Energy = Money? A Proposal For a New Currency Based on Rossi’s E-Cat Technology

As people contemplate the possibilities that a revolutionary energy technology could bring it soon becomes clear that it has the potential to fundamentally change the way we do everything. One of the great promises of an invention like the E-Cat is that it would allow for the decentralization of energy production — every community, or even every home could produce its own power. Once we start thinking along those lines we realize how much the current status quo could by disrupted.

A UK-based organization named Xecnet, whose mission is “is to be enablers of the profound cultural changes which organizations must undergo if they are to continue to exist and indeed prosper” sees E-Cat technology as providing an opportunity for the opening of a whole new world of possibilities for mankind and an improvement of the human condition.

Xecenet has recently published a book, Rossi’s eCat: Free Energy, Free Money, Free People by John Mitchell in which the economic and social implications of the E-Cat are explored. Mitchell believes the invention could herald the beginning of a new era.

Raymond Aitken is close to the board of directors of Xecenet and a friend of John Mitchell. He curates a page dealing with E-Cat economics and following discussions with Mitchell has written an essay which reflects upon how new economic and financial models could spring out of the birth of E-Cat technology. In the essay he writes:

“Once industrial eCats are commercially available, we can imagine the establishment of energy production enterprises on a cooperative basis, serving a local-regional economic area, to serve the energetic needs of a bio-region, in accordance with the human development potential, based on human values and the integrity of the local environment.

The energy production enterprise would also function as a new type of local economic development bank, which would put into circulation an interest-free energy-backed currency to facilitate trade and provide working capital for local enterprises (thereby generating work), as well as the creation of investment finance (equity-based) for the development of new or existing enterprises and maintenance or creation of productive human capital, both social capital
(education and training) and material capital (physical assets and infrastructures) To avoid any conflict of interest, this “bank” would be owned by its users (cooperative legal structure), who would appoint professionals to manage it.”

In the interests of space, and also to preserve the author’s formatting, Raymond Aitken’s complete essay, entitled “Roosevelt, World War 3 and the eCat: a Paradigm Shift Towards the Freedom of Decentralised Responsibility” is available here in PDF format.

If E-Cat technology does indeed emerge as a powerful and cheap energy source we will no doubt start seeing all kinds of proposals on how it can best be integrated into our world, and it seems inevitable that the forces for decentralizing power production and distribution will be very strong — and the social and economic implications could be profound.

  • daniel maris

    I think this article is running ahead of reality in as much as the energy produced by E cat is not going to be even cheap, still less free. What we can hope for I think is that it might come in competitive with coal and gradually reduce in cost as the economies of scale make its manufacture much cheaper.

    However, I do think that this article does point to some trends and potential future developments.

    In the future the emphasis will I think be less on a money economy and more on real home-based or community-based production.

    We can certainly see people becoming energy independent within their own homes. Once energy is free or v. cheap then you might be able to say extract all the water you need from the atmosphere.
    Similarly with plenty of energy and water and maybe home composting, one can imagine that home food production will become a possibility. That might start in a small way to begin with – maybe a salad producer.

    The world – assuming we don’t poison it or blow it up – is becoming a more open place where there will be many opportunities for new ways of doing things.

  • Francesco CH

    Focus published an interview (in Italian) with the delegation of Confindustria (the Italian employers’ federation) that was present to the event of October 6, 2011:

  • Francesco CH

    Stremmenos’ stance on Defkalion GT’s 10 October 2011 statement (in polished English):

  • georgehants

    A car based on the E-CAT or electricity supplied by the E-CAT would reduce almost all dependence on oil and reduce emissions to zero.
    As beyond transport the only things necessary for life are warmth, food, housing and clothing which can be supplied by a small percentage of the workforce, the number of hours work required from each individual is small.
    As one adds health, entertainment, and all other necessities and fair luxuries it will still only absorb a relatively small number of people, to give a relative Utopia.
    This is the situation now where all people working in money related occupations are pointless.

    If one adds Rossi’s E-CAT into the equation the whole World can have everything they fairly want with only the Event of a major multiple crop failures as a cause of concern.
    No boom or bust as productivity is stable, no multimillionaires, no leaving wealth to offspring, but everybody only working for society and each individual being rewarded on their own merit, from a dustman to a great inventor.
    But which way chosen by all the people.

    • daniel maris

      Well if the 15000 Euro figure is true then that’s an expensive engine – in fact I think a car might need two (I think they need more than 30KWs).

      Compare with an ICE engine. OK the fuel is expensive but it’s easily obtainable and spreads the cost of the purchase (of the whole transport system as it were) out over the lifetime of the car.

      I can’t see E Cat cars becoming popular in the next decade or so.

      Anyway, I favour electrification of roads through wireless transfer of power. See here for an article on that:

      Most of the cost of an electric car is the battery – so if you can reduce that by 80% with electric roads, well you really have a major leap in affordability.

      It would make more sense to have electric cars that can be charged at home or on the road and have the electricity produced by big E cat units which would enjoy economies of scale.

      • A car will need much more than 35kw. Remember that this is heat. The conversion of heat to rotary or electrical motion is about 30% efficient at best. So that 35kw is really 11kw (about 15hp). Now, because there is an energy buffer (super-heated water)one does not need a full 200 horsepower to get an effective 200 hp from a car, but 50 hp (3 units) will probably do handily.

        The calculation now is 15,000 euro * 3 or 45,000 euro — over $60,000 usd. And that doesn’t include the steam engine to drive it.

        So e-cat cars are doomed, right? Well, no. If you recognize the value of mass production, and the value of competition to find the best price, you will see that e-cats will cost VASTLY less than 500euro/kw. How can I know this? Its simple, the price will become little more than the cost of the parts involved. The nickel is all but free. The cost of “nano-particle” nickel will be all but free. The hydrogen, in an infinite energy world the hydrogen will be all but free. What of the other components. Well, we have an inexpensive looking metal container, a “frequency” and some heat fins. Everything else is part of the heat-capture mechanism. There’s nothing here that merits a significant pricetag. E-cat cores will be
        throw-away cheap.

        It’ll take a bit, not terribly long, and our cars will run for months on end without refueling.

        • david

          I am not a Scientist. I am a manufacturer and I can state that this is true. The more units produced and the longer the production run lasts the cheaper the unit will become until its cost barely registers over its base materials. Look at pocket calculators as an example.

          When they were introduced they were very expensive, now you can buy one at the .99 cent store. This affect will only become more pronounced when the cost of energy from manufacturing and transport is removed from the equation.

          Another point is that this technology is in it’s infancy. Minor improvements made by other companies will allow them to bypass any patent and market forces will be unleashed on Mr. Rossi’s invention. It won’t take long before you see many manufacturers making some form of this machine and the price will be held down by the competition.

  • Hampus

    I agree with the writer, the ecat could be used in this way. But there are a lot of power involved as well, I mean there could be forces that are against this kind of free society. We just have to make the best of it.

  • nima
  • Sojourner Soo

    I found the Raymond Aitken document fascinating. I wonder if your guest economics Phd candidate can speak to it’s feasibility?

  • web4YOU

    Mr. Rossi
    thanks for your invention.

    But you should consider:

    There are already patents to convert the LENR energy directly into mechanical energy, without steam engine from James Watt.
    With that engine it is possible to make electricity to load a supercapacitor in a e-car.

    Mr. Rossi you should rethink your business model and sell technology-sharing licenses .
    A license for about 5 $ / kW th would be justified.
    If one considers that in the world every year about 60 million new cars will be produced and all have a LENR drive with 50kWth. Mr. rossis your income will be: $ 15 billion per year !!!!!


    • I love your calculation. $5/kw royalty to Dr. Rossi produces $15,000,000,000 per year — setting him up as easily the riches man in a couple of years of this. However, you haven’t even factored in home, business, industry and other uses of energy. This will double his annual income.

      So it is reasonable that the most Dr. Rossi needs to be paid is $5/kw, or $50 per 10kw e-cat core. As the rest of the cost of an e-cat core has got to be no more than $10 in mass production, these things should be available for about $60 each. As it’ll take about 5 to run a car (your calculation), the cost of the fuel for 6 months of driving 24 hours per day will be $300. Actually, because the conversion to rotary motion is only about 30% efficient, it’ll require more like 15 of the things, or $900 for 6 months of continuous driving. For the average user, about $900 every 3 years.

      • david

        Another point is that some fuels, like bio fuel as an example, are not currently viable because they are not energy dense enough to justify the electrical energy it takes to produce them. With the E cat in the picture a whole new varity of fuels will be available and desirable due to their portability. Once the power to produce those fuels is cheap, their energy density will be a small issue.

  • Money is a funny thing. What it is has changed many times over the centuries. There was a time when salt was “currency”, giving us wonderful terms such as salary. Gold and silver have bounced into and out of “currency” status. Energy, right now, is clearly a form of currency. However, the e-cat will not increase energy’s use as a currency, rather it will eliminate it. E-cat energy will be so nearly free that it will make energy economically irrelevant. That was the primary point in my thesis:

    Money’s purpose is to distribute the goods and services throughout society to those who are the greatest contributors. Contribution will still be required in a post-ecat world, therefore currency will still persist. I see no end to currency until automation has eliminated all essentials of life, and most luxuries. We have a long way to go.

    • daniel maris

      Why do you say it will be nearly free? I’ve only heard Rossi claim a x6 gain. But to get that gain you have to build a pretty complex machine. You then have to have skilled operatives watching over it. You need to refuel it at regular intervals. You will need to maintain it and the turbines or Sterling engines you use to make electricity.

      I see a lot of costs there – especially when you remember solar, which is virtually maintenance free, is very expensive compared with other power sources.

      • I love the guy who described the current e-cat as the model T of e-cats. I repaired a model T engine once. They sure have changed since then.

      • BTW, self-sustaining mode isn’t x6 any more, its x infinity.

        • martinus

          No, it’s not. Even if energy production was free, you still have maintainence costs, distribution costs, conversion costs, etc.

          By your reasoning, geothermal powerplants would be free energy too, but it’s not.

          • daniel maris

            Martinus –

            I think you nailed Bruce’s comment there.

            I would only add that my understanding is that “self-sustaining” means: no need to add any external energy source to use the fuel. It doesn’t mean “no need to add fuel”. So when the fuel (hydrogen/nickel) is expended then the process stops.

            It’s similar to combustion. With combustion, you need an external energy source e.g. a match to get the process (e.g. burning of wood) going. But after a while the process is self-sustaining. However, the process stops once you run out of fuel.

            I am not an engineer or a scientist, so happy for some one to correct me on that if I have got it wrong.

          • The 6x bit means that six times the energy is coming out than is going in. During self sustaining mode, no energy is going in, some energy is coming out. Please help me work out the formula. X in, 6X out vs. 0 in SOME out.

            “When the fuel (hydrogen/nickel) is expended then the process stops.” Yes, but this has nothing to do with the published 6X statement. The 6X statement is: (electrical) energy in, (heat)energy out. If 1 watt of electricity was going in, and 100 watts was coming out, we’d say that the reaction is producing 100X. As zero energy is going in, but some is coming out …

          • daniel maris

            That makes no sense Bruce. The x 6 statement relates to a fuel cycle.

            By the time you have used up all the fuel you find you have got x6 times as much energy out as you put in.

            It’s not that difficult to understand.

            Once the fuel cycle ends, you get no energy out. That might be where you are getting confused – thinking that self-sustained = no need for fuel. That’s not the case as I understand it.

          • Let me repeat myself, “so nearly free that it will make energy economically irrelevant.” Notice that I didn’t say that energy would be free!

            The cost of developing a geothermal system is usually enormous. Further, geothermal doesn’t work everywhere, so it can’t be mass produced. This is why geothermal isn’t cheap.

            The cost of the energy component of an e-cat car, the e-cat itself, will be EXTREMELY inexpensive (compared to the other bits of the car like the steam engine, body, safety devices, electronics etc.) There is really nothing to these things. Its a container with nickel dust, hydrogen, an electric heater, and an unknown “pixie dust”. The maintenance costs will be minimal (compared to the maintenance of the rest of the car.) The energy component of the car will not be a factor worth mentioning relative to the cost of the car. My bet is that it’ll be under $500 (current value) to get the annual e-cat replacement — labor included.

          • daniel maris

            OK, but “so nearly free” certainly suggest to me less than 1 cent per KwH. And that is NOT going to be the case, depend on it.

            My guess as I have said elsewhere that it may come in around the price of coal and then gradually reduce over the next 20 years until it perhaps becomes the cheapest energy source – but wind, wave and solar will still be competitors as their prices are coming down all the time as well.

          • david

            Rossi has predicted a price around .01$ per KW. You can slice it up any way you like but a portable unit that needs to be fueled only once in 6 months will be far cheaper then any current tech to buy and operate. Within 10 years this will be a unit a consumer can own at home.

  • Troll

    Winner: Dark Souls.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    I think people are getting a bit ahead of themselves here. Rossi may yet prove to be a crank and his following a ship of fools.

    But even if the E-Cat really works, it’s a ‘black swan event’ that wasn’t anticipated and can’t be planned for – it changes too many things too much.

    Why contemplate E-Cat powered automobiles, when the device may eventually produce enough cheap power to make a flying car – finally – practical? How far will housing disperse if people don’t need roads to get to their homes, or power lines to make them liveable? Will the price of housing drop radically, and home ownership jump, if land by a road is no longer the only land suitable for building on? What happens to society if large numbers of people are living in semi-isolation? And that’s just one set of questions in a literally unimaginable future.

    We have to wait: for Rossi to produce something unarguably real, for someone to mass produce it, for the technology to begin to diffuse into the world… all that before we can even begin to anticipate an E-Cat future. And even then we’ll only be seeing a step or two ahead.

    • “I think people are getting a bit ahead of themselves here. Rossi may yet prove to be a crank and his following a ship of fools.” Rossi may be a crank. Certainly there are enough on this site that think so. However, if he is not, we are certainly not getting ahead of ourselves. As this is a “black swan event”, the time is now to factor it into our lives. I, for instance, am not in the market for a new car because I plan to buy an e-cat car next.

      “But even if the E-Cat really works, it’s a ‘black swan event’ that wasn’t anticipated and can’t be planned for – it changes too many things too much.”
      Whoa, hold on a minute. What law of nature says that a “black swan event” “can’t be planned for”? The site is entirely dedicated to planning for it. Certainly those plans won’t be entirely correct, but they will be a lot closer than “can’t be planned for”.

  • mrG

    Buckminster Fuller called this “Energy Accounting” and he was fond of computing the price of everyday commodities using his contemporary NYC electricity rates. In one famous example he hired an accountancy firm to compute the cost, to Nature, of one US gallon of gasoline. They arrived at a figure of $1,000,000 per US gallon, and at that barrel price, I expect a lot of things might be changed about our society!

  • Brad Arnold

    I’ve proven myself to be a big LENR Ni-H advocate, and am justly accused of being a “true believer” in Rossi. BUT, eventually waste heat produced by the tremendous amount of LENR Ni-H reactions will cause the atmosphere to warm.

    For a more though analysis of this read the paper “Global energy accumulation and net heat emission.”

    Incidentally, I believe human nature will lead to intentional economic bottlenecks so as to control others. Also, natural resources are an obvious limiting factor to supplying our unlimited wants.

    In other words, while LENR Ni-H seems to be a silver bullet for many of mankind’s ills (for instance food production, transportation, environmental control, desalinization), that just means mankind will reach a different paradigm with it’s own problems (that’s life).

    • In general, I agree with your thesis — the e-cat solves many of mankind’s ills, but will only reveal new challenges.

      While it may become true that all of the heat produced by an e-cat revolution will contribute to global warming, let me put this into perspective:
      1 – A 200 horsepower gasoline powered automobile produces as much heat as a 200 horsepower e-cat powered car will.
      2 – The same can be said for most of the other energy sources — they are inefficient, and most of that inefficiency is let of as heat.
      3 – Despite all of the heat released by all of the vehicles and most of the power plants in the world, it is not this heat that concerns scientists vis-a-vis global warming, it’s CO2. The fear of CO2 is that it is trapping the sun’s radiation. It is believed that capturing the sun’s radiation is VASTLY more important to the planet temperature than the effects of all of the heat generated by the burning of fossil fuels.

      E-cats are likely to change our view of energy a lot. It may prove that 50 years down the road we are using 1000 times more energy than we are now. In this case, it may prove true that the heat from the e-cats does have a notable impact on the global temperature. However, it isn’t a concern until e-cats are offering a significant increase in energy production from today. Further, in the mean time, as e-cats don’t release CO2, they will be net beneficial to global warming to the extent that anthropocentric global warming is a valid hypothesis.

  • It’s a fact that it can be very interresting that energy can escape to Arabian Countries and petrolific companie’s control.
    But, please, don’t loose your time with perspectives: we are still waiting available working units who can produce without the control of Mr Rossi !

  • Pingback: The E-Cat as Currency: An Economist’s View | E-Cat World()

  • shabbir

    Planet of Earth Energy & Water Crisis. + One more optional idea for our future thinking.

    Dear Sir,

    The Subject matter is all over the World facing Energy & Water
    problems, So I am trying to Explain an idea for Old & New Dams /
    Reservoirs Hydro electric projects Civil Design Geometry Can be
    modifying in Architectural Transition to increase our energy
    potential. Because we are Losing heavy quantum of already storage
    water in our Big Dams and its relevant projects to generate Hydro
    Electric old technology, Now it must be need to convert into new
    theory of Scientific Technology as per utilizing in the way of
    experiment with foreign expertise at any Hydro electric base Model of concern Department or forum to finalize the following unique and
    entire world Global developing idea for its further implementations in the current ongoing and next coming future Hydroelectric & Water
    projects as soon as possible.


    with best regards.

    Please Debates in future Energy Events / Forums / Exhibitions /
    Seminars / Conferences about subject idea for solving our entire World Energy Crisis as soon as possible.

    One more Optional idea for our future thinking.

    it is simple to start a intake water Chanel and drop to a low bed area to generate Hydroelectric Energy + other after-all we can utilize Sea or Ocean to canalize for entire world energy and agricultural requirements / necessaries because think tanks can be made easily Handel the subject matter.

    I hope think so.

  • Antimatter at stabilized form,, allows for many controls to be utilized, light, temp., and usage before it is not annihilated but transformed into a higher vibration, anything touching it will be transformed to a higher dimensional field and disappear with it, Carbon, Hydrogen and a few others.