The E-Cat and the Economy

If there is any way to solve the huge economic problems the world is facing today, breakthroughs in energy technology could play a major role, and at the moment E-Cat technology seems to offer the most promise.

Despite a chronically weak economic picture worldwide, energy prices are stuck at high levels and the prospect of them going higher seem likely as costs of discovery and extraction increase, and geopolitical uncertainties and fears persist. There are continued efforts to find alternatives to fossil and nuclear fuels but while we see incremental progress in energy innovation, no new energy technology has as yet have been comparable in abundance or efficiency to the traditional mainstays.

This is what makes the appearance of Andrea Rossi’s energy catalyzer technology so tantalizing. We may be seeing the introduction of an energy source that has the potential to eclipse anything we have yet known in terms of abundance, economy and efficiency

Andrea Rossi has said that initially his energy costs will be 10 percent of current costs (both thermal and electrical). It will obviously take time for a new technology like the energy catalyzer to become widely implemented, but in time it could become a ubiquitous energy sourc.

If this turns out to actually be the case the economic impact would be phenomenal. Imagine your heating, electrical and fuel bills cut by 90 per cent. Imagine the impact on businesses if energy overhead costs are cut by 90 per cent (and the cost savings that could be passed on to consumers). Imagine the impacts on local, and national government budgets if their energy budget line were cut by 90 percent. Imagine the cost savings in agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing, and other energy intensive industries if they had to pay 90 per cent less for energy to power their operations.

If this technology is fully and finally validated (Rossi says this will take place in the marketplace — no more public demonstrations) there should be a surge of interest in the E-Cat, and it will be time to adapt to a new economic reality. Certainly there will be plenty of turmoil to deal with as established interests, based on the old energy economy will no doubt struggle to remain profitable and relevant, but the prospects this new technology offers will be so attractive that huge demand throughout the world will make it difficult to stop.

The energy catalyzer could be the most significant invention since the dawning of the industrial revolution — not only because of the immediate benefits, but a breakthrough like this would spark a new wave of research leading to scientific discoveries that could eventually eclipse even Rossi’s nuclear discovery. Rossi’s work is already providing a new surge of interest in the cold fusion/LENR field, and competitors are already at work trying to match and exceed Rossi’s achievements.

Unless Rossi and his associates have been lying all along, and faking their demonstrations and data, it seems that we are indeed on the verge of an extraordinary technological development that could provide the world with something that may transform today’s dismal economic climate which is imperiling the very foundations of modern society.

Frank Acland

Adapted from an article published on this site on Jun 10, 2011.

  • QC_JYM

    Humankind being what it is, don’t expect that 90% saving to be passed on to customer, or at least not entirely!


    • Tom

      I expect exactly that. Eventually, when the science behind LENR is better understood, people will build their own reactors and will maintain it themselves escaping the monopoly. Unless the price of nickel explodes.

      • Matt

        If the price of nickel skyrockets, it would then start to make economic sense to build asteroid miners. They would bring back trillions of tons of nickel and iron.

        • Alain

          ne reason for that,

          needs would be 25% of today’s production…

          moreover if we start to undertand better cold fusion, we might find different solutions… who knows… but nickel and H is a good luck, few materials are more common.

        • Nickel is the fifth most common element on our planet. Even if the whole world used e-cats for decades the price of nickel will not be affected much.

          Doh! does Rossi realize he is converting Nickel into copper and losing $4 a pound.. eek.

        • If we are going to mine astroids for nickel, it will be to use an e-cat onsite for energy production. Easy colonization and outposts.

          • Rockyspoon

            There are enough nickel reserves to power the earth at current levels of consumption for more than a million years. By then I’m sure they’ll understand LENR well enough that they’ll be able to use other elements, for example aluminum, to power LENR. There’s really no need to mine asteroids for our energy needs.

  • Matheuu

    Lets look at the impacts from this process. Take Australia for example and our coal and gas industry…It is a wonder Rossi is still walking and talking… The potential monetary losses in this sector are massive, hard to even contemplate. 227 900 000 metric tons of coal just for energy production( as apposed to 182 000 tons of mined Nickel), a possible 500 000 jobs would be affected… approximately 70 billion dollars a year in profits alone would be directly lost.
    The technology when implemented will be great for the environment and the planet but devastating to the hip pockets for “the top 1%”.

    • Steve Robb

      I don’t think Rossi’s death would stop the deployment of this technology. I’m uncertain where I heard it but he said in the event of his death the technology would be revealed to the public.

    • Alain

      for the world I compute that:

      according to faq
      it consume 10kg for 1MW.6month (4.4GW.h)
      thus 0.44GW.h/kg, 2.3kg/GW.h, 2.3tons/TWh

      planet energy consumption in 2008 is 132000TW.h/y
      thus nickel needed is 300ktons/y compared to production of 1284ktons/y

      note that according to another faq
      it is 1000 thousands less.
      (a question is put about that)

    • Scott

      The goernments are the main benifisheries of the statis quo. The windfall profit tax on the oil companies here in Alaska is about seventy five percent, then you add all the gasoline tax and income tax from all the workers. They have no way of making up that level of loss revenue. There energy saving will be a pittance to there loses. Along with the special intrest money from oil, coal, nuclear, wind and solar I just don’t see them allowing it to happen. Up front all the politians will be for it, but it will be the agencies that wil be shutting it down untill they deem it “safe”.

      • Scott

        Sorry, I need spell check.

  • Francesco CH

    The E-Cat is like a slowly rising water in a receptacle: all the boats will go up and noone will sink, believe me.

  • Andrew Macleod

    I like the thought of cheap energy. It will be atleast 10 years before anyone will see a savings. Most North Americans homes are forced air heating, until someone comes up with a product to retrofit these homes there will be no savings or use for the ecat. There is no infrastructure to distribute the fuel required by the ecat. And is A.R. Personally going to maintain and service all the units himself? No one else is qualified or even knows how it works. Training people and creating a system to refuel the reactors takes time and money. The prospects of his invention are great but he needs better implementation. What the ecat needs is more headroom for others to make money off it , this would drive the ecat economy it self because there are lost of people looking to make a buck.

    • Yeah, he needs to just invent a kit that swaps out the fuel easily. Like a cartridge. Then sell the cartridges.

    • sdb

      I heat with forced air that is heated by my water heater. (There is a water-to-air heat exchanger, A.K.A. Radiator, in the air handler just below the A.C. Coil.) This all common off the shelf HVAC equipment, nothing special.

  • atanguy

    One thing that we forget, in case that the ECat technology works, is that the energy production will be locale, no need of transportation and distribution of gas, coal or petrol. This will make the big difference, even more that the low cost of the energy, million of people will have to change job and in the process the economy based on fossil fuels’ capitalism will stop dead. A new organisation of the society will be necessary.

    • Robert Horning

      There will still be distribution of oil, coal, and natural gas for a great many years to come, if only because the infrastructure is already in place to use that stuff. We won’t lose them overnight.

      On top of that, there are a great many very useful things that can be produced from petroleum and coal that are either considerably harder or on a practical level impossible to make from those things. I’ll be the first to admit that those “other things” that come from petroleum and coal production are on a scale substantially smaller than what is needed by people who use those things as a fuel source. It won’t go to zero, however, as those other applications will still be needed.

      No, I’m not talking just plastic here, but also medicines, dyes, clothing, lubricants, and stuff that goes into so much of modern society that you really would have a hard time realizing just how widespread its use might be. I also don’t see things like rockets (many of which use various grades of kerosene) or air transportation getting rid of petroleum unless the E-Cat becomes substantially more efficient in terms of energy to volume and weight.

      If you can make the E-Cat several order of magnitude more efficient in terms of energy density per pound, some of these other applications of the technology might happen.

      Yes, the E-Cat, even as it is currently being used and designed, can make a huge impact upon the world and make life a whole lot better for everybody… but it isn’t a magic bullet that is going to solve all of the world’s problems overnight. It will take quite some time for it to work its way into many parts of society that still will have to be adapted to the energy source.

    • Lysten

      and welcomed…

  • Robert Horning

    In spite of claims that “energy costs” are high, the real picture is that they have been remarkably stable and have even dropped in price if you look at a longer term view of things. The problem with the measurements in terms of dollars or euros purchasing a certain quantity of energy is that the value of those units of money simply aren’t stable either, and by design they are dropping in value through inflation and monetary policies that make them a very poor tool with which to measure things like the price of a barrel of oil or something similar.

    If you consider how many ounces of gold (or other non-inflationary currency based on a commodity) you need to buy petroleum or other forms of energy, the price has certainly remained stable or even dropped… even over the past ten to fifteen years.

    I’m not saying that the “peak oil” hypothesis is completely without merit, but I am saying that it isn’t the only factor involved.

    I’m also not convinced that even if the E-Cat is everything it is claimed to be, that it will be the ultimate energy solution to the world’s energy needs. There are limits in its design and makeup that will simply require other forms of energy production at least in the intermediate scales of time (longer than a few years but less than a century or more) while there is a transition to a fusion-based energy supply.

    Also, this is a disruptive technology in the sense that it will restructure the world’s economy in some drastic ways. Some countries are going to be much better off with the E-Cat, and others substantially worse off. Places like Alaska, North Dakota, Scotland, or Dubai are likely going to be hurt rather harshly with the E-Cat while sub-Saharan Africa is likely to see their standard of living improve dramatically. Many of the larger cities like Paris, New York, Berlin, or San Francisco are going to hardly even notice the introduction of the E-Cat, especially if all it does is to replace one source of energy with another.

    I’m also not convinced that on a practical level the E-Cat is going to be all that cheaper, and certainly with the prices currently being offered on top of dealing with potential regulatory issues that may come up with the E-Cat that it will be much cheaper than other energy sources. For use in remote areas that are far from existing electricity grids, it might have a more immediate impact (hence my speculation about those parts of the world this would help the most), but that is also where energy prices are the highest anyway.

    As a side benefit, especially in the poorest of 3rd world countries, it might make a huge ecological impact simply because people might be able to cook with heat coming from an E-Cat instead of chopping down the forests of whole countries and very inefficiently turning that wood into charcoal. Sadly, that is still a major source of energy in this world, and nearly the only source of energy that the poorest people and countries of the world are using at the moment. If that could be reversed, that would by itself be a huge benefit to a whole bunch of people even if we may not notice the change in more developed countries.

  • While I think the ecat is very cool, I am not so sure about the economic impact. At least for me only about 1/10th of my costs is energy: electriciy and petrol. I would much prefer it if the rent would go down, but maybe I am not seeing the big picture.

    • well rent can go down if your air conditioning or heating costs are much cheaper.

      • where I live almost no house hase air conditioning because the houses are made of stable bricks with good insulation. Also, newer buildings are often passive houses that have excellent insulation where you need almost no heating.

        • Lysten

          Well everything you buy needs oil (energy). To extract, to transform, to produce…

    • Matt

      1/10th of your own cost may be energy, but think of all the energy that goes into the food you buy, the energy costs that are required for every company that you buy products from. Costs for everything would go down across the board.

    • dude

      Humbly, I do think you miss the big picture.

      IF this is right , and that is a huge IF, as in my opinion Rossi has proved nothing until leading labs in the world in this field will get the details of the apparatus and verify it on their own. I really think he needs to patent all he needs, and do that – it’s his fastest way to success.

      So – IF Rossi is right, having energy at 10% the price (in fact it will become less with time), has a huge effect on society. You only pay 10% for electricity and petrol – but you do buy food, electronics, clothes, machines (car, dishwasher, etc) – all these need a lot of energy to be manufactured, and not less than that to get to your home. Imagine factories, heavy machines, ships, trains , all operating at 10% or less in energy. This is a change beyond anything in the last 200 years. But economically, even saving just 10% of expenses for the whole population has a huge economical impact that will immediately stop current slowdown. It will be however much more than that, everything you use – car, phone, food, furniture, housing, has a huge energy price embedded into it.

      More than that – can you imagine something based simply on Nickel and Hydrogen? Things you can find anywhere on earth in huge amounts?. It will finally kill the dependencies in the energy markets today, esp. with unstable countries. Not to mention the much safer life with no need for huge nuclear reactors.

      Imagine being able to desalinate water easily at a cheap price, can you imagine how important that is to the world?… Deserts could become agricultural lands. It’s a dream.

      And above all – having it with a green technology, bringing to an end greenhouse gas polution.

      I can’t tell you how much I wish Rossi is right. We will be lucky to live at times when something like that happens.

      However – sadly – my estimation is that he is either a hoax or mistaken.

      Rossi – if you or your guys read this – my humble experienced suggestion to you is patent it all, and go to the big labs for validation: CalTech, MIT, Cambridge, Planck Institute. You will be remembered along with Newton and Einstein if you do that and found to be right. Good luck.

  • Robert Mockan

    Hope for the best, but expect the worst.
    People involved in this field must be having a bad case of deja vu by now.

    1991. Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry.

    JEC 319 (1991) 161-175 Elevated-temperature excess heat production in a Pd & D system, by Liaw,
    Tao, and Liebert. This was first high power LENR system with 1500% power gain at 460 C temperature.
    It generated 52 Watts per gram of palladium using heavy hydrogen.

    Given the density of palladium at about 12 grams per cubic centimeter, power density P of palladium is P =(52 watts/gram)*(12 grams/cubic centimeter), that is P= 624 watts per cubic centimeter. 1 liter is 1000 cubic centimeters. The palladium system of 1991 had a power density per liter of Pl=(624 watts/cc)*(1000cc/liter)= 624,000 watts/liter. The E-Cat fuel power density is being publicized at only 100,000 watts/liter.

    Did you ever even hear about this in 1991? It was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, The Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry.

    Have the specifications of the Rossi E-Cat fuel even been published, in ANY peer reviewed scientific journal? And yet Rossi says no more testing? That the market place will determine?

    Uh huh. I suppose over the years I’ve heard worse marketing plans.

    • Robert Horning

      Assuming that I could have one of the E-Cats in my home tomorrow along with a couple of electricity generators hooked up to the steam source, I’m trying to imagine what the conversation I might have with my local utility company (which is a municipal system and I happen to know the mayor and nearly every member of my city council on a personal level… I live in a small town).

      I can just see talking to the lead engineer of the utility company, where they will ask: “You are installing WHAT to your house?”

      That would be a fun conversation to have, but at the same time it would be a challenge on a number of levels. There are already existing laws in my town that permit me to install “alternative energy devices” in my house and “zeroing out” my electrical meter… even to the point of “selling back” some power at residential retail rates under some conditions (yes, the meters can turn backward). There is even a utility program going to have a dual meter to monitor electricity coming in and going out, so I could even sell electricity at wholesale rates. Most of this is set up with photovoltaic systems in mind, but I’m sure I could squeeze in an E-Cat under the same program.

      Still, while the mechanical aspects and the legal issues with connecting the power generation to my house and my neighbors is all perfectly within reason so I could even make a little money on the side at my home creating electricity for my town with an E-Cat, the other hurdles in terms of acceptance of the device itself is something that I’m quite certain would be a firestorm in and of itself if I was to bring one of these devices into my town.

      At the very least, I expect if I brought one of these devices into town, I would pretty much have to take it up to the local land-grant college physics department if only to be permitted to even install the thing. THAT in turn is going to create a major stink even on just the local level, and I expect this same issue is going to repeat itself many times if Rossi continues to proceed with his current marketing strategy.

      BTW, in answer to what you’ve asked… no, there hasn’t been any sort of published peer-reviewed science on the E-Cat by anybody, unless you consider Rossi’s own on-line journal to be authoritative. He has been self-publishing a fair amount of content, but it hasn’t really been peer reviewed. Assuming that these E-Cats will at least work to the satisfaction of those who have them and actually produce power, I’m sure the interest in trying to figure out how they work is going to be there.

      • Robert Mockan

        LOL! You have nailed it. And you can bet the local land-grant college physics department will call the relevant state agency, and the state agency will defer to the state regulatory agencies…

        “Oh, what is that you say? It is some kind of “nuclear” device! I’m sorry, we will need to contact the federal nuclear regulatory agency to determine if this device is approved. Oh, and by the way, where is the UL tag located? We will need to contact the consumer protection agencies and determine if all product testing has been finalized. Where did you buy this? It is a state matter to determine if the company manufacturing these has all the permits and product liability insurance. You realize, of course, that if the radiation shielding is removed either accidentally or intentionally, you will be liable for damages…”.

        Yes, I can see problems with Rossi marketing…

        • they are already being sold? Get your head out of the sand. They are safe.

          • Robert Mockan

            Prove it.

          • Robert Horning

            Ditto what Robert Mockan said. The only way you can prove these are safe is by putting them into very unsafe conditions.

            The reason we know so much about what can go wrong with fission reactors is because dozens of test reactors have been built that were put into unsafe conditions to find out how they would perform under extreme conditions. Sadly, people had to lose their lives as a result of those tests.

            Similar kinds of tests have and are still happening with regards to airplane design, which is one of the reasons why “test pilots” get paid the big bucks. That is also why they need engineering degrees instead of merely a pilot’s license.

            If you have watched some of the videos featuring Focardi, apparently they have been able to blow up some of these “E-cat” cells when put into extreme conditions (although they didn’t disclose what those conditions might be). What happens when you run out of coolant? What operating conditions might produce ionizing radiation? What kinds of radiation are produced? There is a reason there are a couple of inches of lead around these devices…. why?

            All of those and a great many more questions will need to be answered before a very skeptical bureaucrat who answers to some elected officials who don’t have a clue about science other than “nuclear == bad”. All of this is even assuming that the E-Cat even works at all, which still hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction, much less to any bureaucrat.

          • sdb

            and the whole “nuclear” side is only part of it.

            have you looked at the safety issues, regulations, and necessary licences and certifications to install and operate a steam boiler?

            100C and atmospheric pressure is one thing. Increasing pressure to reach temperatures like 200C or 400C is not really “residential” equipment.

        • Lysten

          But then comes some Chinese (or something) government man and overlooks all of that, and then He has it and you don´t…

      • Robert Mockan

        That to. What I posted there is the same citation.

  • Fly

    Is that they have all gone mad!. They do not encounter it as a fraud!

    • The article forget about replacing gasoline in all of our cars. That surely must affect the economy?

      Andrea Rossi is already claiming electrical capabilities for his tiny e-cats. Tiny electric generating machines powering cars is bound to happen soon, especially as the process is becoming clearer to scientists.

      Imagine breathing deeply and no smog left on the planet, and 600 million cars gone that produce smog.

      This thing is going to burn hotter and more efficiently as study continues. Every hybrid scientist, or green power technology expert will now need to switch jobs to make this more efficient.

      Now Brian Ahern is saying it is real. There are too many people who are bringing the same product to market for it to be fake.
      Rossi, Piantelli, and even NASA is filing patents lately.

      I just think cars are too important to be left out.

      • Robert Mockan

        If the power density of 100 KW per liter is confirmed, and if that is self-sustaining output, then this will be paradigm changing.

        Given that lightweight efficient electrical generators could be coupled to the heat source using thermo-acoustic technology, that could also provide continuous activation energy back into the fuel load, insuring self sustaining stable operation, a phrase from a popular science fiction movie might be appropriate when talking about cars.

        “Roads? Who needs roads?”

        Helicopters anybody?

  • Pingback: The E-Cat and the Economy | Logicamp's Blog()

  • How , How , How,
    Scammers typically use other peoples money. Rossi used his own and missed “working” (he’s a Doctor), for 5 years.

    Francesco Piantellis group, Defkalion, and even NASA are applying for related patents. It is like a race. Are they all scammers?


  • Francis

    This website is controlled by Andrea Rossi or related people.
    The whole E-Cat-Story is a big scam.
    This comment will be deleted by the admin probably within the next few hours.
    I expect that many comments on this website are from Andrea Rossi or related people.
    Remember my words!

    • Thanks for clarifying that for me with you superior insight.

    • Bob

      What facts do you have for such a statement. There is much evidence to the contrary. I think we have a new group, the deniers!

    • Lysten

      The voice of doom have spoken…

  • Luca Salvarani

    I think you (and the 99% of people in general) don’t undestand very well the current economic and financial problems that nearly don’t depend at all, on energy costs as I have early explained in some long comments with some real examples…
    From the very beginning I strongly believe in e-cat and also it could provide great long-term benefits.. but on this specific aspect you’re completely off the track. For example if e-cat works as Rossi promises it will dramatically INCREASE unemployment and not the opposite as you are hoping… so in theory millions of people can get low cost energy and heat but in practice without a money source they can’t afford it and even other things they have now! The overall economic impact is positive but there will be a lot of losers that will not get any benefits and will get poorer… This is not my theory but pieces of evidence! think for example about automation-robotization current impact…. American readers could easily undestand my post! Non to speak about financial conseguences… hard to predict but likely disruptive.. Sorry for my poor english.

    • Luca Salvarani, I believe that you have it right. The long term effects of the e-cat will be very positive. The amount of disruption involved in getting there will also be huge. This disruption, this retooling of everything, will carry a high short-term cost. It will start out being net negative to an already fragile economy. Doesn’t much matter though, because the economies of the E.U. U.S.A. and Japan are all major houses of cards. They are all going to tumble into catastrophe with or without the e-cat.

      • Kim

        Short term bad
        Long term good

        but better than the alternative for our


    • daniel maris

      I think you make some valid points and in any case energy as a factor of production is only about 15% of the total.

      • admin

        I think energy costs as a proportion of final cost of a good may be higher than 15% when you think of the energy required to extract and transport raw materials, processing the raw materials, transporting it to manufacturing plant, manufacturing the product, transporting it to wholesalers, retailers, or shipping to end users. It will be even higher when you factor in indirect energy costs — e.g. the energy costs involved in the making of tools, machinery, vehicles, that producers have to buy for their operations.

        • daniel maris

          The extent of energy use varies greatly across industries and services. Clearly someone with a tie boutique won’t use much energy – most of their costs will relate to labour, advertising,purchase of goods and rent. An aluminium smelter company will on the other have energy as a huge proportion of their costs.

          I think the overall effects of cheaper energy will be very significant and positive. I am not sure economists really understand to what extent you will get a “multiplier” effect through cheaper energy, since – with the exeception of land – nearly all factors of production can be expressed in energy terms, even human labour.

          Certainly there will be dislocation in the early stages, so there will unemployment from the fall out, but of course there is going to a lot of employment creation at the same time.

          Some of the best effects will probably be felt in the poorest communities in the world, since you can create relatively cheap electricity generation facilities virtually anywhere, and then develop small distribution networks.

      • Sanjeev

        Essentially, the cost of anything produced boils down to only two things – energy and information. There are no other costs !

        Information has no physical limits and can grow and improve indefinitely. Energy is limited and difficult to produce, with current techniques. Actually it is not limited quantity-wise, this universe has infinite amount of it. We lack the information to access it at this time.

        That’s why energy is such a big thing and once a cheap and unlimited source is discovered, it will turn men into gods in no time.

        I find the talk of economy and people losing jobs very immature, compared to what an unlimited energy source can do. The words economy, money, jobs etc will be found only in history books, once such a source is discovered.

        I can understand that not many people appreciate this insight. It took me a long time, but as soon as you know this, you will become intensely interested in the field of new energy.

        • Lysten

          I agree totally with you.

          A cheap, abundant, clean and efficient source of energy, will push the social/economical paradigm to a new level.

          It will make the change brought by the Internet a “child’s play”.

          We will reach the class 1 Civilization finally.

          Just hope our moral and ethics can keep up.

          But I´m an optimist. It all goes together.

    • racribeiro

      Hi All,

      Besides from the relief of not being dependent on oil producing countries, the e-cat will bring more problems than solutions for the short term economy. Countries like the US, in which a big part of the GDP is based directly, or indirectly, on oil will have a major crash once enery price drops to 5% of the cost and it is generaly available everywhere.

      • Hampus

        I would think the US will be hit really hard. The Nordics on the other hand will be fine. Right now we have 40% water and 60 % nuclear. And we have free university’s soo ever1 can have a new job. Now our welfare state will pay off 🙂

  • Kim

    I don’t want our country held hostage by foreign
    countries any more for the sake of oil.

    Lets Push ahead and for once do the right thing.

    It will be hard at first, but think of the final


  • daniel maris

    Sorry, this “chronically weak economic picture worldwide” is plain wrong.

    Most of the world’s economies are growing at 5% plus.

    Low or no growth is a problem of the early-industrialised: Europe, USA and Japan.

    • Alain

      and the growing part of the world need much much energy.
      only fossil and nuclear energy can feed it quick enough… or LENR.

      if it can be made small et cheap, LENR cal also resolve some local problems of not-developping zone like africa.

  • arian
  • sapain

    if u want to save money on energy costs, build a passive solar air collector. it`s cheap to build and takes a day or two and ur return is fast. build ur own electric vehicle it“ll pay return dividends in 6 months.

  • Pingback: The E-Cat and the Economy |

  • linz

    and to think we could have had this energy 20 years ago when pons and fleishman did it.

  • Happy Sceptic

    Have you thought what the oil depended country are going to do when their only source of money disappears?
    I will give you a hint: see the history of wars

  • Joe

    If he is not actually one then Rossi needs to stop acting like a snake oil salesman. He himself said he would be vindicated by his many satisfied customers but all we hear about is his very satisfied SECRET customers. The purpose of a satisfied customer is to have someone independent of the salesman say the product works as expected. Its been a very long time and lots of grand plans and dreams yet not one single independent user of the product to show that it produces more heat than the electricity input could generate by itself. A happy secret user might as well be Rossi doing a demo with a black box it proves nothing. Belief if irrelevant all that matters is if it works, output greater than input. Get this thing into the hands of a non-secret person that is not related to Rossi already.