‘Substantial Progress’ Being Made in Direct Electricity Production From the E-Cat X

Andrea Rossi has made a couple of general comments lately about how things are going with the E-Cat X testing, and he seems quite positive about progress. In an update yesterday he wrote:

E-Cat X: strong progress on course for the direct productin of electric power: very promising.
1 MW E-Cat: troubles during the night, but now stable.
Warm Regards,

Hank Mills then posed a question trying to get a quantification of how much electricity was being produced in relation to heat, and Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi
February 2nd, 2016 at 7:04 PM
Hank Mills:
I am still not able to answer to questions related to the efficiency of the E-Cat X, but I can say that in these very days we are making substantial progress in the field of direct production of electricity.
This having been said, thank you for your insight, but add F9.
Warm Regards,

So not much detail, as is typical for Rossi, but he does seem to be increasingly optimistic regarding the E-Cat X, especially relative to electricity generation, and it seems that the recent testing to destruction of one of the E-Cat X reactors (he says two are still intact and operating) has been particularly helpful.

He wrote on Monday:

At 08.35 of Monday, February 1st 2016
1 MW E-Cat stable
E-Cat X: 2 in good standing, one destroyed leaving enormous information about the production of electric power.

Rossi was asked on the JONP what the results of the destructive testing were in terms of melting or vaporization, and the production dangerous chemicals or radiation. He replied: “The outcome of destructive tests is melting, plus other phenomenons that are restricted.”

  • Axil Axil

    Sceptic might understand what a huge impact that such an observation of the creation of electrons from nothing really means to the world’s understanding of science. It makes Einstein’s ideas look trivial in comparison.

    Rossi should expect huge resistance to this advance from science because of what it will do to undermine that science.

  • Sceptic

    “‘’Substantial Progress’ Being Made in Direct Electricity Production From the E-Cat X”

    I’m sure, that next generation of Ekat Z will be able to cure human cancer! Frankly, there are more and more outrageous claims without any evidence to back it up.

  • radvar

    I most like the word “we” in “we are making substantial progress”

  • ecatworld

    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    how many probabilities in percentage are there that the E-Cat can produce electric energy directly, without Carnot Cycle, in industrial quantities?
    Thank you,

    Andrea Rossi
    February 3rd, 2016 at 12:43 PM
    I’d say 70-80%. F9.
    Warm Regards,

    • Omega Z

      As this is 1 of those posts that can easily be misinterpreted-:
      Rossi says there is a 70% to 80% chance the E-cat X can produce electricity directly- without the Carnot Cycle process(turbine/generator etc..). Not that it will convert at 70% to 80% efficiencies.

      Rossi has indicated a 50% direct conversion efficiency.
      Depending on the temperature and/or quality of steam, additional electricity could be produced by means of the Carnot Cycle of 20% to 40% efficiency(Of the 50% wasted heat). ie, 20% becomes 10%, 40% becomes 20% for a combined generation of 60% to 70% conversion efficiency.

      Rossi has mentioned the possibility of combined generation. Whether this is applied will depend on the size of the power plant. Turbines & generators are expensive. It will require cost benefit analysis.

      • Axil Axil

        At 1400C to 1500C, the efficiency of electrical production from heat goes up to 60 to 80%,

        • Billy Jackson

          i wonder how a temperature based coating would work for something similar to time release to get a higher temperature?

          aka the melting points .. if the later stages of the core were wrapped in a higher melting point material that burns off slowly at different stages exposing more of the required elements.. would this be able to drive temperatures higher yet still retain the reaction needed?

          (yes i am more than capable of exposing my ignorance for all to see!) 🙂

        • Omega Z

          1500`C will provide about 900`C steam.
          In Co-Generation plants, this gets you 40% conversion to electricity. The waste heat is still high enough temp to be channeled to a 2nd turbine to produce about 20% for a combined 60%. These are plus/minus dependent on the efficiency of plant design. 70% is at the extreme efficiency range usually unobtainable.

          Even with direct Gas Turbines, the temperature is restricted to 900`C by drawing in external air. These limitations are due to materials. Materials that easily handle 1000’s of rpm’s react differently when heated to very high temps. Blades warp causing unbalance & tend to self destruct. In some cases, temperatures may reach or exceed 1500`C, but these are channeled away from all internal surfaces because they are very destructive.

          Even at 900`C, These power plants have a much shortened life cycle.
          Also, If you already convert 50% directly to electricity, Any percentage of addition conversion is halved in proportion to the whole.

      • Gerard McEk

        If it is desired to only generate electricity (like to the public grid), then you can always use a turbine to convert the ‘left over’ heat also into electricity. Say the Ecat can produce 50% direct electricity and convert 40% of the heat, than the total conversion of the LENR energy into electricity is 70%. That is already awesome! If the Ecat can produce a higher percentage electricity directly (e.g. by thermal insulation), this conversion becomes even better.
        If the waste heat is still of high temperature, then this should surely be considered, but I guess that will not happen when energy becomes cheap….

        • Omega Z

          50% is pretty awesome. That would eliminate 1/3rd of the heat produced in present power plants. As to waste heat turbines, I think that evolves around the economics and the size/scale of the power plant.

          The presently centralized grid makes it hard to utilize waste heat. If we transition to micro grids, it becomes relatively easy. The plants can easily be located near Industry that needs a lot of heat. Also, small scale greenhouse operations are located near the cities. There’s no reason that overall energy use can’t be around 75%.

          • Gerard McEk

            Agreed. I do not like to waste energy unneccesarily. Electricity is easily distrubuted to the grid. The lower level heat can be used for heating purposes locally. So the whole grid may be put upside down: local electricity suppliers, mainly for local electricity usage in the micro grid and the bulk goes to heavy industry at distant. Rest heat is being used for space heating locally. No huge power plants anymore!

  • ecatworld

    AR says heat is required for E-Cat electricity:

    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    there are applications, where you want electricity but no heat, for instance a battery for a laptop. What is the minimum required temperature for the e-catx to produce electricity?

    Thank you.

    Andrea Rossi

    February 3rd, 2016 at 10:36 AM


    If you want to produce electricity necessarily you produce heat with the E-Cat. We are not thinking to uses of the E-Cat of the kind you cited, so far, so I am not prepared to answer.

    Warm Regards,


    • Gerard McEk

      AR has not excluded that you can insulate the reactor (to keep it hot and lose/produce as less heat as possible) and so be able to produce more electricity.

      • Omega Z

        I could be wrong, but, If Rossi’s process generates EM fields or some other harvestable energy particles, it becomes probable the the heat is merely a by product/side effect. This heat would need to be dissipated to make way for more production of harvestable energy or risk melt down.

  • Julian Becker

    I wonder if the “other phenomenons” that Rossi observed during the destructive test were similar to the events of the Fleischmann meltdown event…Actually if someone would share its thought on this one would be great. Fleischmann called it something “Beyond Cold Fusion” A very exotic idea would be a strangelet, Bose-Einstein condensate even down to micro black holes. Let me know what you guys think….

    • mike wolf

      I think he was referring to transmutation.

    • Gerard McEk

      I wouldn’t go that far yet. Maybe radiation should be one of these phenomenons. (Alpha’s, Beta’s, Gamma’s). I guess he also investigated the influence of large currents, pulled out the reactor and how he could keep it stable. He must also have investigated the resulting ash and mutations, not only of the fuel, but also of the reactor parts. I am not sure he has got equipment to measure other kind of radiation, like those of sub particles.

    • Axil Axil

      The production of electrons is a violation of the conservation of charge. That means that Kaons are being produced from the vacuum. Holmlid has seen this. Micro black holes is at the bottom of how this is happening,

      There is no limit on the temperature that BECs from micro black holes will produce.



    • US_Citizen71

      Maybe it creates the exit point for the worm holes that make socks disappear in the dryer. ; )

  • Jonnyb

    If Andrea has cracked the production of Direct electricity production then the E-cat will become a game changer, and very quickly as well. Off course with a decent power gain.

  • georgehants

    If the latest MFMP results can be replicated successfully then they are the first to announce a working Cold Fusion result that is completely verifiable.
    Mr Rossi et al is still at the Rossi says stage with no independent replication possible because of the lack of needed information.
    Let us hope that the now approx 56 days before the test period expires leads to something a little more substantial.

    • Observer

      So, Polaroid did not have a verifiable instant photography process until Kodak replicated (stole) it?

      • georgehants

        Observer, I think my comment is Factual, how you interpret that regarding MFMP “stealing” the technology must be your choice.
        Interesting though as to why Polaroid did not publish their process, perhaps you could explain for me.

        • Observer

          My comment has nothing to do with MFMP, only that Kodak’s replication of Polaroid’s process was ruled by the courts to be patent infringement.

          Polaroid’s process was published, in their patents.

          The current academic procedures for scientific advancement does not have a monopoly, nor are they historically the dominating path to scientific advancement.

          • georgehants

            I fail to understand your comment in relevance to mine if you are not comparing MFMP to Polaroid that you clearly have above.
            How could Kodak steal Polaroids process if it was protected by a patent?
            I do not understand your last sentence with my comment of MFMP being the first (possibly) to publish a verifiable method of Cold Fusion.

            • Observer

              I am not saying anything bad about MFMP.

              What I am saying is that third party replication is a milestone only sought after in the academic process of scientific advancement and not the industrial process of scientific advancement.

              • georgehants

                Observer, thank you, then regardless of what you are saying my point stands that if MFMP’s process is easily replicated, they will be the first to publish a practical, repeatable demonstration of Cold Fusion.

                • Observer

                  Isn’t MFMP replicating Celani’s process?

                  Are you saying the person who does it second is the first to demonstrate a repeatable process?

                • georgehants

                  Observer, any other process published has not been easily repeatable or it would have been done long before now.
                  MFMP I think have absorbed all relevant information from all sources and now may, if Repeatable be the first to publish a complete method of replication.
                  My comment is a direct end Fact that does not include such things as if Newton had not studied Alchemy then America may still be owed by the indigenous people.

    • Brent Buckner

      Parkhomov characterized his work as investigating Rossi’s “generator” (c.f. http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/01/new-russian-parkhomove-cat-replication-claim-cop-over-3-at-1347c/ ) so I think you should count that as an independent replication.

      • georgehants

        Brent, not trying to take away credit from anybody, just stating Factually that if MFMP’s process is repeatable then they are the first to publish a practical method of Cold Fusion

        • mike wolf

          I don’t agree. It is still the “Rossi” effect. I guess technically you are right. But in my heart you aren’t. 🙂

          • georgehants

            Mike, always that argument in Love, should you let the heart or the brain decide.

            • HS61AF91

              they are all heroes, everyone, replicating and having fun.