerated. They typically have only 100 miles on a charge. If you can recharge and cruse at the average use, you can speed.

      • Omega Z

        Tesla model D is 85kWh

        • US_Citizen71

          That is max output but not highway cruising output. My Subaru has 140HP engine but only puts out a little over 20HP when cruising at highway speed.

  • radvar
    • bachcole

      I was thinking peanut butter.


      • Gerard McEk

        Some like it hot 😉

    • US_Citizen71

      I think a high COP and operating temperature reactor combined with an efficient thermal electric generator could do the trick with just air. Think COP 20+ and a TEG efficiency of 5%+. It would need a spin of the turbine to get going but so do current jet engines. The power to weight ratio would be lower than a conventional turbo jet engine but it doesn’t need 1000’s of kg of fuel either. You might need to use twice as many engines or just larger ones and top speed would likely be slower at first. Lots of math. : )

  • denton51

    He’s replying to James Watt, the inventor of the Watt steam engine.

  • artefact

    Nice! probably the e-cat X comes into play.