Open Source the E-Cat?

As news of E-Cat technology comes to the attention of more people, a common response from people who believe in its legitimacy, and its potential to change the world, is to ask why Andrea Rossi does not go ahead and release his secret to the world so that people can develop it without any restriction. The argument is that that this would be the fastest way to propagate this technology and bring its benefit to the maximum amount of people possible.

We’ve seen the open source model work very successfully in the software world — think of Linux, Wikipedia, and Mozilla Firefox, for example. These resources are free for anyone to use, and thousands of people volunteer their time and resources to help improve these products without any expectation of monetary reward.

There are also examples of open source projects outside the purely digital environment. To me, two of the most interesting ones involve 3D printing:  Reprap and Makerbot . The designs for each of these printers are freely available online — anyone who wants to  can use them  build a 3D printer for use at home. There are active support communities to help people in the building and development of them. Over time, through cooperative effort new and improved models have been developed.

With successful examples like these and others, it is hardly surprising that people are hoping and suggesting that we try the same kind of approach with a technology as promising as the E-Cat. Andrea Rossi has been asked a number of times about the possibility of open sourcing his invention, but he seems to show no interest in the idea.

A few months ago, Rossi responded to this suggestion in this way:

“As for the development of the technology: the maximum development can be reached with the maximum investments. Nobody could invest significantly in a technology without having exclusive rights on it. When a thing is own by everybody nobody gives value to it. The story of communism has teached this to us. We and our licensee will put all our force to develope this tech.”

And yesterday he echoed this sentiment when he responded to a similar idea expressed by a reader of the JONP saying, “Nobody would invest anything in a non proprietary technology.”

I think there is logic to his thinking. In order for the E-Cat to achieve rapid proliferation, huge amounts of capital will need to be put to work to build, develop, market and service this technology. A company having the capability to invest resources at the scale needed to move this technology forward rapidly would likely not want to proceed if it saw that the intellectual property was available to all its competitors. Rossi’s argument is that exclusivity will be an incentive for licensees to invest heavily.

On the other hand, if the secrets of the E-Cat were in the public domain, it would allow anyone with skills and means to build E-Cats on a cottage industry level. You could have small manufacturers around the world making E-Cats, and if there was a collaborative online community involved, as there is with other open source projects, improvements and new designs could be shared rapidly leading to a flowering of the movement from the bottom up. It’s an interesting prospect to consider.

We have two different philosophies here then — Rossi’s old-style industrialization model vs. the new open source one. Since Rossi holds the secrets, we’re likely to see the former model prevail, at least in the near term.

  • Mike Cheek

    Well, an open source model would no doubt bring the greatest benefit; however, I would rather imagine it’s no fun to watch other people become millionaires off of your idea while you yourself get a handshake, if even that.

    *IF* this thing really works then there will be other people who will eventually figure it out. Simply knowing that something can be done, even if you don’t know anything else, is surely 50% of the battle.

    *IF* Rossi really has discovered something, I would rather see him reap some monetary rewards, myself. History is full of sad stories of artists / inventors getting ripped off and never enjoying the fruits of their endeavors.

    • Kim

      Open Source is inevitable.

      Its time to grow up.

      Andrea Rossi will have more than enough

      Let the people run with it.

      This device is not that complicated

      If the catalyst was known we could see
      reproductions ramp up fast.

      Safety Fist


      • Kim

        I also might add that the natural conclusion to all of this will be a society that does not even use money.

        You can not put new wine into an old
        wine bag.


        • Nick

          I came to this conclusion too. The E-Cat is small potatoes compared to the amount of energy that the NIF will produce. At some point our whole thinking has to change when we can produce way more cheap energy than the entire world can use.

        • admin

          I think you are right, if you take this technology to its natural conclusion — but that could be a long way off.

          Right now Rossi is operating in the traditional capitalist business environment, and doing the traditional thing. Getting from A to B is not going to be easy.

          • Kim

            Yes it will be a little ways
            off, but not much.

            With the communication of internet ideas fly around the world.

            The old ways will persist
            which and and inertia.

            But the worm has turned
            and there is no going back

            Energy will become the new


        • MnMark

          And what will society use instead of money?

          Energy? I thought Rossi’s device was going to make energy too cheap to meter? Who wants to use something too cheap to measure as value?

          People have to have a way to store the value of the work and investment so that it is available for use later. In their old age, for example, when they can’t work anymore.

          What do you suggest they use instead of money? Piles of “energy”?

          Money came into use a very very long time ago because it serves a crucial human needs.

          Thinking that things are all different now because some idealists wrote Linux is ridiculous. As pointed out above, software is unique in being virtually free in terms of cost to duplicate and distribute. One altruistic effort to write some code can be reproduced infinitely and distributed around the world at no cost. There is no other technology like that. Software is the ONLY place that “open source” could work even a little bit. And I would point out that most work is still done on commercial software.

          • daniel maris

            The e cat is not going to be “too cheap to meter” as far as I can see. Unlike wind and solar energy, it looks to me like the sort of technology which needs people in attendance – at least in its current form. So that represents a cost in itself. It will take up land – more costs – and needs some fairly complicated machinery – more costs.

            If Rossi can bring it in at 2 cents per KwH I think he will be doing well. If he’s selling 1MW units at $2M dollars then clearly it’s not going to be dirt cheap.

          • Kim

            Money came into use a very very long time ago because it serves a crucial human needs.

            A need for energy.


          • atanguy

            After a year or two we can expect an ECat module producing 10KW at a cost of $500.
            10 KW= $500
            0r $50/ KW
            In order to have 2c/KWH you will need to use the ECat for 2500 hours or about 100 days. After that your energy is free- the combustible cost being negligible.

      • MnMark

        How nice that you “know” that Rossi would have “enough” money if he gave up the rights to the device and turned it over to the pie-in-the-sky dreamers.

        What’s “enough” money for Rossi to have, in your opinion? Would you like to define how many vacations he can take, how nice a house he will be allowed to own, and so on?

      • With all due respect Kim, your statement is complete foolishness.
        Buy some land, till the earth, sow your seeds. Then let your neighbor feast on the fruit of your labors. It is indeed, time to grow up! To believe, that since our society has begun to accept the rational notion of open source information, without some sort of remuneration, is to bury ones head in the sand. The ability to freely share open source computer code has done the opposite of what your altruistic beliefs insist. Yes, publishing freely, has enabled a interconnected society to rapidly advance technology. But for what good? You must still go and purchase the applications to run on these systems. It’s the time tested practice of the carrot and the stick. Let’s entice your with a free, juicy carrot only to be driven by the rod.
        I believe that this quote, by the famous economist, Adam Smith, sums up the reasoning behind Mr. Rossi’s capitalistic pursuits.
        “The real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman is that of his customers. It is the fear of losing their employment which
        restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence.”
        The people do not deserve to run with anything. These are the same people who continue to disbelieve the validity of his claims. What is so wrong with Mr. Rossi profiting from His invention? Who are you to determine how much money is enough?
        Remember that we are discussing a manufactured product. Not something envisioned at a table at Starbucks. Typed up on a laptop and downloaded at a free public wi-fi spot. He has leased or purchased

  • Cliff Bradley

    The open source model works for software because there is a very small investment in the tools needed to do development and because changes can be propagated with almost no cost. Also, Unix was not a game changing technology, but a collaborative effort that gradually built up functionality over years. Building physical things is different. Game changers are different.

    As far as someone working day and night on something while depleting his own resources but then turning the fruit of that labor over to the world without compensation for his efforts, that’s just a recipe for quashing any inventions in the future. This is not old school, but common sense about how people operate. The patent laws and property laws create an environment where people can feel good about taking the risk to do something like this.

    Let’s face it, Rossi took risks to his time, money, reputation, personal life to develop this game changing technology. When everyone has an e-cat furnace and every block has an e-cat generator, I expect that Rossi will be very wealthy and deservedly so.

    • Bravo, Cliff, bravo!!!!!!!

  • Francesco CH

    Remember that a patent last 20 year.

    After 20 year the technology is free from patent infringement

    • Francesco CH

      Remember that a patent lasts 20 year.

      After 20 year the technology is free from patent infringement

    • Robert

      But if Rossi stays in the lab and makes “improvements” on the device which has higher efficiencies and an overall better performance, those improvements can be in turn patented, thus resetting the clock.

      The steam engine went through dozens of such iterations before it became more or less what you see in use currently, or even like what was used on a steam-powered locomotive. A great many of those improvements were worthy of patent protection as well.

  • Phil the drill

    Even if it was open source or protected by a million patents, once the patent is passed and published individuals can still build their own for private use, they just cant sell them commercially.

    As far as I know the patents are in his wife’s name anyway and there is no greater motivation for betrayal than money. 1 or 2 billion dollars and she’d sell the patents without even blinking an eye 😀

    • Thomas M

      Wouldn’t be so sure about that, after all he is still italian 🙂

  • Thomas

    Also, Mr. Rossi has made his own investment in this technology. He has made monetary investments, and devoted so much of his time and effort toward the project. I’m sure that he needs this investment to pay off in order for him to be personally financially viable.

    • Kim

      He will be viable

      But after a while any man has to ask
      himself how much money do I really need.


      • Thomas

        I’ve worked for tech startups. Success always seems so far away and fragile. Each startup that worked for wound up with a lot of people who lost money, and were unhappy about it.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Open sourcing might spread the Ecat, now that Rossi’s done the work… but what about the next world-changing invention? Would anyone make the effort?

    Besides, “Rossi has enough money” is for Rossi to decide.

    • Matt

      I don’t buy the incentive argument. Edison didn’t invent the light bulb to become rich, the Wright brothers didn’t fly with thoughts of gold in mind. Albert Einstein didn’t dream up relativity so he could pay his bills. I would almost wager you couldn’t name one world-changing invention that came from a desire to be rich.

      I agree those people deserve rewards though. And I think that’s where you are coming from. But I think it’s wrong to assume great minds that can imagine new wonders do so for the base motive of greed.

      • Cliff Bradley

        How is it “the base motive of greed” for someone who has spent time, money, reputation, etc. to do something and then wants the fruit of his labor.

        Granted that he did it for the challenge, first and foremost, but I doubt he’d have sold his house and worked day and night simply for that challenge. The “ownership” of an invention that can provide you with well deserved compensation is critical to having the willingness to drive yourself like Rossi has to get a working product to market rather than just tinkering in his basement.

        Intellectual challenges are nice but they don’t heat your homes until someone makes them into a viable product.

        It’s not about greed. It’s about incentives to take it to the next level.

      • JayT

        Absolutely everything Edison did, he did for the money. He was a vicious businessman, stepping on anyone that got in his way.

      • PersonFromPorlock

        So of course you’d go to college just for the satisfaction of learning, right? No insisting on a degree so you could get some of the money you’d spent – or even more than you’d spent – back via a better job?

        • walt

          I think what you are describing is called auditing the course. You can sit in and learn for free but you don’t get a degree in the end. Might not be able to write tests or do labs either. You could still listen for free to lectures of your interest though.

        • Hampus

          I go to the university just because I love sociology. I do not care about money at all. And I will not get more money because of my degree.

          The people that are the most creative do not do it for money but for love of the thing they do. Look at the open source revolution we have had, Linux, vlc, plex, Firefox.

          I truly believe that money is bad for our society and we would be better without it.

          • MnMark

            Money is how human beings establish how much their productive efforts are worth for trading with other people’s productive efforts.

            I’m sorry but if you are so poorly educated in human nature, let alone basic economics, that you think we’d be better off with no money….well, all I can say is I understand why you’re wasting time taking sociology classes.

            It’s people who think like you that end up establishing “peoples’ agrarian paradises” like Pol Pot did in Cambodia and getting millions of people killed because humanity isn’t operating according to your naive altrustic idea of how things should work.

  • Mjs

    As much as I can possibly get. Open source E-cat! What have you been drinking?

  • George

    Rossi is correct, I believe. There is significant investment which must be made by companies in order to develop and market products. If there is no protection of the intellectual property then companies will not invest in it because there will be little chance of a return on their investment. However, most patents only last 17 years (I believe this is the current life span). After that then the technology will be to the point where many companies will be in the marketing selling their branded version of e-cat and Rossi will have received a fair compensation for his investment.

    • Tobias Brox

      Assuming the e-cat is not a hoax, is relatively cheap and easy to build, and does yield energy at a cost far less than the current power prices – any company with the right know-how and access to the technology will be more than willing to invest in it.

  • Peter

    There is one class of projects that can never be open-sourced without killing them.

  • lilian

    well congratulations. one thing i am sure, when this man is going to make his first billion euro he will give away the secret. but actually it is not too much of a secret – it’s like philosophical stone that has been found, Danco, i think he also was italian 😉 oh, and by the way, answers to your questions can be found in the Occult chemistry, very good book

  • Tobias Brox

    Assuming the e-cat works as promised, and if the goal is to maximize the energy output (and get rid of fossil fuels as fast as possible), putting everything out in the public domain is most likely the best option. Investments will flow as long as the market price for energy is lower than the cost of delivering it through e-cat.

    Still assuming the device works, to maximize Rossi’s financial gain from the device, the best option would most likely be to demonstrate for the world that the device works, make sure that it’s well-covered with patents globally and publish.

    Assuming the device is a hoax designed to lure gullible investors, his current actions seems right on target … smoke and mirrors.

  • Paul F. Dietrichson

    Open source applied to very demanding industrial production (above all the catalyzer) is hardly practical. This will require resources which can only be found in research and production facilities of some size.
    Somehow I feel that if this invention is as revolutionary as we hope it is, there will be a veritable industrial explosion, and the present discussion will, in a couple of years, appear almost unreal.
    For now, let´s just hold our breath. Even though I feel the scientific community pretends not to see what is going on here, their silence to me is still rather disturbing. Also, we know very little about the relationship between Mr. Rossi and his Customer. Were they “satisfied” that it is promising enough to start further research and improvement, working with Mr. Rossi, or what?
    Many unknown variables here. Seems we will just have to wait it out.

    • Robert

      Do you have any inside track in terms of what resources are needed to make this device? What is really used inside the eCat and how do you actually build it?

      Yes, industrial mass production of devices does take some skill, but I’ve worked as an engineer in a manufacturing company and it isn’t that hard. I know of at least a dozen different companies within ten miles of where I live that all have at least the manufacturing facilities and likely even the skilled staff necessary to build these devices, assuming that building these eCats would be more profitable than the things they are building at the moment. Some of those are products that I’m quite certain most of whom are reading this right now have at least seen if not have in their home.

      I’m not saying it would be easy, but the tough part is coming up with the invention in the first place. I bet I could find several people who have the money necessary to get these built… assuming I could legitimate convince them that this device actually works. Likely that would require some real scientific proof (and not the proof that has been offered so far), but with that assumption I think the value of this device is sufficient that production by multiple facilities isn’t going to be the problem, unless it requires some raw materials that are extremely rare or difficult to produce in quantity. I really don’t see it being nearly the problem as implied here.

      Yes, I’d be willing to put my money where my mouth is. If this were to be open sourced, I would be producing these devices… with royalties going to Rossi. Strangely, I have better access to capital and production facilities in China at the moment, but that is a separate issue.

  • Al D

    Does anyone believe that China will pay license fees or respect a patent or not reverse engineer this?

    • Kim

      I do not believe.


    • Robert

      If a Chinese company wants to do business in one of the major European or American markets, they will have to pay licensing fees for whatever they sell outside of China. As far as what they’ll pay for stuff used inside of China, I’d agree that Chinese companies could care less about an Italian patent.

      Those Chinese reactors, however, would also be useful to uncover whatever dangers might be found with these devices, as they are certainly going to leak radiation and might even kill a few people simply because of shoddy construction. How the government regulators would respond to those deaths would be interesting.

    • Lagwin

      Well the Chinese might…hell they probably would reverse engineer it if they get hold of one, the only problem they will have is it more than likely exploding on them, i mean if they can have watermelons explode in their fields imagine what the could do with this.

    • daniel maris


      Next question.

  • Robert

    I look at three inventions in particular, all of them have received patents, and none of them actually ended up earning much money for the inventors themselves in spite of these inventions being ground breaking on such a grand scale that almost every aspect of civilization has been directly impacted from these inventions in a way that would be challenging even for something like the eCat device.

    One of the first is the Wright Brother’s airplane, which received a patent but ended up requiring so much legal hassle that they ended up spending almost all of their time in the court room rather than actually engineering and developing new designs. There were several competitors who ended up building vehicles in mass production that mimicked the airplane, and the amount that they finally ended up giving to the Wright Brothers was so trivial compared to the money eventually earned by the aviation industry that it really is an historical footnote at best. The Wright Brothers did have a company building airplanes, and indeed that business is still around today as the Curtiss-Wright Corporation. That they no longer make whole airplane designs is irrelevant.

    See also:

    Another inventor was Philo T. Farnsworth, somebody who I think holds a lot of comparisons to Andrea Rossi. He invented the dissector tube that made electronic television possible, and even received several patents on what became television. Admittedly he faced the problem of World War II cutting into his time frame for being able to commercially exploit the technology, but an even larger problem was competing with David Sarnoff of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA).

    Sarnoff originally offered Farnsworth $100,000 and a permanent research position within RCA, but Farnsworth refused with a counter offer to license his patents for a royalty. As a result, Sarnoff buried Farnsworth and all but obliterated even the mention of his name. Again, this invention spawned a raft of lawsuits that languished in court for a great many years, ultimately doing little more than covering legal costs once it was all said and done.

    Farnsworth even tried to change tactics by producing yet another invention, this time frequency modulated radio (FM radio). Again he received a patent, actually built the thing and even conducted a great many experiments with the technology, only go have Sarnoff come after him again with another pile of lawsuits (even though Farnsworth got the patent for FM radio too) only to end up finally with a rather small settlement that paid a little bit more than what he got from television, but not much more.

    Another inventor to look at is Nikola Tesla, who created a whole bunch of really awesome devices, most of which are largely ignored. One of his inventions finally is being produced on a large scale by a company with his name, even though neither he nor any of his descendants really have anything to do with the company. Its name is Tesla Motors.

    Seriously, Rossi is not going to get all that much from this device, and his position in the market place as the inventor is going to be that he has the expertise to be able to make these devices. It would be better to find a very strong financial backer to make these things and get a reasonable chunk out of a huge market than a monster chunk out of a tiny one.

    He should file the patent, ask for a very reasonable licensing fee (discussed elsewhere), and then build up an industrial laboratory to refine the concepts from this device. Since he is the inventor, he will have a several year advantage just in terms of understanding the technology and should be able to come out with an “Energy Catalyzer‎ Mark 2” with perhaps an even more improved design before any competitor might.

    Rossi and Focardi need to stay in the lab making things, not sitting in a court room rotting away trying to eek out the last bit of an insignificant pile of money that will take decades to get, if they get anything at all. I’m all for them getting paid and paid handsomely, but history shows that inventors more often than not get the shaft when major ground breaking inventions come alone. They are facing a major mine field right now in terms of what they need to accomplish just to get this invention out into the public, and I certainly would put this device (assuming it is real… I’m still undecided on that point) on the order of something like the invention of the airplane or television. It certainly will have that kind of impact upon our civilization.

    • Wes

      Great post! Personality more than patents seem to be the ingredient required for financial success. Rossi strikes me as a street fighter rather than a scientific type. He bends the world to his reality. Gates and JObs did much the same, Gates being more skilled at use of “applied terror” and intimidation than Jobs. Rossi’s challenge is to learn to deal credibly with authority, rather than transforming himself into a paper tiger in the face of every conflict.

      • Robert

        Steve Jobs got lucky on a couple of key areas, most significantly getting an excellent partner (Steve Wozniack… somebody who I think is by far more impressive than Steve Jobs on almost every level), and then finding Mike Markkula was a special part of the puzzle. That Steve Jobs also “tutored” under H. Ross Perot (yes, the same guy that ran for the U.S. Presidency a couple of decades ago) also helped Steve Jobs refine the skills he needed to take back Apple Computer and turn it into the company it is today.

        His skills with taking a failing side-business from George Lucas and turning that into the largest single slice of the media empire of The Walt Disney Company (aka Pixar) is a similar kind of success story that needs to be told… but the hippy that worked on the original Apple I computer certainly couldn’t have pull that off without some significant learning on how to actually operate a business.

        As for Bill Gates, he got real lucky, but it is more of a case of being in the right place at the right time and being able to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. He also seemed to show a bit of a Boy Scout notion of always being prepared for opportunities when they came, and then holding on for dear life when that happened.

        As you said, Rossi’s past experience shows he might just collapse under the pressure here, or at least I hope he knows his own limits. This opportunity with the eCat can help him in terms of cleaning up his reputation, but he does seem to have a tendency of ticking off the wrong people at the wrong time and not always getting the best partners. I wish him luck, and his work with Focardi might have been the one real stroke of genius to make this whole thing work. I hope so… now if Rossi can just get somebody who knows how to run a business but doesn’t want to cut Rossi out of the loop along the way.

    • Just a word on Tesla — he didn’t do any work with automobiles. The Tesla Motors people are just cashing in on the name.

      What he did do is pick 60Hz as the frequency for our electrical power (50Hz is a compromise to get out of licensing agreements) as well as develop the full three-phase electrical distribution system that we use today.

      He also invented a number of lights including the tubular fluorescent and neon.

      He was working on short-haul complex radio control when Marconi was working on long-haul radio signaling. A couple years before GM’s three dots across the Atlantic, Tesla demonstrated a radio-controlled boat that would move, turn on and off lights and submerge and surface all under radio control. After NT’s death, the US patent for Radio was transfered from GM to NT by the US Supreme Court.

      He was quite the showman in his prime and also a bit of a crackpot during his decline but he put out years and years of solid science and inventing.

      I can go on about his inventions but this is drifting off-topic fast…

  • If Rossi is really interested in rapidly spreading his technology he needs to get out of the heater business, and into the energy business. The best he can do is to sell an experimenter’s kit: e-cat core, electronics, safety requirements, basic usage instructions. Many of us, whether home experimenters or major corporations, would snap up such kits, wrap technology around them, and get the whole industry moving in no time.

    In addition, a few of us would make our working e-cat, set up webcams and test instruments, and let the world watch it work day after day. A long term display of that nature would get past the “hidden energy source” theory in no time.

    • Robert

      Agreed. I’ve seen similar sort of experimenter kits developed for other products in the past.

      If you want a successful model in terms of how to take an idea and make it very successful, I’d suggest comparing it to the personal computer. The Altair 8800 was created by Ed Roberts, who made a fairly good pile of money on the concept. What was interesting is that two of his employees are a bit better known today: Bill Gates and Paul Allen.

      Rossi shouldn’t even worry about making every last drop of money off of this invention, and if some of his employees end up as billionaires, he should be glad of it. Along the way, Rossi certainly could make a fairly decent pile of money himself.

      • Wes

        The (late) Ed Roberts learned that funding a growing hardware-based business (Altair computer) was very difficult. He happily sold out (to Pertec Corp) for a fraction of what Steve Jobs grew Apple into. Even Byte magazine owners made more than Roberts (who later became an MD in Ga).

        I would advise Rossi to build a solid brand name, like Jobs did. A good brand can be worth a fortune. Alternatively, sell high quality cores to energy system integrators.

  • Kim

    One thing is for sure.

    Who ever just bought the 1 Megabyte E-cat

    Just needs a hacksaw and a spectrometer to

    know what the secret ingredient is…


    • Tom Andersen

      Like hacksawing an iPhone will show you how to build a billion transistor cpu and LCD screen?

      If someone has one and it works, it will only be a matter of time, but it will not likely be easy.

  • jay

    Obvious scam is obvious. Sorry you wasted your time writing an article. A real independent test will never happen and there is no real buyer

    • Matt

      People keep saying this, but each test is successful. E-cats have even sold. So what next? Are you you going to keep saying this when the first e-cats are installed? When University of Bologna comes out with their own results on the e-cat? When we find out who the customers are? I’m just saying because this actually seems like logical next steps. You might want to be prepared when this stuff happens.

      • rossini

        What’s next is that Rossi is collecting money and then the unthinkable happens 🙂

        • Robert

          That Rossi takes the money and flees to a 3rd world country without an extradition treaty to either Italy or America? I guess North Korea is pretty this time of year.

          Seriously, what are you expecting to have happen here?

      • 0mega

        No test was successful – Rossi tells that tests were successful.

        No e-cat has been sold – Rossi tells that e-cats have been sold.

        There has been not a single piece of independent proof. When the first reputable company or university can test a unit with their own equipment, I am the first to cheer, I guarantee you. Until then, I agree that it seems like an obvious scam.

    • Adam

      Such an “obvious” scam that you can’t actually tell us WHAT the scam is.

      Another hit & run five minute armchair expert.

  • My question is if this device have miraculously any kind of reversing counter measures otherwise in many countries the acknowledgement of It’s Intellectual-Property will be considered immoral given the economic and natural impact of older forms of production and probably denied.

  • Pingback: Open Source the E-Cat? | E-Cat World | Linux Supersaniya()

  • MnMark

    Seems like the socialist impulse dies hard. We have to keep educating the idealists who think that people will work for free. You’d have thought that a century of atrocities committed by communists who thought they could reshape human nature so that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” would work. Ask Pol Pot’s victims in Cambodia how that worked out.

    Open Source is another kind of naive collectivism that only works in software because of the nature of software.

    Real capitalism, real free markets, that reward those who create useful new inventions with tremendous fortunes, is that greatest way of organizing human effort and societies in history. This is proven by the success of capitalist societies in comparison to collectivist societies. Collectivism is a recipe for poverty and the “envy mentality” that doesn’t want to see anyone do too well.

    If Rossi can commericalize this invention and sell me a heater for my house that means I save 50% or 90% on my heating bill, I will happily pay him a nice big fat price for it and consider myself blessed that he came along and discovered and commercialized it. I want to see the man become a trillionaire….he would deserve it. And society needs productive people getting rich and having resources to shape the world with instead of the altruists who never seem to create much themselves but have plenty of plans for how the rest of us should spend our money.

    • Robert

      Open source is not communism. It is an issue of liberty and being able to collaborate on a concept where everybody knows the ground rules about how you perform that collaboration.

      Not everything lends itself to an open source project, but a great many things do. It is also wrong to assume that you can’t make money off of open source projects, as there are excellent examples like MySQL and Red Hat which prove otherwise. Those are (or were in the case of MySQL AB) companies that make millions of dollars in profit. MySQL was sold to Oracle for a rather princely sum of money, and wouldn’t have been done had Oracle not thought they could continue to make money off of the project.

      Declaring something open source also does not dismiss the concept of patenting the project or even charging royalties from a patent (a completely separate issue). It is about how to allow others to join into the research and to develop the concept on a commercial basis with well established ground rules. I’m sure an “open source” license could be written that would allow others to join in the development and even manufacturing of the eCat device that would give due credit to Rossi and even give him a very steady source of revenue.

      It doesn’t have to be one or the other here, and laying on the socialist/communist card is a bit heavy and wrong headed. There may be some posting here who want to “give the invention to the world”, but not everybody. Certainly the notion of an open source project related to the eCat device deserves more exploration and would get the device into the hands of a great many more people.

    • Luca Salvarani

      To MnMark

      As we say here in Italty: HOLY WORDS!!! I TOTALLY agree with you!

      • LENRfellow

        And, speaking of Italy, we more help from Italians. This “NATO Colonel”, ostensibly named Domenico Fioravanti, must be known to some one. It would be great to have confirmation of his identity and the organization to which he currently belongs. On one Italian website there was speculation that the “buyer” is Finmeccanica S.p.A., an enormous defense contractor. In 2008 they acquired DRS, a US defense contractor, and have expanded enormously. Now they ‘delve’ into marine propulsion systems and nuclear energy issues and were recently, Sept. 2011, given both US Navy and SPAWAR contracts with upside total valuations in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So much money has been thrown at DRS, just in the month of September alone, that they could easily have been Rossi’s first customer.

    • Roberto

      There definitely are companies that do ‘capitalist’ business with O.S. software, because thay give on one side and get on the other. They get benefits like mass test beds of community products, and licensed deploy to enterprises. Don’t know if it works out of software, but see poor association with communism. Regards

    • Roberto

      Infact, the more ‘my’ technology spreads, the more I can invoice from ‘my’ expertise about it. That’s the basic O.S. business model.
      I guess that a ‘OS e-cat’ company would be a reference consultant in operating it.

  • I’m going to be posting a story soon and PESN and/or PESWiki about a company I met with here in Italy who have a technology they are taking to market now that they are also willing to open source. It’s based on cavitation technology.

    What will be nice about this is that it will enable us to do a pioneer run on the open sourcing of a physical technology, to show whether or not it works. They were just going to put the info out there, with no expectation of royalties for commercial developments; but I talked them into putting the royalty requirement so that this could demonstrate to other inventors that this model works.

    So keep an eye out for our story on cavitation. It may be our chance to prove to Rossi and others that open sourcing works and can be financially beneficial to the inventor.

  • arian

    first video based website about lenr and e-cat.

  • Johannes Hagel

    I found this posted in a “Vortex discussion thread”. Does not seem very good. What do you think about?

    I “Tweeted” PeterSvensson (the AP journalist who attended the 1MW test) to ask why AP what exactly had happened to the news report?

    The response was “Sorry, there’s nothing I can say at this point”.

    Today I recieved some more worrying information from a concerned member of the public. He had emailed Kit Frieden and recieved the following response – “I’m sorry, but the AP doesn’t discuss its coverage plans with people outside the organization.”

    I hate to say suppression, but when it looks like a dog, and barks like a dog, it’s a dog.

    Free Energy Truth

    • Luca Salvarani

      It’s really very strange! Maybe the AP is checking that the customer really exists (at condition to preserve anonimity), or is waiting for a customer’s public statement… or checking other details….indeed condider that it would be a shocking news, so caution is totally comprehensible!
      In any case it’s not so important! If e-cat works as said today or tomorrow the news will be widely reported on all mainstream media! Howevew I’m not worried because if e-cat didn’t work you would IMMEDIATELY have read that news..

    • Brad Arnold

      Luckily AP only got an exclusive for a short time.–Report_and_Q-A_with_Rossi/
      After the E-Cat Test: Report and Q&A with Rossi

      “After the successful test of the one megawatt plant was performed, Rossi read the official report to those who attended, and took time to answer questions. We present video of the Q and A in four parts, with full transcriptions.”

  • Rob

    Answer of Rossi have no sense. Is motors diesel an private idea?
    Thanks to God private ideas are so less, so as stupid gif image format.

  • Brad Arnold

    Yeah, why doesn’t Rossi just give up his “Italian Sauce” formula, that’s the ticket. And why don’t drug companies put their wonder drug formulas into the public domain too? Then we can all set around the campfire and sing Kumbaya, everyone will get along, and world peace will ensue. Why wasn’t this tried before? What were we thinking??

    The best argument for Rossi’s LENR formula being made public is that it can then be verified independently, speeding it’s integration via engineering into various products like cars, ships, desalination plants, portable generators, etc.

    The counter argument is that Rossi would have to be an absolute saint to give up such a money cow. In my opinion Rossi’s argument that his withholding the formula is disingenuous.

    First, I doubt he will ever get a world-wide patient on the formula, instead he will have to depend on secrecy to defend his intellectual property.

    Second, companies don’t need proprietary rights for utilizing a energy technology to justify the cost of integrating it into their products. Who owns the patient to highly combustible gasoline fumes?

    Finally, at the amazing cost savings of 10-1 over other energy technologies, patients are beside the point. No sane business person would avoid using Rossi’s formula because he doesn’t have exclusive control over it.

    • Robert

      There is this crazy thing called a patent. When you file a patent, you have to disclose how the thing works so it can be reproduced by somebody “skilled in the industry”. Disclosing how this thing works is precisely what a patent should be doing, in exchange for exclusive production rights.

      Patents don’t stop R&D efforts, they just stop people from commercially selling such an item.

      If the patent application is still pending, there certainly are legal reasons to not disclose the concept as that risks invalidating the patent. Beyond that issue, however, disclosing how the thing works shouldn’t be particularly troublesome and it shouldn’t stop commercial gain from the idea either.

  • Mr Rossi is not silly: if it’s works, it’s normal that he earns a lot of money with such a trick ! But I think it could be very interresting is that he sells OEM little basic units ( not the triple unit as in the 1MW unit, but the little who was demonstrated in the beginning of this year . There is lot of persons who would be interrested by developping the use , e.g. in little and middle size furnaces. Even at 5000 euros/piece for prototype units, he will easely find customers.

  • Robert Mockan

    If Open Source of the technology is followed through, a page where mathematics can be easily posted becomes essential. For example, I have all formula for calculating counter flow heat exchanger dimensions with any temperature range in the primary loop, any feasible temperature range in the secondary loop, any heat exchange medium, for any power level, in MathCad pages (used for communication between engineers). This is essential data, already available, for building reactors. But there is no way to communicate it unless I change to to Pdf file, and provide a link. But WordPress does not handle link insertions. Thus no way to make the information available through this site.

  • Robert Mockan

    Open Source idea must be dangerous. I notice censorship of comments that are construtive to the idea. I’ll be making another site where real work can be done on open sourcing the technology.

    • Robert

      Censorship…. where? I haven’t noticed the problem here at least, or is there something I’m missing? Is it a technological problem in terms of simply posting here, where the computer you are using or the browser being used isn’t allowing a post?

      • admin

        I’m trying to be as light on censorship as possible here. Only flagrant personal attacks and mischief making posts have been deleted. A post that includes more than one link gets held for moderation, so they don’t show up right away.

        Frank Acland

  • Robert Mockan

    Every body should take a lesson from Rossi.
    Talk is cheap. Just do it. Open source.

    You need a planetary mill operating at the kinetic energy to mechanical alloy potential superior fuels.
    Use an inert gas environment (operate in a glove box filled with argon). Test the potential fuels in a calorimeter under hydrogen gas pressure and vacuum cycling at elevated temperatures. Ideally a differential scanning calorimeter, or use any of the Storms designs posted at his web site (and at the LENR library). Anybody who keeps up at the Jnaudin web site knows he already open sources energy technology devices. If any body doubts the success of OL take a look at the cold fusion experiments at his web site. A different device, but you get the idea.
    Remember, the goal is a superior fuel that can be manufactured with ease at the garage level workshop, that can be used to build megawatt reactors by individuals looking to be free of “grid” living, or want to put it on their boat to power it, or IN their personal submarine. The goal is freedom from debt slavery. Here are links to get you started.

  • Pingback: Open Source the E-Cat? |

  • Open Source works for Software, because creating software is cheap, you just need a cheap PC. It does not work development costs significant money.

    A good trick would be to use something like the X-Price competition: E.g. the team that generates the most excess heat, gets a few million of dollars.

    • Rob

      I propose to Rossi to do a public request. He can sell his idea to the world at a price, after this contract the ecat project is “open”.

      He dont ask me.

    • Robert

      Do you have any idea what is involved in the production of an eCat device? Can you name any steps that would require heavy machinery or make it difficult to build?

      I certainly have seen commodity computer parts sold for several decades now where you can mix and match components from several different suppliers to build a personal computer at your home or in a small workshop. Is there any reason this can’t be done with the eCat device? What is the critical component here that requires extra care? Can it be modularized so a company just building the “reactor vessel” like some companies build CPUs (aka Intel and others) can simply “plug-in” the reactor vessel to make something more productive?

      Since all I’ve seen is a device that produces steam, that seems to me as something which produces steam, almost everything besides the reactor vessel itself seems to be “off the shelf” and something you could buy at a home improvement store if you cared. Development costs don’t seem to be a major issue.

      BTW, I love the idea of a “prize” in terms of offering a reward to a research team who can improve upon Rossi’s design. I would be willing to chip into a fund to help support such an effort as well… assuming that I could trust where the money is going.

      • Kim

        Plumbing as the infrastructure

        Your need to know how to obtain isotopic
        ratios of nickel (a secret)

        How to apply the Hydrogen pressures to the

        How to match or resonate atomic frequency
        (a secret).


  • Tim

    To open source an invention of this magnitude this early on in its conception would be catastrophic. Let us remember that this invention has the potential to literally topple and put out of business the present day powers that be. Those who currently generate and supply energy to the masses, through oil, nuclear fission, coal, hydro electric and so forth are very powerful indeed. They are not likely to just sit back and allow a new way of generating and supplying energy to come along and destroy their empires.
    If cold fusion reactors are eventually produced as household models, then the power to generate and supply energy is transferred from the hands of the few to the hands of the masses. And this day will come!!
    But let us be very patient and cautious as we begin this transition of power because the few who now hold it will not give it up easily. It is my belief, or perhaps hope, that the success of the 1 MW plant was deliberately downplayed. With the generator left running and the plant running at only half capacity due to glitches does leave room for controversy. Intentional? Quite possible, I think!
    I believe keeping things as low key as possible at this stage is crucial. To mass mediate the success of this device and how it works at this point would undoubtedly lead the powers that be to wage war against it making the cure for our dependence on dirty energy worse then the disease. No doubt Rossi and the company that bought the plant are well aware of this and are wisely moving ahead with caution so that the cure may be less painful. Let those of us who are now aware of this device and believe in it be patient and do what we can to spread the word and remain peaceful. Let us be persistent in the face of resistance and doubt. This is the dawning of a time of great change for our world. A change for the better!! Let us do what we can to make this period of transition a smoother one!

    • Robert

      “Let us remember that this invention has the potential to literally topple and put out of business the present day powers that be. Those who currently generate and supply energy to the masses, through oil, nuclear fission, coal, hydro electric and so forth are very powerful indeed. They are not likely to just sit back and allow a new way of generating and supplying energy to come along and destroy their empires.”

      I think this is precisely a reason why it should be put into an open source/open hardware environment. Once the patent is secure, license production to just about anybody who would be willing to follow the terms of the license and get as many different people from as many different places as possible building this device. If you concentrate all of the production into one location or even one country, you risk having some leader/legislature/regulatory body shutting down the whole thing and keeping it from being built. If it is being build in dozens or hundreds of countries, it will be very difficult for such a world-wide ban to ever be enforced.

      Whack-a-mole tactics to distribute information is the best way to keep any single group or individual from suppressing information of any kind. Just look at what happened with DeCSS, where attempts to suppress the source code to that software only improved the software and pushed it out further into the hands of many more people.

      • Tim

        I agree Robert, that in the not too distant future the e-cat should be open sourced. Though past testing appears to have shown success, there also appears to be a few bugs to work out as of yet. I think it is perfectly understandable that Rossi and this first company that purchased the e-cat would first want to try and make a few improvements privately before attempting to market it. Perhaps they believe they have the knowledge skills and resources to do so at this point. If this is the case, no one in their position would seek outside R&D. If they succeed, mass production and marketing comes next. Once functional units are out there and producing energy for public and private customers, protecting the e-cat’s secrets would become impossible anyway. It is at this point open sourcing must occur. Why the e-cat works may be a mystery and at least one ingredient is being kept secret. But aside from this, the device appears to be very simple. Once sales begin and because of the device’s simplicity, it won’t be long before the device is duplicated. The more minds that begin to comprehend the fundamentals of how this thing works, the more rapidly will cold fusion evolve. As this occurs, resistance to open sourcing would become futile and would lead to the formation of a black market. If the demand for cold fusion becomes great, and it will, guaranteed, the demand will be met one way or another.

  • Thomas Baccei

    Open source is the right idea, as long as the goals are sensible.

    The first goal should be to develop a design for an inexpensive, safe device which demonstrates in any one of several possible ways, that the LENR process is genuine, and lies outside of the current paradigm. Engaging the scientific and engineering establishment and, at long last, silencing the pathological skeptics would be a fantastic step.

    A second goal would be to engage youth in hands on research in and around the LENR phenomenon. I do not think we have seen the last of breakthroughs in this field. Other “special sauces” might exist. The energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness of the young can and should be directed into LENR. It is their future, and also offers a way to overcome the fatalistic view of the future so many young people have. Suddenly it might be seen that the future is unlimited and very promising indeed.

    The third goal would be just the opposite of “stealing” Mr. Rossi’s invention. He does NOT own the LENR phenomenon, but a particular engineering design which takes advantage of it. I honestly wish him health and fortune. He deserves it. But I would be astounded to find out that his was the only method of harnessing this power source. We need to avoid the trap of becoming too wedded to a particular system, but develop as many as possible. With time the best methods will win out, but let’s not get too invested in one version of “ecat”. All technologies go through an evolutionary period before an optimum solution is found.

    The fourth goal should be to prevent small groups of any sort from dominating and “owning” LENR. That is a real danger if Mr. Rossi sells out to Exxon, or Boeing, or Blackwater. POWER to the people!

    • Gene Quong

      Mass production reduces costs. The current yearly production rate is 10,000 small modules per year which are sold at $2,000 euros per kilowatt.

      When sales are increased to 100,000 then the sales price can be decreased to $1,000 euros per kilowatt.

      I doubt very much that an open source manufacturer will spend the capital necessary to produce 10,000,000 ecats per year to reduce the selling price to $250 per kilowatt.

      • Thomas Baccei

        I for one do not see open source involved in manufacture, except that some of it’s designs, if successful, might be the springboard for commercialization.

        • Gene Quong

          Design and manufacturing are interconnected. The background radiation in my locale is about 0.10 to 0.38 microsieverts and the eCat emits about 0.20 microsieverts, which would roughly double the background radiation. This radiation may be substantially reduced by small changes in the radiation shielding by someone familiar with its manufacture.

  • arian
    • daniel maris

      At last a mainstream article! And one that seems to be getting at the truth. The US Navy looks like a good candidate. From the article:-

      “Rossi said this customer measured and verified the test — and told that Paul Swanson with the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems unit (SPAWAR) can vouch for the demonstration. spoke with a man at SPAWAR who identified himself as Swanson, and who said only that he was “not in a position to talk to the press.” Several other sources within the Navy and the Pentagoneither declined to comment or did not return messages.

      The Navy has long been interested in cold fusion research. At a 2009 meeting of the American Chemical Society, chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss of SPAWAR revealed what she and colleagues claimed was the first clear visual evidence that low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) devices work.

      “To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device,” Mosier-Boss said at the time. ”


  • Is this guy trying to tell us that some military, bought what would be the greatest invention in the last 100 years as a space heater!!!!


    • Robert

      This doesn’t sound like an awful application of the concept. I could imagine several much more sinister applications of abundant energy being used in a military application.

      Considering a “space heater” using petroleum products (propane, gasoline, kerosene, etc.) as a fuel source can be very awkward and provide logistical challenges. If all they had to do was bring in a unit and about once a year bring in a can of hydrogen in a small bottle that can be carried as an afterthought by a solder in a backpack, it sounds like a really nice thing to use in a remote site.

      • Your a 100% correct the only problem is the military (US) does not work that way.

        • slingshot2

          You might be surprised!

  • Open-source the e-cat, why not by using crowdfundind (kickstarter, kisskissbankbank, etc.)?

    It may bring huge amount of money, given to Rossi, only if independent experiments works and the tech is open source…

  • arian
  • Alexvs

    I was censored Mr. Admin. And I did not attack any person, only stupidity.

  • in december of 2007 i wrote an utopian novel in where a basic pillar is that a global council of decentraly organised citizens and producer companies are introducing abundance into society … by donating up front and without conditions every human being the high or low tech tools… choice may be made by the individual … to live a selfsustaining life. the basic idea is that trusting in the basic good nature of all human beings will pay off in the long term … and we can not possibly know the dynamics what could enroll for a planet what has been held in a hyrarchy based on weapons and money for thousands of years … when suddenly a high number of citizens TOGETHER with the corporations would vote against armed forces everywhere and the money would flow into tools what would empower every single individual to do what exactly this individual feels is right … it might be very quickly that things come utopian ways if all the options are open… i would guess only a tiny fraction of the people would choose destruction and negativity once the top down hyrarchy has disappeared … and i would believe that the vast majority would be up to all good in a very short time ….. mmmh… so what has that got to do with open source ecat or not … i believe open source it yes … with trust … that the time is ripe for a counciousness what wants to unleash all the trillions of inventions yet awaiting our future openmindedness ….. there is plenty of room at the bottom …. and it is only a tiny bit before we reach the tipping point … where all the projections of innovations taking years reaching market … will be corrected in months … because of trusting in the open sharing that brings abundance to all….

    ( if anyone is interested… my novel is at …)

  • Sanjeev
  • Az

    Al Potenza
    November 2nd, 2011 at 2:49 PM
    Dear Mr. Rossi,

    Thank you for your response. I understand that you can not reveal R&D results that would compromise your trade secrets. But that’s not what I was requesting.

    When you deliver an ecat to a university, could you simply authorize the university to say publicly that they have received it and have started their work — as in a brief press release? That alone would help those of us who believe in you when we have to deal with skeptics. And it would not jeopardize any secrets.

    Best wishes,


    Andrea Rossi
    November 2nd, 2011 at 4:04 PM
    Dear Al Potenza:
    The answer is yes.
    Warm Regards,

  • daniel maris

    Can we have a separate thread on the Fox News article? – probably the most important development since January 2011.

    • admin

      Yes, Daniel.

  • Open source has not put the big guys out of business but it has had an effect on small developers. Yes even the big guys like Sun
    Gooble IBM and even MSNBC use open source and university developed free software.

    The simularity ends there since there is a material
    cost component to a physical device. There are no free open source laptops and tablets.

    It would be good to have skilled engineers develop plans for free and then publish them to anyone without cost. For the plan to work though the factories would have to be built for free the workers work for nothing and the product given away.

    This will not happen but the cost will be very significantly reduced for the main input to production, the environment will be spared and people will gain a measure of independence with an alternative to the grid and fossil fuels there will again be more choices for opportunity and much better lives.

    • Robert

      Before you completely dismiss the concept of “open hardware, I’d suggest you should look at least at this place:

      Also if you look up the term “Open-source hardware” on Wikipedia it gives a list of dozens of other major projects ranging from “open source firmware” for electronic circuits to 3D printers and other well developed projects that have been built using the philosophy.

      The Arduino project (based in Italy too, I might add) in particular has spawned not just a single product but a whole industry based upon the device and has yet to reach its full impact on human society.

      When I hear people suggest that opening this up is impossible, I think it is those folks who dare not to dream, and certainly haven’t looked around for what have been some very successful business models for getting to work.

      BTW, there are “free”/”open source” laptops and tablets as well. Try to look up “Raspberry Pi” and “OLPC” computer. Those are “open source” in just about every aspect, with a huge user support base offering far more technical support than you would typically get for devices of that nature. They aren’t “free” as in beer, I’ll admit, but the designs are available for anybody to build and you don’t need to negotiate licensing to construct those computers. It may be cheaper to simply buy them from the regular suppliers, but that is due to economies of scale.

      I’m suggesting that Rossi could certainly make a pile of money here even if he was to “open source” his design.

  • Az
  • Peter Anderson

    Well, Rossi can be sure of a thing: in today’s world, he may expect to profit from his patents in the “developed world” (USA, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, maybe Taiwan and South Korea).

    But he can’t expect that his “secrets” and patents will prevail in the “Third World”. In the “Chinese century”, he can’t expect that the E-Cat won’t be reverse engineered and “pirated”. It will.

    Sooner or later, the Chinese will reverse engineer the E-Cat and create their own “generic” version. And this “generic” (and cheaper) version will be widespread in the “Third World”, from China to Brazil, from Mexico to India, from Russia to South Africa.

    This is how the world works in present days.

    • mike

      I remember in the 5th grade, we would have paper airplane contests at recess. Whoever could fly their plane the furtherest was champ. I figured out that by balasting the nose with gobs of elmers glue, I could throw my plane like a stone. It always won. And I refused to share my secret.

      It wasn’t long that by observation, the other kids figured out my secret. I was pissed that I was no longer king, but there was nothing I could do. Everyone could make planes just as good as mine.

      The same thing must and will happen with this tecnology, if it’s real. On the other hand, if it’s not real, no one else will be able to reproduce it. So, I would call for all the talented amateur chemists and physicists to get busy, reproduce this effect and publish the secret to the world. Because that’s the only way the benefit will be properly shared. If you leave it to the system, it will be monitized and just become another way to get our money away from us.

  • 0mega

    A few FACTS for everyone.

    Nothing Rossi has shown so far has been independently proven.

    He SAYS he invested his own money.
    He SAYS his experiments were successful.
    He SAYS the 1mw plant has been sold to a ‘mystery’ buyer.

    No university or reputable company (if such a thing exists) has confirmed ANY of his findings yet.

    So, up until now it’s all based on faith, and nothing else.

    If Rossi would open source his device, or rather, release it into the public domain, it would revolutionize the whole world – provided that it works. And I really don’t think that the guy inventing the energy revolution would have any money problems AT ALL. This leads me to the conclusion:

    a) It’s a scam, and Rossi is greedy (95% chance)
    b) The e-cat works, and Rossi is still greedy (5% chance)

    That being said, I still hope for b).

    • Robert

      Here it depends upon what it is that you think you want to do with this device. If you are waiting to buy one to put into your basement to replace the furnace, water heater, and electrical power supply to your house, I would agree that it is not time to put the money down to buy one of these devices.

      If instead you are looking at investing into building these devices under license from Rossi, it would perhaps be a somewhat reasonable business investment to spend a little bit of money to buy one of these units (maybe a few of them), dissect them and find out for yourself if they work. Either they do or they don’t, and for a few thousand dollars it might be worth the risk. You could put in an anti-fraud clause in the contract to purchase these devices, demanding perhaps even a higher refund (double your money back or something like that) if you find that these devices fail to deliver the promised energy production.

      Really, at this point it makes no difference as to if the scientific basis of this device can be explained, what matters is if it actually works as advertised. This isn’t faith, what somebody is asking for here is to simply see the thing run. I’d love to grab one and set it up on a webcam just to show it working non-stop for a prolonged period of time, showing the energy inputs and outputs. So would others I suspect.

      BTW, I agree with you on the skepticism… which is well deserved. I have no idea if this thing works at all, but a device which is producing steam after the plug has been pulled and continues to do that for several hours (preferably days) after I’ve yanked that power chord would definitely sell me on the product.

  • erexx

    He can do both with no negatives.
    He can release the “secret” for everyone while also allowing commercial ventures to profit.
    The world cannot wait for what this promises.
    If the discovery is true then holding it back makes him a sociopath, not an intellect.
    The real reason why he does not release it?
    Its fake.
    Nothing real will come of this.

    • Rob

      I dont understand because Rossi selled plant to an hidden client.
      Many people is waiting his outing and he deceive them to take a few of money?

      When he make next plant? In October 2012?
      He has failed this important expiry date.

  • Matt

    As soon as China finds out what the design is, they’re *going* to copy it, I absolutely guarantee it. Patent or not, they’ll copy it, build it, sell it in their borders, & sell it to other countries that don’t respect patent rights.

  • Luke Macmichael

    If this really works I would open source it as quickly as possible before the powers that be decide they’d rather not let there billions of dollars of investment in Oil and the current energy infrastructure go to waste. I’m sure they would be happy to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to make inventions like these (and heaven forbid the people that create them) disapear.

    The only safety for something this big is to get it out into the masses as quickly as possible before the bad guys can take full control of it.

    Don’t worry about the money Rossi! If this works as you you say you would be hailed as the savior of the world and make billions just in the fame alone. You could sell your book “How I saved the world!” and make hundreds of millions on movie rights and consulting or speaking fees.

    I am praying hard that the e-cat isn’t a hoax but I tend to agree with the skeptics that if this erally works you could have just gotten it out there by now and had it verified by independant third parties.

    A patent on something like this would never work anyway. You can’t patent “Fire” or a “Wheel” and this falls into the same category as somthing that will completely change the world.

  • Coal plants and nuclear plants and oil plants and wind farms and every other kind of power generation do NOT require patent-protected proprietary technology to get investors to fund their construction, so that argument is specious.

    Mr. Rossi is certainly entitled to earn something from the fruit of his efforts but his desire for secrecy does not give confidence that he and his powerplant are genuine. Instead he appears to be a scammer, that is the appearance he presents. If it’s true his project will just fade away without doing any good to anyone. If it’s false and he’s no scammer after all but just another greedy capitalist trying to squeeze every dime he can out of people, we all have to wait until his patents expire before they can begin to benefit much of anybody except Mr. Rossi. Either way it’s a sad commentary on today’s state of social responsibility, don’t you think?

    • Brian

      “Coal plants and nuclear plants and oil plants and wind farms and every other kind of power generation do NOT require patent-protected proprietary technology to get investors to fund their construction, so that argument is specious.”

      That is complete and total hogwash. Every one of them have proprietary designs, and large installations are custom designed.

  • Pontus

    We have never seen communism in the world but systems like the Soviet Union has used the name for an elite few owning the product of a nation. People are happy to to develop something they need and receive service from in an open source model but unfortunately greed is stronger. Unfortunately there is a big investment in existing energy sources that is protected by big interests who care only about their importance and power to control the world. Many scams have been presented to discourage belief in any real breakthrough like E-cat. If the powers that be can not own it they will destroy it. Hopefully E-cat technology will prevail by proving superior to existing technology and be more conducive to a decentralized energy economy thus diversify power production so it can truly serve the needs of many and not just the few.

    • Milton Lehman

      No doubt the open source and pro-socialism folks are writing their comments on a computer developed by a capitalist. Remember friends, Steve Jobs was a CAPITALIST, and without any government bailouts brought us incredible technology. Rossi can do the same, if the technology stands up to further scrutiny, as long as he is allowed to pursue his dreams as a CAPITALIST! Socialism only gives you Greece…..

      • Wes

        It is unfortunate that the CAPITALIST has 80 billion worth of product made in CHINA every year. China, may recall is not in the US. Only capitalism gives you a system which cares NOTHING for the PEOPLE it EXPLOITS, nor for the defense of their country or economy. Granted, it has its place as an engine of production managed in a socially-valid framework.

  • Loop

    Few things I have in mind.

    The current price is extreme, I’m shocked to hear that Rossi is asking for 200000 dollars per 1KV or KW I hope its a mistake same as hi mistaken the KG with grams.
    I will try to hear it one more time on the youtube video did I heard it right, is that Mw, Mv or Kw or Kv.

    We all know that this device is 1mw, but he didn’t said that 200000$ is the price for the complete device including his price. I he meant kw than his device is worth 200.000.000$ which is absurd.

    Second thing is that he could present his case to EU parliament, asking the benefit for him, his family and all of the offspring coming from his blood, something like free life on any soil on the EU continent, in exchange for making his project free to EU.

    Third thing is calling this system closed system, its not yet closed system because the electric flow from the commercial grid was present through each second off the test, they said its something about the steady flow of stabilized energy, I cant think why they didn’t included some stabilized inverters which could use as feed for the energy, there are generators in the system. Why would you connect to commercial grid?

    When you start the system, you could switch to internal energy.

    The question is, maybe he have some deal with energy lobby to make system half-opened, like make the system that still use the energy from the commercial grid.

    Also its very strange why he is using the tin aluminium foil, because its not strong to prevent the heat escaping, neither its strong enough to prevent some external particles or some rf or EM emission.

    Maybe he is trying to hide some rf which is flowing through the water and which is very low in signal strength and the tin aluminium foil is strong enough to hide it footprint if some of the public is recording the freq. in the building.

    Next thing that bothers me is why he used so long pipes, and why he decided to place components on such strange places inside the building, I think he said something like we made it like that because we had big space in the building.

    There is a chance that he made such disordered system in order to present it better to the public.

    I hope for the humanity that his system is 100% and that he will find the inner humanity inside of him in order to make this place on Earth a better place for living.
    I don’t like the greedy people I hope that he is a good human being without the greed.

    • Brian

      He said it was in the area of $2,000 per Kw. That is in the price range of a diesel generator.

  • Aussie Guy

    Guys all you need is already in the public domain. In 1998 Focardi published a paper showing 289 days of excess heat production from a Ni-H reaction. This is pre Rossi. It should be simple to duplicate Focardi 6/3a86f663d804b2877e9dcb0e1f003e699da87b26_m.gif’s cell and learn all the secrets of Ni-H LENR reactions:

    1994 peer reviewed:


    2010 with Rossi:

    How much more do you need to duplicate these experiments and move forward to understanding how the reaction works. If you don’t do it, well I can assure others will.

    • Aussie Guy

      I do intent to duplicate Focardi’s 1998 experimental results. It should not be that difficult or expensive or dangerous.

      Please note that in the 1994 and 1998 papers there are no secret ingredients. Just a solid Ni rod which produced a solid LENR excess heat result for 289 days. Just maybe Rossi’s secret ingredients are just a ploy to lead us away from the 1998 results and to not to seek to duplicate them.

      OK the Ni does probably need to be power as fine as you can get it to maximize the surface area but I will start with a non processed Ni rod.

      I will also test a Ni rod heated to 500 deg C in a hard vacuum and then move onto using Ni powder.

  • Pingback: Rumor that Navy SPAWAR is a Rossi Energy Catalyzer customer()

  • Pingback: Al Fin Energy: E-Cat: If Real, "It Would Be a Sacrilege to Keep it Hidden"()

  • Here is a note I sent to Rossi months ago on this topic:
    “The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioecenomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore. …”

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.