1 MW E-Cat Plant Watch Thread [UPDATE #41 — 350 Day Test is Over, Mats Lewan’s Sources Say Success]

Since there are beginning to be more frequent references to the 1 MW E-Cat plant that we have been told will be installed and be open to visitors at some point (perhaps this year, according to Andrea Rossi), I thought I would create a dedicated thread to the topic which I will update as needed, like I have done with the thread about the third party report. It keeps all the information together and I think makes things easier to find.

UPDATE #41 (Feb 18, 2016)

Mats Lewan hears the test was successful:

A comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by Andrea Rossi announced that the 1 Year test of the E-Cat Plant has been completed.

Andrea Rossi
February 18, 2016 at 4:31 AM
Gerard Mc Ek:
The charge size has beene refined with the experience in thousands of experiments and, obviously, also on the base of theoretical considerations.
Yes, the test of 350 days is finished, yesterday the ERV has completed his tests.
Now it will take about a month to know the results from his report.
No more information about the 1 MW E-Cat that made the tests from now until the publication of the results will be allowed.
Warm Regards,

The ERV is the “Expert Responsible for Validation” who is apparently an outside independent entity with experience in nuclear engineering and testing.

So the charge substitution process mentioned below was not an interruption to the test, but signaled the end of the test, and presumably it will continue to be used.

Go to comments

UPDATE #40 (Feb 17, 2016)

In an update on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today Andrea Rossi stated that there is currently an important operation taking place with the 1 MW E-Cat Plant:

Andrea Rossi
February 17, 2016 at 7:44 AM
Wed Feb 17 2016, 07.43 a.m.
1 MW E-Cat : charges substitution on course
E-Cat X: in good standing, very promising
Warm Regards,

I’m pretty sure this means that the charges used in the E-Cat reactors in the 1MW plant have lost efficiency to the extent that they can no longer be used. Rossi has said he had hoped that the charge could last for a full year, but it sounds like that’s not the case. This will mean that there will be more down time for the plant and will probably push back the ending date for the test quite a few days. Rossi has said in the past that it will take a few days at least to change the charges in the reactors.

Go to comments

UPDATE #39 (Feb 6, 2016)

We’re heading into the final stretch of Andrea Rossi’s 1 MW plant test, and while Rossi has reported loss of efficiency in the plant’s reactors, and some more leakages, the test still continues. Today we’re at day 348, so we could be just weeks away from the finish line and it sounds like they are nursing the plant all the way to the end. Here’s a Q&A on the topic today.

Hello Mr. Rossi,
i have two questions.

1) it is february now, the test phase of your 1MW plant should be almost over. When do you think it will be done?

A: Still do not know, up to the end. Anything can happen anytime to cause a delay.

2) what is going to happen, if everything is successfull, soon after the end of the test? Will we get to know who the Costumer is? Will we see new demos? Will other Costumers be able to buy a new plant? What?

A: If all will go well, we will start the industrialization process. No more demos will be made. Other plants will be sold. I do not know if the Customer will want to expose himself or not and this, obviously, will not depend on me.

Go to comments

UPDATE #38 (Feb 1, 2016)

It looks like the countdown clock we have been running on this site has been overly optimistic based on recent statements from Andrea Rossi on when the test might conclude. So I have adjusted the clock to the end of March, rather than February 29. Here’s a Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:

February 1st, 2016 at 8:52 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I understand that the tests of the 1 MW E-Cat will be co,pleted by the end of March: is this deadline still valid?

Andrea Rossi
February 1st, 2016 at 9:07 AM
If we’ll have not surprises from Her, I would say yes, it makes sense.
Warm Regards,

UPDATE #37 (Jan 29, 2016)

Well that was a brief update. Rossi has updated his previous post. Maybe in his reply to me in Update #36 he meant that the trouble was over, not the test.

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2016 at 1:29 PM
Frank Acland:
It is over. Trouble resolved thanks to our great Team!
Warm Regards

UPDATE #36 (Jan 29, 2015)<

Well, it seems the year-long test has failed. It did not make it to the finish line. Here’s what I asked AR on the JONP.

“Frank Acland January 29th, 2016 at 1:02 PM
Dear Andrea,
What do these troubles mean for the test in progress? Is it over, or will you need to bring in new reactors?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi January 29th, 2016 at 1:29 PM
Frank Acland:
It is over.
Warm Regards

What this will mean to the E-Cat commercialization project now is an open question. Knowing Rossi he will not be giving up. I expect that Rossi will go on with his R&D on the E-Cat, especially with the E-Cat X which he has seemed very hopeful about, but by his own admission, the low temperature plant technology is not ready for the marketplace.

UPDATE #35 (Jan 29, 2015)

From a couple of new comments from Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, it sounds like things are not going too well with the 1 MW plant.

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
René Bergeron:
at 10.10 a.m. of Friday Jan 29 2016:
1 MW E-Cat : troublesome, lowest efficiency, working on it. Not a good night, honestly.
E-Cat X: remade another to continue destructive tests
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2016 at 10:14 AM
Please, understand that to put in the markes an immature product in our case could be devastating.
There is nobody in the world that more than me desires to put massively the E-Cat in the market, but we are not ready. Too bad about sceptics.
Warm Regards,

We’ve been hearing from Rossi about the reactors losing efficiency lately, and it sounds like the problems are continuing, and increasing. Rossi says that they do have backup reactors in place and we don’t know if he’ll deploy them. From Rossi’s tone here, it sounds like he’s going to be doing some rethinking about everything. I guess we’ll find out more what this means for the overall test.

UPDATE #34 (Jan 23, 2015)

Andrea Rossi has provided some interesting details about the current plant under test in this response to a question from Barty about the current test in progress:

Andrea Rossi
January 23rd, 2016 at 8:12 AM
Your assumption has right of citizenship in the kingdom of logic, but we must be conservative.
There are many parts of the plant that need upgrading and the next generation of industrial plants (F9) will be different. I cannot give the details of the parts to be modified, for obvious reasons, but we are talking not just of plumbing and wiring, we are talking of internal structure of the reactors.
This plant belongs to the first generation, substantially it is equal to the plant tested in Bologna in the Winter of 2011; the next one will be different and I am already designing it (again: F9).
Warm Regards,

Comparing this plant to the 2011 Bologna plant gives an indication of how many changes might be needed, since the design of that plant has been superseded. I think this is the clearest statement from Rossi so far about his assessment of the current plant design, and it is an admission that it really is not suitable for the marketplace in its current iteration. He has reported the need multiple repairs during the course of this test, and when he mentions changing the “internal structure of the reactors”, this would imply that quite a bit of work will be needed, and further testing, which brings up the question of whether there will need to be more extended testing, and how long it might take to get a satisfactory plant on the market.

Go to comments

UPDATE #33 (Jan 17, 2015)

Andrea Rossi has stated that there continues to be some loss of efficiency in the reactors of the E-Cat plant. He says he had hoped the fuel charge would be enough to last a full year, but as the test enters its final days it seems like the potency is decreasing somewhat. There appear to be three options at this point:

a) Keep going with the same charges in the reactors; Rossi says so far the COP is good enough despite the loss of efficiency

b) Change the charges; Rossi said this:

The charge, if necessary, can be changed, obviously delaying the term of the test end by the number of days necessary. We still have days spared of the allowed 400 days, so the validity of the test should not be compromised. So far, anyway, it has not necessary to change the charge.

c) Employ the backup reactors which are in standby mode; of this option, Rossi wrote: “that is another safety boat. In a military term: it is our “reserve” division.”

Update: Thanks to Gerard McEk for asking a further question about this:

“Dear Andrea,
You wrote that after a long night fight you have assessed the lowering COP problem.
Can you tell us if that means that the COP is back to normal, or were some other issues solved that were bothering you because of the decreasing COP?
Can you define when you consider the test positive?
Thanks and kind regards, Gerard

Andrea Rossi January 17th, 2016 at 12:26 PM
Gerard McEk:
The COP has slightly diminished its value, but we stopped the tendency to go lower, now it is stable.
The test will be defined positive or negative when the 350 days of operation will have been completed.
Warm Regards,

Go to comments

UPDATE #32 (Jan 14, 2015)

In the end, it is happy customers who will prove whether E-Cat technology is useful or not, and from what Andrea Rossi states here, it sounds like the current customer would like to extend its use of the plant after the conclusion of the test — which is an indication that they are happy with their energy savings:

January 14th, 2016 at 5:53 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

Since the test period is soon over….

1. Have the Customer indicated a wish to extend the lease if test is a success (or buy the plant) ? AR: yes

2. If not extended lease, what is your further plans for the test plant? AR: if the results will be positive we will make more plants

3. Have you identified changes in the design that will be implemented when / if you start manufacturing on a broad scale…? AR: yes

Go to comments

UPDATE #31 (Dec 30, 2015)

As we approach the end of the year, over 10 months into the test it sounds like the reactors in the E-Cat plant are getting a bit fatigued. Andrea Rossi wrote a week or so ago that one of the reactors was showing less efficiency, and today he wrote this on the JONP:

Time: 08.05 a.m. of Wed Dec 30st :
E-Cat 1 MW: another reactor shows a decrease of efficiency, but still has enough COP. The charges are starting to give evidence of consumption. Very interesting to study the phenomenon from now on.
E-Cat X: works, makes heat and electricity, is very promising.
Warm Regards,

Rossi has said that the charge in each of the four reactors was slightly different, and this was a deliberate move so he could observe differences in operation based on different formulas. From an experimental point of view this would be interesting to AR, but whether the plant is able to meet the goals for the test remains to be seen. AR has said that there is an option to replace the charges in a if necessary, but he said that was a complex operation that could take up to six days to accomplish. Also, there is still in place the backup bank of small reactors that have not been used for most of the test, but which Rossi has said could be employed if there was a need.

There’s some more information on the situation in this Q&A between Steven Karels and Andrea Rossi on the JONP:

a. Are all four 250kW reactors currently being used? yes

b. Are any reactors producing less than 250kW of thermal power? -can’t answer

c. As a particular reactor approaches fuel exhaustion, do you see increased control issues? no

d. Likewise, do you observe a decreased effective COP for that reactor? yes

e. Likewise, do you see decreases in the time of SSM for that reactor? yes

f. Can the other reactors have their output increased beyond 250kW to compensation for the reactors experiencing approach of fuel exhaustion? can’t answer

UPDATE #30 (Sep 21, 2015)

I asked Andrea Rossi some questions regarding the condition of the plant, and about the repairs that have been done on the reactors. I have included his responses after each question.

Dear Andrea,

You have made a number of repairs on reactors over the course of this long-term test.

1. Have you changed any of the fuel or charge in any of the reactors yet? AR: no
2. Are you using the same reactors as when you started? AR: yes
3. Have your repairs involved replacing components and/or materials surrounding the reactors? AR: yes
4. Have you been successful in your repairs in reducing the amount of problems with the E-Cats? AR: yes

I followed up with another question: “Regarding repairs you have had to make on your reactors again, are they mainly connected with materials degradation caused by long-term heat exposure?”

AR: I would say yes, and we learnt much about new mterials to be used instead.

UPDATE #29 (Sep 20, 2015)

Andrea Rossi was asked directly today when the 1 MW plant would be over and he gave this response: “The tests should end by February 2016, so long no major delays are caused by malfunctions.”

So that makes me guess that the total downtime so far has probably been between 1 and 2 weeks.

UPDATE #28 (Sep 19, 2015)

There’s some interesting information on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the amount of down time that has been during the current test of the 1 MW plant. A reader asked Andrea Rossi about how many days the plant has been down since the test started on Feb 20th this year. These were the options to choose from:

1) less than but equal to 24 hours?
2) greater than 24 hours but less than or equal to 7 days?
3) greater than 7 days but less than or equal to 4 weeks?
4) greater than 4 weeks?

Andrea Rossi responded: “3”. This means that for the test to run 350 days in total, the ending would be pushed back to at least February 10th, and as far as March 3rd, 2016. And this means the counter I have been running is not accurate — I think I better take it down!

UPDATE #27 (Sep 18, 2015)

By my calculations, based on what Andrea Rossi said in update #26 below, the 1 MW plant has been running for 207 days now, and the test in progress is supposed to run for 350 days. On the Journal of Nuclear Physics today Rossi was asked that if the test were to end today, would he consider the results positive or negative.

His response was: “Positive with the potential risk to become negative.”

I take this to mean that the plant has been operating well, producing energy via the ‘Rossi effect’ at a significant COP — however it has not been running long enough for Rossi to declare final victory. So far, so good, but the 350 day milestone seems to be the finish line that has yet to be reached.

UPDATE #26 (Jul 7, 2015)

Today Andrea Rossi gave the first concrete answer to a question about how long the 1 MW plant has been operating. The question on the Journal of Nuclear Physics was “How many operative days of 24 hours each has the 1 MW E-Cat operated, from the start up to now? Can you tell us this?”

Rossi’s response was:

Andrea Rossi
July 6th, 2015 at 2:28 PM
JC Renoir:
136 days as of today.
Warm Regards,

136 days is about 4.5 months. Rossi has said recently that they have had to shut the plant down on occasion to fix certain things, and we don’t know how much downtime there has been so far. According to Rossi, they are contractually obligated to have the plant run for 350 days in a 400 day period, so this would mean the plant will need to run for at least another 214 days. So by my calculations, the test can’t end until February 2016 at the earliest.

UPDATE #25 (May 2, 2015)

Andrea Rossi gave some information today about the plant that indicates that it will have to produce a COP of at least 4 based on the power rating of the resistors used in the plant:

Andrea Rossi
May 2nd, 2015 at 6:38 PM
The 1MW E-Cat does not have the power to supply 1 MWh/h of energy without the Rossi Effect. The total power of the resistances is about 250 kW, therefore by Joule effect we can give max 250 kWh/h of energy. This is why we have to study well the duration of the charges and, until we have not a precise idea, we have fixed in 6 months the fuellife. This time we have the possibility to try 1 year; obviously as soon as we notice a decrease of efficiency we change the charge.
Since we have 400 days at our disposal to operate 350 days, in this test and R&D agreed upon with the Customer, we have room for this experiment.
Warm Regards,

In other words, if the plant is producing 1 megawatt with 250 kW of resistance heaters, it would be 400 per cent efficient (COP 4) if the resistors were powered continually — this is not taking into account the periods of self-sustain that Rossi has said are very long. All this points towards a COP well beyond the minimum of 4 calculated here.

Rossi also mentions here that they are going to try to run the plant for a full year on one charge, and not stop the experiment at the minimum 350 day mark. According to Rossi, in another post today, this will mean that the test will end in December 2015 at the earliest, February 2016 at the latest.

UPDATE #24 (May 1, 2015)

Here’s an interesting post from Andrea Rossi on the JONP that explains in part how the reportedly high COP is being achieved: by having one E-Cat drive another — this is the ‘synergy’ that Rossi has mentioned quite a bit. Using one E-Cat to power another has always seemed to me to have a lot of potential in terms of energy savings, and so it’s good to hear that Rossi and his team seem to be having some success with it.

Andrea Rossi

The ssm is enhanced by the fact that with the control system directing multiple reactors we can obtain a synergy between them using some of the reactors to drive others, where the driving ones ( mouse operation) are less than the cat ones. This way the ssm phases are substantially more that the driving ones. This synergy, obviously, is possible only with big plants ( so far).
I cannot give the numbers, as correctly Steven N Karels anticipated and, also, after consulting Orsobubu, I have to add that what we have now is not the final result, things can worsen substantially in time and the final results could be either positive or negative ( this last phrase could be substituted by F-Something).
Warm Regards,

UPDATE #23 (Apr 22, 2015)

Below is a lengthy comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by Andrea Rossi which gives a lot of details about the measurement systems in place at the 1 MW plant. I had not seen this post until now (it was a comment on a very old JONP post) — but it was published on April 3rd. One interesting aspect is that there is an appointed ‘Referee’ — presumably an independent party — who is keeping track of all the measurements involved, and who it seems will make the final determination about the COP.

Andrea Rossi
April 3rd, 2015 at 7:44 PM
The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus

the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider

56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.
Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,

So with a referee in place, I wonder if this could be considered another ‘third party’ test.

UPDATE #22 (Apr 21, 2015)

Another comment about sources visiting the 1MW plant currently under test by Rossi from the Sifferkol website run by Torkel Nyberg (see here http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=626:

“I know first hand from very reliable sources that themselves have visited the Rossi/Industrial Heat E-Cat customer that the plant works very well. This has been verified both by measurements made by the customer and by significantly reduced electricity bills. The plant seems to be able to produce heat from electricity with a COP in the range of 20-80 depending on the level of self-sustain-mode applied. I guess that is what Rossi is working on right now.”

Mats Lewan now has updated his blog post (see update #21 below) to confirm that he has heard the same information as reported on the Sifferkol site. He writes:

UPDATE: Since a COP (Coefficient of Performance — output energy/input energy) ranging from 20 to 80 has been reported, I can confirm that I have got the same information.

UPDATE #21 (Apr 20, 2015)

Here’s an interesting comment from Mats Lewan from a new post on his animpossibleinvention.com site, that gives some confirmation about what Andrea Rossi has been saying about the performance of the 1 MW plant:

From credible sources I get confirmation of what Rossi states — that the plant is running very well — which means that we should expect important results presented at the end of the 400 day trial, backed up by a customer who certifies the useful power output and the measured electrical input from the grid. Such results will be difficult to challenge . . . Since these results will be presented before the next ICCF, this year’s conference may have been the last before a major breakthrough for cold fusion.

Mats has good connections when it comes to people related to the E-Cat, and I would not question what he reports here. He is certainly not one to hype things. He mentions here a 400 day trial. According to Rossi, the customer requires the plant to run well for 365 days out of 400. Rossi has said they won’t be able to report until November at the earliest, but if the rest of the run is smooth sailing with no major downtime, we might get a report by the end of this year.

UPDATE #20 (Apr 9, 2015)

The following brief quote below is posted with permission from an email exchange I had with Andrea Rossi recently.

The Lady E-Cat 1MW is stable and the COP is very high, because we are mostly in ssm mode. I am writing from inside the computers container.

UPDATE #19 (Mar 29 2015)

More encouraging words today from Andrea Rossi regarding the 1 MW plant:

The E-Cat this week has been good, with very, very extended ssm periods. I prefer to give data regarding the COP after the end of the test.
From inside the plant,
A.R., with Warm Regards

It’s hard to interpret exactly what Rossi means by ‘Very, very’ extended self-sustain mode periods, but it sounds quite emphatic, and suggests a fairly dramatic improvement in COP. I would guess that since the early guaranteed COP Rossi talked about in the early days of the E-Cat was 6, that they could be getting double that, or even more.

This ability to self-sustain is really the remarkable thing about the E-Cat. From testing we have seen so far, without a self-sustain mechanism, it appears that the E-Cat can get a maximum COP of 3 or 4 which is impressive and could be commercially useful in some situations — but the commercial appeal will really grow if you can cut your fuel expenditures by 75 per cent or more, which might be possible with extended self sustain periods.

UPDATE #18 (Mar 13 2015)

More from Rossi on the subject of update #17 today:

The ssm of the 1MW E-Cat is very long. It has been a terrific surprise, due to evolution of the charge and to the control system. I am not permitted to publish numbers before the end of the test, but I must say that the final results can be positive, but also could be negative, so we retain the data until the test is finished. One thing is for sure: I do not stay here 16-18 hours per day to sharpen the points to the pencils. We also have a new kind of gauge, which is the bill of the electric provider to our Customer, wherein are written the MWh he consumes per month ( the electricity source that feeds the plant has been insulated from other loads): the Customer makes a ratio between the thermal MWh we deliver and the MWh he pays for to the electricity provider and has the real COP. This is a measuring system not very sophysticated, but brutally true: the Customer is positively surprised from the results, so far, after a troublesome initial period. We hope the situation goes on likewise.
Warm Regards,

The news sounds very positive from Rossi here — good to see the real COP being measured by the electric meter and the electric bill. That is all that matters to most people.

UPDATE #17 (Mar 13 2015)

Andrea Rossi made an interesting, seemingly off the cuff remark in a comment regarding the USPTO rejection of the his patent. He says that patent or no patent his work will go forward, but there is no reason not to try for a patent through the appeal process. At the end of this comment he remarks:

P.S. The plant is going well. Very long ssm periods. Very long.

SSM refers to self-sustain mode, when the E-Cats continue their reaction with external power turned off. The longer the self sustain periods, the better. The higher the COP, the more money the customer saves on energy, and energy savings is what the E-Cat is all about in the final analysis.

UPDATE #16 (Mar 11 2015)

I submitted a few new questions on the Journal of Nuclear Physics to Andrea Rossi regarding work on the 1 MW plant:

1. How many members of your team, beside yourself, are assigned full time to manage the production of the 1MW plant? AR: 1- here are two persons fix plus me. They work 8 -10 hours per day, I prefer to stay here 16-18 hours per day. When necessary we call reinforces.

2. If the plant passes the year-long test, how many people will be required to manage the plant?

AR: 2- none, the comtrol system will make it all, but will be necessary the presence in the factory of a specialist certified by us.

3. Have any of the reactors in the plant received a replacement charge so far? AR: 3- no and I hope the charge will last 1 year.

Although Rossi has not said when the test started, he says it will be over sometime between November and next February, so by calculations I think we are probably about four months into the year-long test, and so far the fuel charges seems to be holding up. Initially Rossi said E-Cats would need a charge every six months, but now he has higher expectations.

UPDATE #15 (Feb 25 2015)

It seems from the following question and response that the 1 MW E-Cat plant is running well:

Dear Andrea,

As you continue your year-long production testing on your customer’s site, is the customer able to carry on operations normally, or are you interrupting their production activity with your work?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland

Frank Acland:
The Customer has a back up, just in case we’d have interruptions.
Warm Regards,

My own interpretation of this response (could be wrong) is that the energy used in the production process (whatever that is) is coming from the E-Cat. Rossi has mentioned that contractually he needs to have his plant operating 365 days out of 400, so there seems to be a certain amount of downtime acceptable to the customer, and from this response it sounds to me like the backup is not automatically activated during “pit stops”. Maybe if there was an extended E-Cat outage the backup would be employed.

UPDATE #14 (Feb 14 2015)

There’s no major news on this front, but there have been a few comments lately from Andrea Rossi regarding the 1 MW plant, which seems to be working away under the watchful eye of Rossi and his team. Here are few samples from recent posts he has made on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Andrea Rossi
February 14th, 2015 at 8:14 AM
Yesterday we had problems with the control system, eventually fixed.
Today ( Saturday) I can see that so far all is ok.
Warm Regards

Andrea Rossi
February 14th, 2015 at 8:08 AM
Joya del Sol:
It is not true that several years ago we were testing a 1 MW plant in the premises of an industrial Customer. I never said that.
We are doing it now. The future will depend on the final results of the tests on course. The results could be positive, as we hope, but also negative, as I have to say. This plant is the first commercial plant in operation in the world making thermal energy necessary to an industrial manufacturing concern, inside the premises of the Customer. This plant’s efficiency is not just measured on the base of scientific calculations, as happened up to now, but mainly on the base of the energy costs related to the manufacturing system of the Customer: what counts for the Customer are not the scientific calculations, but the money he makes ( or loses) using the E-Cat instead of a regular plant.
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
February 12th, 2015 at 5:55 AM
Bernie Koppenhofer:
Alexander Parkhomov replica is very interesting, though !
As I said, the tests of the 1 MW plant delivered to our Customer will end between November 2015 and February 2016.
Warm Regards,

UPDATE #13 (Jan 9 2015)

Another Q&A with Rossi and a JONP reader today regarding the timing of the commercial phase of IH’s work, following the conclusion of the year long test of the 1 MW plant:

Q. You said that, in the most positive scenario, the commercial phase will likely start shortly after the end of the test period of the 1 MW plant. If everything goes as expected, again in the most positive scenario, how long should this test still last?

A. Andrea Rossi
January 9th, 2015 at 12:48 PM
In the best scenario could be November 2015/ January 2016.
Wishes of a great 2015 also to you from our Team,

With this being a ‘best case’ scenario, I think we might be wise not to expect major news from IH until 2016 at the earliest. We might be pleasantly surprised this year, but things of this magnitude generally tend to take longer than the most optimistic forecasts. We always seem to be waiting for one more test from Rossi and Co.!

UPDATE #12 (Jan 8 2015)

There’s precious little new information about the progress of Industrial Heat’s 1 MW plant that is apparently under testing at the moment at an IH customer site. Andrea Rossi is not revealing much on the JONP about it these days, but I did manage to get in a couple of responses to questions about it recently:

Q: In November you mentioned that the current 1 MW E-Cat plant you are working on has a volume of reactors of half a cubic meter (500 liters of volume) — which would mean a power density of 2 kW per liter. Today you mention a power density of 10 kW per liter (excluding heat exchangers). Is this for a different system?

A: Yes, the volume of the reactors has been reduced to about 1l/10kW

Q: So you have redesigned the plant as you have worked on it?

A: Not just me, but our Team did. (AR responding to another question on the topic): I can say that the ratio between volume and power has still room to be reduced. The tale of the Incredible Shrinking Cat is not yet at “The End”.

Q: How satisfied are you with the performance of the 1 MW plant so far?

A: I cannot give any information regarding the performance. I can say that I am optimist about the behaviour of the I MW plant along the 1 year test. I can say that nothing happened that could turn me pessimist. So far. I must add, under the permanent direction of Orsobubu, that the final output could be positive, but also negative.

The last comment suggests to me that things are going well for now. I think the testing of the plant began around September of last year, so I don’t expect any conclusive information coming from Rossi or Industrial Heat until September of this year, at the earliest.

UPDATE #11 (Oct 2, 2014)

Well that was quick . . . Andrea Rossi today responded to a question on the JONP about whether the problems with 1 MW plant were worse, or better than two weeks ago, saying:

Our 1 MW plant is a magnificence and an ouvre d’art: we resolved the problems we had ( so far…). We have a great team!

It sounds like a positive turn of events. Not sure if this will put them back on track to unveil the plant in the near future. Rossi has said on numerous occasions that the plant needs to run for at least one year before they can consider the situation ‘consolidated’.

UPDATE #10 (Oct 1, 2014)

Andrea Rossi was asked today by Timyceyln whether he thought it would be wise to get outside experts in to help with the heat control system for the new E-Cat plant, which is where he and others think IH might be having problems.

Rossi replied:

In our Team there are specialists of the necessary fields and when we need support we ask it from external specialists of our trust. Obviously the control system are a vital part of the plant and your Group can be sure we have top level engineers that have designed it. Obviously we work only with persons who got the necessary clearance, beside the necessary professionality.

It’s interesting to learn that they are are reaching out to outside experts, too. There must now be a substantial number of people ‘in the know’, but his talk of ‘necessary clearance’ suggests that there are strict requirements of confidentiality put in place which would keep the news from spreading outside authorized circles.

UPDATE #9 (Oct 1, 2014)

A reader on the Journal of Nuclear Physics suggests that a positive report could put Rossi and IH under tremendous pressure from competition and the awakening of sleeping giants, including those who would want to steal the secrets of E-Cat technology. Rossi responded:

You have imagined the bright side of the moon. I should have to imagine the dark side of the moon. The consequences of a failure would be devastating.
In both cases, I will continue, as always, to pray God every morning and then put down at work, because in both cases much work will have to be done by our team. First of all, we want to see the 1 MW plant work well for a long, long time, and make profits for the company of our Customer. I have to focus on this, not on the sides of the moon.

It’s a good example of how Rossi sees his job. He doesn’t seem to spend too much time worrying about “what ifs”. His focus right now seems to be getting the 1 MW plant to run correctly, and I guess that the problems they have encountered with this project have heightened this focus. Failure in this first project would really set back the IH business plan — for who would want to deal with a company who can’t make a product that operates correctly?

UPDATE #8 (Sep 19, 2014)

I asked Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physicsabout the status of the 1MW plant that he reported had been taken to the customer’s plant and he responded:

We are resolving problems, in a preliminary phase. It will take at least one year before considering consolidated the situation.

In a follow-up I asked if they were still planning on allowing visits to the plants in the near future. His reply:

In the near future is impossible. In future yes, but I cannot give a scheduling, because it depends on what the Customer thinks: we are not in the factory of Industrial Heat, we are in the factory of a Customer. Presently we have problems to resolve.

So it appears that all is not going smoothly with this first installation. It’s not clear what the problems are, and I’m not sure that Rossi will be telling us.

UPDATE: Thanks to Barty for asking on the JONP about the nature of the problems they are experiencing:


We have a lot of minor problems; obviously I cannot give the particulars; also, we have to adjust the plant to the particular needs of the Customer, as you correctly said, therefore, as usually, from problems are born more problems. Lot of work to do.

Warm Regards,


More from the JONP:

Dear Andrea,
What you have in your installation program are bugs which are uncovered in any first field test. Just look at Apple with their introduction of the I-phone6 or Boeing with the 787. Nothing unusual.

AR: Yes, exactly; anyway, in my life I have designed and installed hundreds of industrial plants, never had the luck to see one pass through the first period of several months without troubles. This is NOT an exception.

UPDATE #7 (Sep 19, 2014)

Here are some new questions and answers from the Journal of Nuclear Physics that have just been posted regarding the 1 MW plant production:

1) Are the automated production lines running properly?
AR: We are not yet in a situation that justifies an automated production line, but we have already ready part of them and the designs for the complete operation. [Rossi added the following after the initial post:] Obviously, before we launch a mass production we need first of all to evaluate the report of the Independent Third Party, the results of at least one year of operation of the 1MW plant in the factory of the Customer and the follow up of our R&D process. Probably you think all this takes too much time: you have not idea of the thousands of thousands of particulars you have to adjust; the more you work, the more you have to work because new problems are born from former ones. It is a permanent ( Hi, Orsobubu!) struggle.
2) Have you shipped 5 or more 1MW plants during Aug and Sept?
AR: No
3) How many man hours does it take to assemble a 1MW plant?
This information is not available to the public.

The answer to question 1 does not surprise me; I expect that IH is in a preparatory stage, but since there are probably not many orders for E-Cat plants, there is no need for mass production yet. I would also guess that there will be a need for qore investment before mass production takes place — in terms of manufacturing machinery, labor, distribution, installation, and maintenance. I would expect and hope that the IH team will be planning carefully how they introduce the E-Cat to the public which could lead to interest from industry and orders for their plants.

UPDATE #6 (Sep 12, 2014)

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi made the following statement:

The 1 MW plant is in the factory of a Customer of IH. As far as I know, the Customer will not allow any video for the time being. IH has not jurisdiction in the factories of his Customers as for what is related to videos to be published. Eventually specific visits, as I already said, will be allowed, but it is too soon to talk about this. (emphasis added)

To the best of my recollection this is the first time that we have heard that the 1 MW plant has left the IH factory and is now on site at the customer’s premises where it will be put to work. I take this as good news; I am sure the plant will have been tested by IH, and if had been major operating problems, I don’t think the plant would have been shipped to the customer.

UPDATE #5 (Aug 20, 2014)

Andrea Rossi was asked on the Journal of Nuclear Physics what will be happening in September. He responded by writing:

“Our activity is in expansion, the team is increasing. Important events are on the verge to happen.”

UPDATE #4 (Aug 11, 2014)

Second update to this thread today — in another comment on the JONP today, Rossi I think indicates that things must be going well with the operation of the plant. He was responding to a comment about the name of the phenomenon and added:

I know that we have a consolidated explication about how the so called “Rossi Effect” works and the physical mechanirms that allow it to work. Otherwise, it could not work reliably in industrial applications.

UPDATE #3 (Aug 11, 2014)

To have the E-Cat working ‘reliably in industrial applications’ would seem to bode well for this first plant.

I asked Rossi today on the JONP about how things were looking behind the scenes from his perspective. He replied:

This is a period of top level engagement for what concerns the 1 MW plant, we are in the most critic moment; all our team is focused on it. About the Report, the waiting for it is a massive vibration in the field of anxiety.
Warm Regards,

UPDATE #2 (Aug 2, 2014)

I put some questions to Rossi on the JONP about the 1 MW plant today:

1. Will the customer of the first 1 MW plant be involved in the testing of the plant before it is installed to ensure it meets expected performance standards?

– No, we have to respect the guarantees of performance we signed for and we will be paid if the guarantees will be respected. As it happens for any kind of technological plant.

2. Will the plant replace an existing heat source at the customer’s location, or will it be installed on a brand new production line?

– Brand new production line with a back up in case of problems to our plant

3. Is your work on the 1MW plant currently on schedule?

When Rossi says the plant is ‘on schedule’, I think this may mean that it will be revealed this year. Just the other day he said “Visits will be allowed when the Customer will allow them, maybe within the year.”

– Yes

UPDATE #1 (Aug 1, 2014)

A question posed on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today by Hank Mills got an interesting answer from Andrea Rossi:

HM: Regardless if the one megawatt plant satisfies the customer or not, how much did it cost to build in parts and materials. (This does not include labor but only the container, electronics, plumbing, reactors, etc.)

AR: This information is confidential for commercial reasons, so far. I can say, though, that the production cost in $/Kw is very competitive with the cost of power of traditional power and heat generation systems.

Even though the numbers obviously remain confidential, there could be quite a revelation here from Rossi in that he is seems to be tacitly admitting that they have done enough testing on the system to be able to run the numbers in terms of overall costs of E-Cat produced energy compared to other energy technologies. Maybe he forgot to put his ‘positive or negative’ disclaimer here.

In other words, you can’t calculate the production cost in terms of $/kw unless you know the amount of energy you are producing. If the E-Cat is ‘very competitive’ in comparison with traditional power and heat generation systems, it sounds to me like positive results from the 1 MW plant.

  • Hi all

    In reply to Steven Irizarry

    The gist of a section of a report I wrote some time ago, so as to it still being relevant hmm… some might be, it is for the person involved to choose. Some already took the strategies I suggested many years back, particularly with regard to the fossil fuel market back in 2012/2013 those that did appear to have done well. 🙂

    I also advised that the only way for Fossil Fuel Suppliers to protect them selves against LENR would be to follow a market decline strategy and drop prices to the minimum to slow market penetration by LENR, and that the lowest cost suppliers should look to maximise market share so as to replace high margins on low volumes with low margins on higher volumes; the classic stack it high sell it cheap strategy of Walmart and Tesco. It would appear Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran are following this suggested strategy.

    As to big oil, they have their money in the bank they will be able to buy up soon to be bankrupt Fracking companies who have massive loans they cannot afford because they believed the oil bubble hype of Drill baby Drill. The loans were for Drilling which was very expensive, the wells are still viable and pump at costs not far from Saudi costs, so Big Oil and the banks will ride in on their Tax deductible white Chargers of corporate responsibility so snap up all the bankrupt wells, minus the tax write off for the defaulted loans. 😉

    That aspect on a boom is something I standby; in a boom it best to be the owner of the prospectors store/bank because that is who makes the real money in a gold rush.

    Kind Regards walker

  • dickyaesta

    ADMIN, sorry Frank for repeating, but I still get a blank page on your recently installed “Go to Comments” button, it doesn’t work on several platforms, as comments on my earlier post confirm, Thanks again.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, I hope it works now.

      • dickyaesta

        Yes perfectly,thank you.

  • NT

    Yes, lubricats, tires, asphalt roads, plastics, etc will be with us for awhile yet…

  • Michel Vandenberghe

    Hello Clovis, Talking about ‘Reactor” is way of thinking of the fossil fuels era… Do you think that it makes sense to build energy plants with a such Energy and power densities. Let’s Bet on consumer products and more with “LENR Inside’…

    • clovis ray

      It is becoming more clear, as the vials are pulled away, just how significant a discovery the rossi effect will become, it’s really scary if you look deep enough into the rabbit hole.

      • Michel Vandenberghe

        Yes, be ready 🙂 For instance : To design flying objects, let’s say planes for instance, W/KG is a key criteria Designers are close to the optimum as regards the weight of the object. But what if W/KG is becoming larger and larger, We might increase the weight 🙂 Be ready : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rJnXZsrMjU 🙂

      • Michel Vandenberghe

        Clovis, and it is the work of a community of pionners… I know it is the Ecat web site but… I’m ready to bet that as soon as the game is unlocked, one will find, let’s say some tens of different working ‘reactors’….

        • clovis ray

          Well, you want to name some of those pioneers, that have called or went to Dr. Rossi and said here you go a new advanced part for your e-cat, or does any of them have a working reactor device that actually produces usable power.
          Dr. Rossi, is the only one that has produced such a device, he and he alone has developed this new techanogly, i personally believe that it is neither lenr, or any of it synonyms, and cold fusion , maybe but not in it f/p configuration, what i think it is would be something brand new, i call it the Rossi effect, nothing else seems to fit, i personally don’t think it’s even nuclear , not sure about that one.

          • Michel Vandenberghe

            Hello Clovis, if it is fully unknown I will agree to talk about the Rossi effec 🙂

          • Michael W Wolf

            Yes it is LENR. But I changed up the acronym to fit. Low Energy Nano Reactions. LENR. Which it should be called until we know what exactly it is.

    • power plant were invented because it was polluting or dangerous , in cities, or there was need for big units to make economy of scale.

      today with lenr, big plant just add cost as power lines .

  • Michel Vandenberghe

    Hello Mats, Franck, my 2 cents opinion 🙂 I think what is the most important is not the technological proof but the market proof. What would unleash investment will be the proof that there are effective manufacturing agreements with China, US and some others. If there is manufacturing agreement there’s working product. What is important is the core technology, not the product. Core technology cannot be protected and msut not be protected. I bet that the LENR law will soon such as “effective power density will double every 6 months” Thus will decrease size, weight, raw materials costs, enable wider integration and so on… The only way for any company with a as usual business model is to be in a position to propose a return on investment short enough to get customers to invest in the product. Do not forget how much value this technology will destroy at first…



  • Ophelia Rump

    This is a very curious statement.

    “The charge size has been refined with the experience in thousands of experiments and, obviously, also on the base of theoretical considerations.”

    It suggests that the fuel size is a found window rather than a chosen value and that it is a critical factor.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      No but he could also just mean GIVEN THE WANTED DURATION the charge size is calculated by the experience etc.

      • Ophelia Rump

        That is not what those words mean.

        If they could make the charge any desired size then there is no point in refining the charge size. Altering the charge size would be trivial and the adjustment of other variables critical.
        That is the opposite of what he stated.

        • Michael W Wolf

          That is what the ecat x is about, right?

  • Sanjeev
    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      From the blog:
      “I have also been told that the total amount of fuel—mostly harmless elements such as litium, hydrogen and nickel, according to Andrea Rossi’s granted patent on the technology—was in the range of tenths of grams.”

      I assume that is referring to the amount of fuel that was changed from mass to energy. I assume the total amount of fuel was in the 100’s of grams.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Certainly. Let’s say the plant has produced 7 GWh during the 350 days (COP 6 assumed). The relativistic mass equivalent of that amount of energy comes to 0.28 g – indeed a few “tenths of grams”.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Most of the energy comes from the two of the lightest atoms that exist – H and Li.

          It is my feeling that the 2 outer heat transfer plates in each wafer are thin to ‘thick’ film coated with Ni62 via physical vapour deposition and each plate would actually use extremely little actual reactants.

          • Axil Axil

            When does MFMP plan to come up to speed on physical vapour deposition if at all.

            • Bob Greenyer

              We will use 96% pure 62Ni in powder form from same source as Rossi in our next *GlowStick*. baby steps.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          I think it’s quite safe to use a COP of 20. That makes the numbers even more impressive.

  • ke

    This is in reference to update 40, the changing of the charge. The initial device was the E-cat. Then along came the E-cat X a few months into the year long test. The original E-cat was relegated to function as a backup, sitting on idle (I would guess)in case the E-catX malfunctioned. Correct? Neither the E-cat nor the E-catX have been running at full power for 11 or 12 months. And that was the stated goal? To run for 350 days without having to recharge?? Rossi may have been able to provide continuous heat for his customer, but a year without having to refuel is stretching it.

    • ecatworld

      No, I don’t believe the E-Cat X was used in the 1MW plant. According to AR it is still in the R&D phase.

      • kenko1

        I was confusing the E-catX with the 20kW and 250 kW E-cats. Were both the 20 & 250 started at the same time?

        • Omega Z

          Note both the 20kW and 250kW E-cats were of low temperature reactors.

          The 20kW reactors were tested to confirm they would work. These were kept on hand for backup puposes, but never used.

          Only the four 250kW E-cats were used throughout the test.

  • LuFong

    Based on Rossi’s statement on July 6th, 2015 that they were 136 days into the test, there were 178 days remaining in 2015, and February 17th, 2016 is day 48 of 2016, the test lasted 360 days. This also implies only 10 down days if the required 350 up days are factored in. I may be off here 1-2 days depending on how things are counted.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Or he had much more downtime on the four 250KW modules, but the 10KW modules took over in those instances.

      Either way, good calculation. Makes sense.

      • Axil Axil

        I don’t remember seeing that Rossi fired up the backup unit.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Me neither, but I doubt we hear or see everything that’s going on.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi has said that the 20KW reactors were never used other then to initially operate them in the beginning to assure they worked.

            It could be questioned if the 1MW system actually completed 350 days of operation. Say it were only 340 days completed, but the fuel charge is exhausting and needs replaced. All concerned could agree the test period has conclude within reason as a few days would not matter.

            Anyway, we don’t know the exact day it started or how many down days were counted. Do you count as 1 day down when a single 250KW reactor is off line for a few hours, yet the reactors still in operation can compensate for that short period. Was the contract of expectations really rigid or was there some flexibility.

            • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

              Good points. So if those 20KW reactors haven’t been used, the downtime was probably less than we thought or what constitutes downtime is more loosely defined than we think.

            • clovis ray

              I believe this is correct Omega,after the standby l/t cats were tested, the 250kw kitty’s were put to the test, both l/t e-cat, it was the design that were being tested, and doing so a new design was discovered, the new and improved model, don’t you know, smile

  • Hi all

    In relation to sometthing Axil Axil said

    “Axil Axil deleo77 • 18 minutes ago

    Currently, with the price of natural gas so low, it will be a hard market for the E-Cat to penetrate,”

    I pointed out some time ago, several years now 🙂 that the only solution available to fossil fuel sellers in the start of the LENR age was a market decline strategy of minimising price to slow the uptake of LENR so as to maximise the period of time Fossil Fuel was of value.

    It was advice in a report I made 😉

    It would appear those who took the report, acted upon it with the strategy I suggested and that many others followed suit.They had no problem with me making gist of the report available later. Very hard to cause people problems with regard to insider trading when they can point to aspects of the inside information being publicly available. 🙂

    Kind Regards walker

    • Axil Axil

      Competition has alway tended to minimize the price of these competing products.

    • Heath

      Or purposely lower the price of oil (…talking to you, OPEC) for the world so that the introduction of LENR with regards to oil commodities and futures is already priced in, thus preventing global economic collapse of an oil-based world.

      • Hi all

        In reply to Heath

        Also true 🙂

        Also add in

        * Sell off Fossil Fuel Assets
        * Short lease energy asset production
        * Short Fossil Fuels 🙂
        * Have lots of cash to buy the prizes 🙂
        * Invest in space industries
        * Invest in energy dependent industry

        To name a few.

        There will be a boom. It is the owner of the prospectors store/bank who makes the real money in a gold rush.

        Kind Regards walker

        • Omega Z

          Oil would have to drop to 1 cent a gallon or 42 cents per barrel. Once E-cats use electricty from other E-cats then it would need to sell for about 4 cents a barrel. Neither would ever happen.

          Oil is based on current supply/demand. The advent of LENR being publically known would only impact future oil lease right costs. The current cost of oil would still be based on current supply/demand.

          • Carl Wilson

            “The current cost of oil would still be based on current supply/demand.” And many say that current cost is below the cost of “producing” the oil from non-conventional sources (tar sands, LTO (light, tight oil — which is gotten by fracking), very deep off shore). How long can that go on?

            • Omega Z

              How long can that go on?

              Longer then 1 might think.
              Many who don’t fully grasp how the oil business works have asked, Why don’t larger OilCO’s who have little debt & cash reserves buy up these small debt ridden Oil companies & take on their debt & keep the oil pumping?

              The answer is, They are buying these companies. After they file bankruptcy & discharging of the debt. They buy them for Nickles on the dollar. They can then put these wells back into production and make money below $10 a barrel & some as low as $5 a barrel.
              When you open a new shale oil field, you have long distance pipelines to build, storage tanks and an array of other structures. Thus the estimated$40/$50 per barrel production cost(The initial investment). The cost of all wells drilled in an already opened field are substantially cheaper which is why they are still drilling new wells.

              • Carl Wilson

                “They can then put these wells back into production” — I was under the impression that they avoided taking them out of production since stopping and then restarting is a hassle and can result in less subsequent production.

                • Omega Z

                  Normally they avoid taking them out of production because they can’t sell oil that way. 🙂

                  Well’s are taken offline all the time for maintenance. If it effected output, it would be due to a heavy wax based oil buildup. If that were the case, it is likely taken offline periodically for scheduled steam cleaning.

                  The only issue of taking well’s offline is when it’s for extended periods of time. If it’s a productive well, it must be pumped periodically to prove so, as non productive well’s are required to be capped as in filled with concrete top to bottom.

                  Note: Only about 1 in 100 well’s perform to movie style gushers. The other 99 are very non dramatic we have acceptable traces of oil in the mud, lets frack it and install the pumps. They are no different then water wells except water flows through the porous rock easier.

                • Carl Wilson
    • builditnow

      or, self interest, i.e. the Saudi’s aiming to be the “last to pump oil”. Within a month of the Indian panic to get back into LENR, (Persian Gulf News a few years back) the Saudi’s started their strategy of “keep on pumping”. When the news hits the public that there is a new energy source… from water … the lack of interest in oil could help to push the oil prices up a bit and give the Saudi’s some breathing room to adjust.

      Many other oil producers have to now pump furiously in order to try and stop their budgets hemorrhaging, hence, an oil glut.
      The “mysterious” oil glut explained?

    • Carl Wilson

      “Currently, with the price of natural gas so low, it will be a hard market for the E-Cat to penetrate”
      Currently the price of natural gas is low if you are positioned well with respect to a major gas pipe line. If you are depending on LNG (liquefied natural gas) it’s a different mater. There’s a hell of a lot of capital investment that goes into LNG delivery.
      Natural gas price is low in the US because (1) a lot of it is produced in conjunction with fracked oil and (2) a lot of the fracked gas has to be produced in order to meet interest payments. Familiarize yourself with the saga of Chesapeake Energy if you have doubts.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    I will officially change my avatar to a donkey if the E-Cat provably works.

  • Mats002

    Cheers sam, – to Rossi!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Mats Lewan @matslew (10 minutes ago in Twitter):

    “Historic event: Yesterday the 1-year 1MW #Ecat trial was completed. No official results yet, but sources say it’s been successful.

    • artefact


    • Mats002

      Hope sources is something more than ‘Rossi says’… Mats is well connected hope for at least a second source if verification, after all he is an experienced journalist.

      • Axil Axil

        The only party not covered by a NDA is Rossi.

    • Sanjeev

      That certainly adds weight to the “Rossi says”.
      Very good news.

    • pg

      Mats please come clean.

  • bfast

    This is truly a THRILLING day for LENR!

    • Axil Axil

      Its like having your car stuck in the snow. A small movement when the wheels take hold briefly gets exciting but you still need a tow truck to get you out.

      • Brokeeper

        Axil Axil, I love most of your comments, but how many cynical pills have you taken lately? 🙂

        • Axil Axil

          Somebody must keep your feet planted on the ground. Remember how the Lugano report was brutalized.

          • Brokeeper

            I also am waiting for the mass production to put the opposite cynics in their place. Feeding them messages of hopeful affirmations will cause them to want to dig deeper holes to fall into when the market is flooded with E Cats. (hehe)

            • Axil Axil

              LENR must not face the world like a charging and enraged elephant, but like a stealthy mosquito that hunts in the night carrying a deadly package of malaria.

              • Brokeeper

                It’ll take longer but that works also, but malaria has dangers to make them blinder.

              • bachcole

                These two analogies are not mutually exclusive. The malarial mosquitoes of industrial development will be impossible to oppose, but slow. The raging elephant will be the communications racing across the world, with plenty of opposition.

                Talk, pro or con, is incredibly cheap.

                The two analogs will work together.

          • Michael W Wolf

            There is only one result. the electric bill from this year to lats year minus the fuels Rossi used. They would have to say the electric company is in on it. This is it. Either they paid more or less. And if they didn’t keep trick of those numbers, they are either incompetent or fraudulent. But this is it, maybe not for lenr, but for Rossi’s ecat. period. F9 is here! lol

            • Michael W Wolf

              and this would take a month? SMH.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The Lugano report came up against cold hard facts. But mostly, they did not read the optris manual

            • Axil Axil

              The fact that a very large blob of pure nickel had melted and was extracted off the wall of the core speaks to the possibility that the Lugano reactor met of exceeded the melting point of nickel(1350C) at some point leads me to suspect that those hard fact were not so truthy(superficially true; that is asserted or felt instinctively to be true, with no recourse to facts.).

              • Bob Greenyer

                In all our tests and those of others – you don’t see Nickel “entrusted on the inside of the reactor” you see Li/Al/H/Ni (low dissolved %age) on inside and the Nickel gets sintered in the middle into a porous rod covered with the same material as on the inside of the core.

                The best place for the Nickel to be is on the heat extraction surface if that is where the most heat is localised. Depositing it there makes sense – especially if, as one would expect, you nearly need no amount of it and it may be a really expensive isotope.

            • The Ferrara reports is much better and sadly the only reason it is not supported is that an obscure conspiracy theory was published by Pomp&clown associated.

              This conspiracy theory is is absolutely incompatible with Lugano Optris fiasco , but that is not a problem for people just desiring to be fooled.

              I expect similar self-delusion for 1MW report…

              the gang of the clown will publish a 9/11 inspired report, proving E-cat is a sequel of Apollo fake moon landing like 9/11… and all the mass of sheep will believe their theory.

              Meanwhile some tycoon and corp executive will prepare for the disruptive impact, will suffer from general delusion, and will anyway develop their projects in the underground.

  • artefact

    You can look at updat #23. Much more is not known.

  • Mats002

    Noted. The count down counter now aims at the ERV report (approximate).

    No report, no party. So a bit more of waiting…

    • Axil Axil

      A report does not accomplish anything. Only massive installation of the industrial product will have impact on opinion and the attitude and the direction that science takes.

      • deleo77

        I really want to hear something from Tom Darden. He has basically gone silent on all of this for the past 6 months. Will he have anything to say in 30 days? I believe IH’s business model is to sell heat. So it is pretty basic math. How much did it cost IH to produce the heat with the 1 MW plant for the customer (electricity costs, plus the cost of the plant itself with operation and maintenance), versus how much were they able to charge the customer for it? If IH can make money doing that, then they will want to do a lot more of it. But if they didn’t make any money, or lost money, then they won’t move forward. A year of field testing should give them these answers. I think/hope we will know the basic answer to this from what Tom Darden ends up saying or not saying.

        • Axil Axil

          Currently, with the price of natural gas so low, it will be a hard market for the E-Cat to penetrate,

          • deleo77

            I agree – it would be tough for it in the U.S. right now. So I have to believe they are thinking China. They don’t have the same natural gas resources and have a terrible pollution problem from coal. But China is also going heavily into nuclear. Still, it seems like an easier market to get into than the U.S. and Europe.

            • Axil Axil

              What happened to that LENR city that China and IH were going to build? Rossi may not be apart of that deal.

        • Hi all

          There is money in silence at the start, many ducks need to be in a row to maximise profits in many market.

          Kind Regards walker

      • Mats002

        That position will make you a winner either way Axil 😉

        • Axil Axil

          I like no lose situations.

    • Michael W Wolf

      When you look back on this comment, you will laugh. It’s been this way for the past 25 years. This is a corner, Rossi is in it. I can’t see that report doing anything but support Rossi. But sorry, I’ve been partying 2 years now, just waiting for all you to join me. I had this figured out in a few months 2 years ago. From Rossi to Orbo to BLP, the miracle is, so many don’t know it yet.

  • dickyaesta

    Frank, sorry to say but recently installed “Go to comments” leads to a blank page on my android tablet. What might I do wrong? Inspite of this minor thing, keep up the good work, you are phenomenal.

    • Alain Samoun

      Same here.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Same here on tablet and pc.

    • Michael W Wolf

      yea, it says you need to be admin.

    • MWerner

      same here with Win7 and Chrome

  • Barbierir

    Great! I hope a report will be published and so Mats will hold the symposium in Stockholm.

    • Axil Axil

      Much like the Lugano report, this new report will keep our discussion going for a few more months, but that’s about it.

      • Business logic suggests that we won’t hear much of significance until some time after an ‘insiders’ industrial leasing drive has taken place for next generation CF thermal plants, and other moves have been consolidated. Those who have other plans for the way things go forward from here will probably now begin to react to what they will perceive as a threat to the status quo, and I hope Rossi’s people are ready for this.

        While I remain optimistic that things are largely as Rossi says they are (meaningful certification excluded) I think that from now on things will get darker as far as the peanut gallery is concerned, and we will hear less and less about production of industrial plants as the internal wheels of IH/Leonardo/??? grind faster. Rossi may still issue vague ‘updates’ on e-cat X but we will have no way of telling whether the revolution is gathering pace or is being subsumed by the existing energy cabals until it’s too late for any outsiders to take action.

        Sorry about the gloom. I hope I’m wrong about all this.

        • Axil Axil

          Loose lips sink ships.

          Like under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, drafted every civilian into the war effort. Women were sent into factories to build wafers replacing the men who had gone to war. School children organized scrap-metal …

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I want to hear from customer, did he make money from plant using less energy?! Can they keep the identity of customer secret for very long, after the ERV”s report?

    • Axil Axil

      Yes they can.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        If report is positive, it will be very hard. If we have a positive report from a customer, will undermine the vast majority of skeptics.

        • Axil Axil

          Rossi has done many hard things, Doing hard things is his specialty.

    • Omega Z


      It isn’t that hard for a group of people to keep a secret. It’s done all the time. It is usually just a slip of the tongue that causes leaks.

      That said, (Nearly all of society), Knowing nothing about LENR should someone inadvertently have a slip of the tongue, Who would believe it. And if repeated, you can imagine in what context that would be in(incredulity).

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        I understand, I am saying if the report is positive, I think it (LENR) now has a good chance to be picked up by major media and if that happens it will be hard to keep the customer out of the news story. Beyond that if it is a very positive test why would IH want to keep it a secret given their goal of ending coal as a fuel, they would want the tech out as soon as possible.

  • GreenWin

    Great news! Congratulations Dr. Rossi. Looking forward to reading the test results.

    • Axil Axil

      This report is now old tech to be replaced with the E-Cat X.

  • Well, it looks like the current E-Cat fuel formula allows for 10 full months of operation with no sign of diminished efficiency, and for months 11 and 12 with some drop in efficiency while maintaining at least usable energy output. With tweaking of the formula, I would suspect that a 12 month refueling schedule for operational E-Cat reactors could be attained.

    The E-Cat X puts out more energy with higher efficiency, and therefore may require refueling more often. I think a car with at least a 100,000 mile range without refueling is very possible (f9).

    • artefact

      “and therefore may require refueling more often”
      I would say it then just needs more fuel.

      • Axil Axil

        Refueling a wafer implies complete replacement of the LENR package.

        • artefact

          I mean a bigger core (more fuel) that lasts longer.

          • Axil Axil

            I doubt that Rossi has made his wafer modular. That modularity would be harder to make in a robot driven production plant.

    • Axil Axil

      As a well informed customer, I would want the E-Cat C model.

  • Curbina

    Well, I think that was unexpected, but I am really happy, now, if we will ever have knowledge of the report, is another thing, but I’m sure Rossi will let us now enough for knowing if F9 or not F9.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    As predicted……… the super skeptics are attacking the ERV before he reports, while the customer quietly makes large profits because of vastly reduced energy costs.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      If you’re referring to me, I don’t like to think of myself as a “super skeptic”. More like a rationalist. I don’t think we’ll hear from the ERV directly, ever. Rossi has let on as much.

      • Brent Buckner

        You wrote: “All that we have to go on is Rossi’s past behavior.”

        We also have the involvements and track records of Cherokee and Woodford to consider.

        • Axil Axil

          Additional future investment will be a good sign.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        No, I was not necessarily referring only to you, the usual deniers of LENR are out in force.

        • Axil Axil

          You ain’t seen nothin yet

  • LuFong

    The test has ended rather suddenly in my view given Rossi’s previous announcements and timing of the fuel recharge. All this secrecy with the 1MW plant and focus on the E-Cat X particularly in an industrial capability is also perplexing. What will be most interesting to me is Industrial Heat’s actions following the test. It’s my understanding that this 1MW plant and test is by Industrial Heat and not Leonardo Corp and we should be hearing from them about the future of the low-heat 1MW plant.

    • psi2u2

      I agree that is worth looking forward to. The test ending before expected could be interpreted either as a sign that it was less successful than anticipated, that it was more successful than anticipated, or even that it was agreed by those directly involved to end it for some other reason.Or it might even mean that the test was largely successful in generating excess heat over the duration of the test period but that late-occurring technical problems forced an emergency shut down, which is a result both successful (proof of concept of industrial quality steam production) and unsuccessful (design impediments).

      I submit that it is therefore not useful to assume to much about such facts. We do agree, however, in looking forward to hearing from IH and any other third party testers involved in the test.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        I want to hear from customer, did he make money from plant using less energy?!

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Right, we do not know if IH sold the plant to customer or he is selling the heat from the plant, probably the latter. I still think there is a fallout between IH and Rossi, with Rossi building a new version of his E-Cat maybe not licenced by IH. Legal battle looming?

      • LuFong

        Well we know IH acquired certain rights to Rossi’s technology. My guess is it’s the low-temperature E-Cat. It’s also my understanding that the 1MW plant and test is a product of IH although they have never announced the test except through Rossi’s blog so who knows.

        I doubt there will be a legal battle. IH’s stated goal is to advanced the technology in order to limit environmental damage by carbon based energy sources. Evidently they have also invested in other forms of LENR. It could be that these other forms are more promising or that they are only looking to advance the technology and pass it along to others to implement.

        All conjecture but that’s all we have given IH’s relative silence and Rossi-speak.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          You have a lot more confidence in IH’s pure motives than I do. Why the silence? Are they protecting their investment? Why the separate huge laboratory? Cannot wait to hear from the customer, there has to be clauses in the contract between IH and customer about disclosure of test information. If positive, we will see if IH distributes these results so the world can benefit.

          • LuFong

            I’m sure if you had deep pockets (I’m assuming you don’t :)) I’m sure they would love to talk to you. I also am willing to bet that some investors have already been through the facility with the 1MW plant. It’s how things work.

            • Bernie Koppenhofer

              So, you don’t believe IH’s purpose in life is to save the planet?

              • Sandpiper

                I don’t think looking for sources of additional funding is incompatible with this goal.

              • LuFong

                I don’t think looking for additional financing is incompatible with this goal.

              • Axil Axil

                When THEY take IH seriously, IH will be up to their eyeballs in alligators.

      • Axil Axil

        IH must shell out more money to get rights to the new Rossi IP.

    • Axil Axil

      I wonder if IH has a seperate R&D effort underway.

      • LuFong

        I would imagine they do probably more in line with applying the technology to industrial applications. On the other hand, Rossi claims he is the CTO so that would imply no. If Rossi’s E-Cat is a go with IH we’ll find out shortly.

  • psi2u2

    Congratulations, Dr. Rossi.

    We look forward to the results of the test. I hope that insofar as it is in Rossi’s power that he will take into consideration the importance not just of the results of the test report, but its *ethos,* its reputation for independence and rigor, as raised by other posters below. This is something I am sure that Rossi himself can best ascertain in consultation with his partners at IH. Without a strong ethos, the report will have a much reduced impact in convincing the world of the existence and reality of industrial-scale LENR.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Now watch Rossi quietly shift onto talking exclusively about E-Cat X in the next, but probably not last, chapter of this never-ending bait and switch.

    • artefact

      Not quietly, he said so: “No more information about the 1 MW E-Cat that made the tests from now until the publication of the results will be allowed.”

      • Teemu Soilamo

        Fair enough, but I meant more generally. In about a month or so, Rossi is probably going to announce that the ERV report has been released, but is classified. He will say anyway that the test “has been a success” and maybe provide some rough numbers. However, he will then probably announce that since the E-Cat X is superior in every way to the old Hot Cat, Leonardo Corporation will abandon its commercialization in lieu of “the very strong progress we’re making on the industrial E-Cat X plant”, to be installed at the site of a new mystery customer, and so it goes.

        • John Littlemist

          You forget that Cherokee and Woodford have already invested to “old” E-Cat. AFAIK, intellectual property of old E-Cat belongs to to IH. If Rossi and IH parted, IH could productize E-Cat without Rossi, right?

          • psi2u2

            Exactly. These doubts are perhaps understandable, but they appear more and more unreasonable the more we examine the larger context. I tried to add a reference to the Cherokee acquisition to the wikipedia article about Andrea Rossi. You’d think I’d just pissed on Queen Victoria’s tiara for the response it got — immediate excision and a stern lecture from one the more third-rate wiki-police. Rossi’s critics don’t look very good right now.

        • psi2u2

          Did you predict that Rossi would be paid a reported 12 million for rights to an earlier e-cat technology by one of the most brilliant energy and environment sector entrepreneurs, a man with a growing reputation for making money by *doing the right thing* by the world and its inhabitants? What a sucker, huh? Why haven’t we heard from Mr. Darden about your “bait and switch” theory? Is he in on the act?

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          yea teemu, while I am bullish on LENR as a field. I am loosing faith in rossi. Primarily because I view the recent fascination with E-CAT X as a distraction no matter how great its performance is.

          As a number of people have said before. Given the information Rossi has provided to date on the 1MW trial the only way you can consider this a failure is if your sole focus is on commercialization AND there exists no business model where a recharge every 9-10 months is considered acceptable.

          Since I highly doubt that one couldn’t build a business model around a 9-10 month recharge for some customers. I find that suspect.In addition if the results discussed so far have been entirely accurate. Publishing the information from the ERV would pretty much guarantee a train load of new investment money. Because Rossi would not only have working LENR, he would have working LENR that is a stone’s through from full commercialization.

          So like teemu I am leaning towards skeptical. What happens a month from now around the ERV report will pretty much push me over to complete skepticism bordering on believing this COULD be a scam; or restore my faith. That said what I believe should have ZERO influence on Rossi’s decision making. He and the people close to him have absolute understanding of the situation they are in. So there could be something none of is are aware of.

      • psi2u2

        Facts are always so embarrassing.

  • georgehants

    Admin, what was the date of your Website opening, interesting to see how long from then to the hopefully indisputable conformation of Mr. Rossi’s work?
    Also the date of the first report on his claims published in New Scientist that started me off following his progress?
    Historic dates that need to go into Mats next book assuming that the long awaited report is at last reasonably indisputable by everybody except the irrelevant maryyugo ECN and the vast majority of the scientific community and their premier comics.

    • ecatworld

      April 14, 2011 — here’s the first post: http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/04/14/welcome-to-e-cat-world/

      • georgehants

        Wonderful, your first comment was shown to be very predictive especially —–
        “We will be publishing the latest news relating to the e-cat (right now you won’t learn much from the mainstream media).”
        That has not changed much.
        Long may ECW serve such an important purpose.

        • psi2u2

          George, nice question. I am always entertained and in some way enlightened when I read your posts, even when I don’t agree sometimes with what you say.

          But in this case — exactly. That will indeed be an interesting fact for the history books — for this underlines the historic role played by Frank and others in the dissemination of news about LENR during these early days, when MaryYugo was still in her prime. 😉

  • WayneM

    The test is over and an “independent” report is forthcoming in “about” a month.

    That’s quite a large, atypical stake in the ground for Dr. Rossi.

    We know the report is going to be positive. The real concern is how independent the ERV is from IH or Dr. Rossi. Watch out for an F9 on independence.

    Maybe this time when we drop the rock down the well, we’ll hear the splash.

    Hope springs eternal.

    • Bob Matulis

      The same thing occurred to me. The big question is the ERV credibility.

      • Sanjeev

        I’d settle for a known and credible customer who has a big reputation and big billions to lose. We mostly know what the ERV is going to say. Only new info will be the numbers.

        • psi2u2

          This might well do it. I agree. With the proper methodology, the right sign-offs from authors or witnesses, incorporation of some kind of third party involvement for certain critical measurements (hey, the power company works pretty well here if you have year-over-year records of power usages and expenses to supply the same industrial end product for both periods) and properly “marketed” by someone like Darden (assuming he’s ready to fully emerge from partial stealth mode), it could be good enough.

          • Axil Axil

            The ERV will not work in the nuclear industry again. This must he his last job before retirement,

            • psi2u2

              Interesting. Can this be true if LENR is real? Is that how blindly cut-throat this is? Won’t he/she/it find alternative employment in LENR and other types of testing?

    • artefact

      There is also the customer who measures himself.

  • We’re at a pivot point in human history.

    ERV: works! and I’m credible! ====> Brand new energy world begins!
    ERV: works! but I’m nobody! ====> delay, delay, delay
    ERV: works! but I’m in Rossi’s sphere of influence ====> clowns and snakes
    ERV: nothing ====> confusion, accusations
    ERV: doesn’t work! and I’m credible ====> wtf
    ERV: doesn’t work! but I’m connected to TPTB ====> possible obfuscation
    ERV: doesn’t work! but I am a known critic ====> true believers go conspiracy theory

    • bachcole

      Another excellent analysis by LENR G.

      I predict that reality will land somewhere between these two:

      ERV: works! and I’m credible! ====> Brand new energy world begins!
      ERV: works! but I’m nobody! ====> delay, delay, delay

      • Bob Matulis

        Agreed. I hope closer to the top one but expect closer to the second.

      • Brokeeper

        He had not used ‘nobodies’ before, just not well knowns.
        Something has to come out very positive, Else what is the point of refueling?

    • I predict :
      ERV: works, reasonably credible but not “high impact” (because all such have refused)
      -> like for Ferrara one obscure skeptic dump an unbelievable conspiracy theory -> result ignored, back to zero. -> informed industrialist(s) but the products, informed competitors launch research programs-> zero media coverage

      • psi2u2

        Indeed, succinct and to the point, my friend.It boggles the imagination. It even seems our friend at Forbes may have taken a beating for his earliest upbeat reporting. Such impressions are symptomatic of the climate of suppression (as well, perhaps, as legitimate government secrecy about an extremely important, revolutionary new power source) that seems to surround LENR. What makes such evidence (i.e., e.g., the absence of commentary from major “third party” news sources and clear attempts in some places to gag the real discussion) so interesting to me is the fact that it is predicted if Rossi’s results are real. So, I suppose you could call me paranoid – except that I don’t see any of this suppression as a real threat. By this time the research community is sufficiently alerted to the potentialities of LENR that even if someone succeeded in stopping Rossi, LENR would come out anyway. Attempts to block it by ordinance or state law or possibly federal law on safety grounds will, assuming an actually low safety profile as seems likely, in the long run prove futile through international competition. The Chinese, for example, are living with their own already existing environmental catastrophe wrought by desertification and high dependence on coal. They will not be so ready to block manufacture of LENR devices.

        All in all, I was not surprised that yesterday (or so) the second largest coal company in the world filed for chapter 11. They are restructuring their debt. Very smart move if you ask me, especially assuming that one of the first uses of the industrial e-cat at which Cherokee is aiming, is the retrofit market to existing coal plants. It makes perfect sense. These plants have the infrastructure for heating water to generate electricity. Any kind of fuel source will work in them and take advantage of existing infrastructure, and maybe in some cases even allow partially abandoned infrastructure to be profitably be revived into service using the e-cat to generate the heat for the Carnot cycle.

        Wouldn’t you restructure your debt and unload a lot of baggage from your long term pursuit of an essentially unprofitable (when you calculate the environmental and health costs into the picture) if you were a coal executive, if you knew what Cherokee and Rossi were planning? I sure would.

        • Brokeeper

          Exactly, surely knowing the high etchelons of China know about the E-Cat, then rest assured energy sector CEO’s know it as well. Another steady decline in oil/coal futures are about to occur. Better to dump than to take a lump.

        • psi2u2

          PS — all of which also contributes to my confidence level in the essential reality of the e-cat. It is not a coincidence that Darden is in the middle of coal country in North Carolina. So he brings a local solution to a local problem at the same time that he is bringing an international solution to an international problem. And I retrace the evolution of Rossi’s focus, originally on the home-cat, to the 1 MW sized industrial reactor and ask myself which one fits Darden’s strategy better then I start to understand (I think) what is actually happening. Add to this the undeniable fact that Rossi’s original plan was a lot more likely to result in terrible social fractures and lawsuits and even maybe open violence around the world as power companies found their revenue streams chopped off at the knees in one blow. I think Rossi made the right move. But more recently he has made clear that he’s still pursuing the home-sized e-cat, and I would interpret the x-cat as being a more advanced version, now said to produce significant electricity, of that original small home-scaled device.

          But not letting the existing utilities share in the LENR goldrush was not really a smart option, politically. Hence the recent focus on the 1 MW plant in an industrial time scale over a year’s run makes perfect sense (well, it makes a perfect sentence, too….:). The utilities will probably get the first bite of the apple and be given a several year advantage by regulators.

    • psi2u2

      Hahaha. Nice.

  • sam

    Can someone explain how the test are done.

    • artefact

      In general: The plant is operating at a customer of industrial heat and delivers 1 MW/h as heat that the customer uses. Three parties (industrial heat, the expert responsible for validation and the customer) measure input, output and other things. The plant is videotaped inside and probably also outside.
      Or do you mean more specific?