Video: Rossi to Work With Two Universities, Vows to be Tough Competitor

In a second video with Andrea Rossi talks about testing the E-Cat with two universities, about whether his invention is actually ‘cold fusion’, and how he plans to be a very tough competitor once the E-Cat hits the marketplace

Interestingly, Rossi does not consider the E-Cat to be true fusion, although he has found evidence of fusion. He prefers to use the term low energy nuclear reaction, and he does not consider fusion to be the main energy source. As usual, Rossi declines to provide his own theory of what is going on inside the reactor.

  • redflatliner

    For me those apparatus and stuff he is using is still looking far from a sellable product. I looks like I have built it and I have “left Hands” as we say in Austria…

    • Not really. You could either encase the entire thing in plastic, or even leave it as is. Have you ever seen a dishwasher that goes in your cabinets? It certainly doesn’t look like a finished product. but you buy it like that at home depot. Granted, yes, you don’t fully use it like that…you still need to install it. But same is true with E-Cat.

    • fritz

      This is the reason why most famous left-handed Austrians live abroad;-)))

  • Pontus

    It might be interesting for Rossi to work with , they are working on a technology to turn infrared radiation directly to electricity using carbon nano-tubes. In this way the 511 Kev infrared photon produced in the Ecat may make electricity directly and more efficiently. It would be really cool instead of the photon being absorbed in the shield to make steam to drive a generator. Especially for warm locations that only need electricity and air conditioning.

    • lol

      Are you kidding? 511Kev is gamma(positron-electron annihilation)

      If his plant is producing 1MW from gamma rays. Everybody at the demo on 28th should have been killed by radiation even with 99% attenuation.

  • Pingback: Video: Rossi to Work With Two Universities, Vows to be Tough Competitor |

  • Sanjeev

    Traditionally the word fusion means combining of two nuclei under high temperature and pressure. Most people, including many scientists are not able to get past that mental barrier and include a broader kind of phenomena in the definition of fusion. The result is that anything that is not occurring in the conditions like that of the core of Sun is considered not-fusion.

    If someone claims that they have seen table-top fusion than he automatically gets branded as a crackpot. So wise people call these interactions as LENR and pretend that its not fusion of any sort.

    I also think that its not fusion. These are totally a different class of phenomena that happen to involve the atomic nucleus and hence transmutation. These need to be studied from a totally different perspective, ignoring the traditional theories and models.

    Unfortunately, the nuclear physics is still stuck in WW-2 era.

    • Wow. VERY well said. I 110% agree with you on this one.

    • Skeptic

      Fusion is the two nuclei coming together to form one heavier atom. High temperature and pressure are commonly believed to be neccesary , but they are not part of the fusion.

      The problem is not a ‘mental barrier’, the question is whether Rossi’s device fuses atoms or not.
      The laws of Physics are not dependent on ‘mental barriers’.

      IF Rossi’s device produces energy, that can be proven without taking it apart. Simply let it run for a week under supervision.

      Not 4 hours after preheating. A week, self-sustained, supervised; and the technology is proven.

      This Has Not Happened. And it would be REALLY EASY to do.
      Ask yourself: Why has this not happened?

      And while we’re at it:
      – Why does Rossi’s device produce the exact same copper isotopes as found in normal copper?
      – Why does it not product any unstable isotopes?
      – If the main powersource is NOT fusion, then what the heck IS the main powersource? (and don’t say: ‘low energy fusion’. Read Rossi: Fusion is not the main source.

      • Sanjeev

        Its a bit premature to guess on the source of energy in Rossi’s box. He has said different things at different times. In the scarecrow interview he said, its matter-antimatter reaction, not fusion.

        There is no reason to believe any of these words and no reason to believe that the end product is natural Carbon.

        Rossi is playing safe by declaring the transmutation products as non-radioactive and by not calling it a fusion process. All for the business.
        No one knows really.

      • why would he do that? rossi does not care if you believe him or not. In fact, it will help if nobody believes him, then he does not have to fear competition. What Rossi cares is building a product as fast as possible. Once that’s finished and on sale, he still does not care if you believe him. If it works, people will buy it.

        • Josh

          He would also have no competitors if he hadn’t jumped on the internet and shared his proposed product with everyone.

          • He needed money, so he needed publicity to sell his 1MW power plant.

      • Steve Robb

        You have obviously never been through an engineering school.

    • Karl A

      Good point!
      The name once stated of the phenomena naming of the phenomena once discovered by Fleischmann and Pons may be a greatly overlooked issue. It may unnecessarily have led minds in wrong directions in many years and created flood of confusion.

      May a wrong selection of wordings be able to kill the world? In such a case it’s really a good example how careful we must be with using correct wording when discussing important matters.

      Besides, cold fusion is a neat term and easy to use and say. Of course it is catchy to grasp and present by media. It seems to my mind be very important question to highlight on this issue.

      An important question is how could such a wrong wording of this phenomena have been created and was it by purpose?

      This may seems to be a minor issue but I am sure it has created big and unnecessarily hurdle for scientists in the field and still does. Still it would be interesting to go into more dept. to analyse those who created this terminology and was it by purpose to mislead?

      • Sanjeev

        Yes, I agree a wrong word. But I don’t think it was intentional, the word just got stuck with P&F and other scientists. Media should also get some blame for this.

        The word ‘cold’ with ‘fusion’ is an oxymoron for a man who has read about fusion inside the Sun or stars. Its a good joke for a man who knows a little.

        Once something gets a negative meaning it loses favor even among the people who know its truth. The word nuclear has become one such dirty word. They removed the word from NMR and call it MRI. Its almost a taboo now after the Japan incident. This will now stop all progress in fission area. A whole branch of science is now dead because of the bomb.

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    On page 137 of, I found this interesting information:

    U.S. Army Base Camp Ederle In Vicenza, Italy
    Since the installation of the new turbine at Heidelberg was placed on hold, other
    potential military installations were investigated, with the most promising being
    Caserma (Camp) Ederle in Vicenza, Italy. Camp Ederle is located in Vicenza,
    Italy about 25 miles west of Venice. The units stationed at base include the following:
    SETAF Infantry Brigade; 1/508th Infantry (ABCT); 509th Signal Battalion;
    14th Transportation Battalion; 22D Area Support Group; USARHC-Vicenza;
    and the Armed Forces Network. The base offers the typical amenities such as
    post-exchange, commissary, theater, clubs, and recreation opportunities. The
    Vicenza Exchange is the largest Mall Complex (over 80,000 sq ft) in the area.
    The U.S. Army Health Clinic at Vicenza serves a population of approximately
    8,000 personnel. Housing for personnel is primarily off-post. Camp Ederle is
    located on the east side of Vicenza, not far from the Vicenza East (EST) exit off
    Autostrada (A4) that runs from Venice to Milan. The city of Vicenza has a population
    of approximately 160,000. The area around Vicenza is in the foothills of
    the Alps and is comprised of vineyards, farmland, and industry. The area contains
    many historical sites including numerous churches and villas.
    Potential Applications of Thermoelectrics at Camp Ederle
    The planned power plant modifications call for the installation of a 1.2 MW
    steam turbine and the upgrade of the existing boiler set, which involves replacing
    the current set of three, 12 MBtu (6k kcal, i.e., 24x.252=6k kcal) boilers with
    three, 24 MBtu boilers. As mentioned in the previous report, the two biggest
    sources of heat lost in a fossil fuel driven steam cycle are in the condenser and in
    the hot flue gas.
    One primary location is the placement of the TE Device in the condenser receiving
    the low-quality steam exhaust or into the closed feedwater heaters used to
    preheat incoming water to the boiler of the steam cycle. This would require the
    design of an integrated thermoelectric/condenser or thermoelectric/heat exchanger.
    This application would have to ensure that adequate heat transfer is
    maintained in the condenser or heat exchanger. The other primary location
    identified in the report and potentially viable for this application is to place the
    TE Device at the exhaust of the boiler. The TE Device would simply be placed on
    the surface at the top of the boiler or surrounding the exit stack. This application
    would have to ensure that an adequate draft remains in the stack.
    The next step is to pursue an on-site demonstration of TE Devices at U.S. Army
    Camp Ederle in Vicenza, Italy. This demonstration is to be coordinated with
    base power plant modifications being conducted by Siemens Westinghouse.

    So it’s very believable that the e-cat can be used for that type of application, If you know that Vincenza is only 150km from bologna. So people from the base of Vincenza can easily work together with Andrea Rossi in bologna. So it’s not that strange that the E-cat is still in bologna.

    • daniel maris

      Good find. It seems v. plausible that an organisation specifically interested in thermoelectric devices might make contact with Rossi and follow up his work if they were that close.

      There is the small matter of the “n” which was supposed to be the first initial. But perhaps that is all BS anyway.

  • Pingback: Video: Rossi to Work With Two Universities, Vows to be Tough Competitor. (video) | No Agenda Global Radio()

  • Skeptic

    If the main powersource is NOT fusion, then what the heck IS the main powersource? (and don’t say: ‘low energy fusion’. Read Rossi: Fusion is not the main source)

    His cryptic remark seems to suggest that fusion is taking place, yet that there is a different process producing the energy. What process is that, if it’s not fusion?
    Does Rossi know what the source of the energy is?

    And while we’re at it:
    – Why does Rossi’s device produce the exact same copper isotopes as found in normal copper?
    – Why does it not product any unstable isotopes?
    – Why did his spent fuel sample contain 10% iron? (hopefully not because he filed some copper with an iron file!!!)

    Does Rossi know what happens inside the eCat?
    If not, how can he possibly mass-produce it if he doesn’t know how it works?
    If he does, then why does he not say it?

    If there is cold fusion AND some other, more powerful process inside the eCat, does that require new laws of physics?

    • Steve Robb

      Fusion means the joining of two positively charged nuclei. Neutron and electron capture by a nucleus are not fusion. The emission of a positron would result in its annihilation by an electron and the resulting two 512 Mev gamma rays would be converted to thermal energy.

      It would not surprise me if Rossi spiked the sample with somethings just to throw the competition off the trail. Or maybe copper is the catalyst or a means of damping the reactions as they may take place very locally producing great amounts of heat that need to be absorbed and then released slowly.

      I would prefer that people not use the term “laws” of physics but rather “guidelines.” We don’t know the “laws” precisely and they may need adjustment. We don’t write the laws and can’t demand nature obey them. As they say “Only nature can break the law.” The trouble with physics today is physicists have become a group of priests that only repeat what has been know for fifty years and refuse to look a experimental evidence that may turn the page.

    • Ged

      Fusion makes byproducts such as antimatter. Of course, antimatter annihilation produces far more energy than fusion by itself. It’s possible a very small amount of fusion occurs, but the fusion is actually a catalyst to produce and react antimatter in a localized way. In fact, all one has to do is break the symmetry of the virtual particles that make up “space” (see here ) to produce an excess for annihilating with normal matter.

      That is all just crazy, funky theory. It could be some completely other weak force/strong force reaction is going on we’ve never encountered first hand before.

      Or it could just be regular fusion. We’ll have to wait to find out, if this device is working and doing a reaction at all. But it’s kinda exciting if it is, to find out if we may discover a whole new field of physics! The quantum world does WEIRD stuff and we haven’t even scratched its surface, so don’t be shocked.

    • Skeptic, “If the main powersource is NOT fusion, then what the heck IS the main powersource?”

      I think you have the cart before the horse. One must first begin by establishing that a phenomenon is occurring. This can be easily done to the satisfaction of most honest people by seeing the community of scientists at reputable labs that say that they also are producing the phenomenon.

      Once the phenomenon is established to exist, the “skeptic” label should be gone. Only once there is a known phenomenon can the question of exactly what science drives the phenomenon can be asked.

  • andreiko

    Kan ik een multinational aan de hand krijgen zonder dat mijn product bewezen heeft te werken (nee)

    Dus e-cat werkt!

    Kan ik veel weerstand verwachten voor mijn product als het werkt (ja) want veel geleerden zien hun projecten in duigen vallen.

    Is de geest nog in de fles te stoppen (nee)

    • billybob

      Volgens mij gaat niemand op deze website jouw commentaar begrepen hebben behalve ik 🙂

      • nrico

        Hier is er nog eentje.. 😛

        • …en met zekerheid zijn er nog veel meer Nederlanders die de materie en deze webblog vervolgen.
          In hoeverre zij op de hoogte zijn met de Nederlandse implementatie is een interessante vraag 🙂

          • de^mol

            welke Nederlandse implementatie?

          • bilybon

            of Belgische implementaties 😉

  • Blah, Blah, Blah.

    Same stuff we’ve been hearing for the past year.

    I don’t think AR has a stable product. His best demonstration was 18 hours.

    • Steve Robb

      You are sounding like a frustrated believer. Do you now believe he has a product but that is unstable? A demonstration of 18 hours producing a high COP that is not based on known laws of physics is of Earth shattering importance.

  • The truth about all this we have been waiting for is that this is a phenomenon that some renowned physicists have been trying to explain some, it seems to me more insight and wisdom with others, such as Stremennos or Kullander, but I think not a phenomenon directly linked to nuclear fusion, then it will be some phenomenon that happens at the threshold of the merger and Andrea, his Ecat achieved, making this phenomenon a continued process and almost completely stable, which, now being debugged with great precision and automated control of the various variables that range and perhaps the most critical of the process.

    It is important to understand that perhaps the formula for the Rossi manages Ecat fully functioning, it may be part of the puzzle, but I am inclined to think that the phenomenon as everything that comes by chance, may be opening new gaps for human knowledge expand your range and scope.

  • Kim

    My Grandfather bought 1 of the first Microwave
    ovens on the market

    Curiosity for a while, lots of questions
    finally acceptance.

    Nothing will make it “ok” until people can touch and
    use in privacy of their home.


    It will be just chatter until then.


    • Martin

      That’s absolutely true Kim, and Rossi know this

    • Joe

      We are not talking consumer acceptance here, there was never any mass doubt about the science being the microwave oven.

      The cold fusion field is famous for fantastic results that only one guy can make happen.

      Nothing will make it “ok” until any person other than Rossi can touch and use in privacy of their home.

      • Kiran

        “only one guy can make happen”?! Really? Drs. Fleischmann and Pons, Dr. Michael McKubre’s group – SRI International, Dr. Robert T. Bush and Robert Eagleton and their colleagues – California Polytechnic Institute,Dr. Akito Takahashi of the Department of Nuclear Engineering – Osaka, P.K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan – BARC etc. etc. are one and the same guy?

  • I think this is a step in the right direction. We need a third (or fourth) independent reputable party to assess this device of his and announce the verdict.

    Regarding whether or not it’s fusion. It can be alchemy for all I care. As long as it works.

    This invention, if it is real, is too big to just have one guy, even a very talented and bright guy, playing around with it in his little backyard shop. For all we know Rossi may be a good inventor but just not cut out for manufacturing.

  • Robert Mockan

    When Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published their landmark paper titled “Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium”, in the J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (1989) 301-308, they qualified their statements about fusion happening in the palladium electrodes they used in their reactors, saying (page 308), “.. reactions (of fusion) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme, and..the bulk of the energy release is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes..”. They also pointed out an observation that remains the basis today, after 23 years, for explaining the documented evidence for nuclear reactions. On page 302 was this, “..the s-character of the electron density around the nuclei is very low and the electrons (of hydrogen) form part of the band structure of the overall system.” They go on to say that the hydrogen ions in the lattice behave as classical oscillators and must be in potential wells, with the conclusion that there must consequently be a significant number of close collisions (of nuclei). Ironically, this is still the fundamental basis of most of the hypothesis about what is causing the “hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes”. If this field had received proper funding the question about how the energy is being generated would have been answered after just a few years, probably before 1991 or 1992.
    One thing that has become very clear concerning progress. Progress denied, people died. We should all be thankful Rossi is trying to make a difference, even if he has to fund the work himself.

    • Robert Mockan

      I should add that the metal and hydrogen systems that have been studied since Fleischmann and Pons, who did their research using palladium, now includes the metals platinum, gold, nickel, molybdenum, tungsten, tin, chromium, osmium, thorium, uranium, and a few others, with hydrogen (protium), heavy hydrogen (deuterium), and even tritium (a radioactive isotope of hydrogen). And they have all, under the proper conditions, released energy though “hitherto unknown nuclear processes”. They all appear to be based on the same phenomena. The nickel hydrogen system that Rossi is using may not be the best.

  • fritz

    Rossi explanation about the role of the rf generator “let coulomb barrier work for us instead against us” somehow reminds me to the work of Keely and Meyer.
    There is a deep ocean between macroscopic, microscopic, nanoscale and quantum phenomenon.
    And somehow, we just use this ocean to travel on the surface with our ships – cause theory tells us whats at the bottom.
    We divide nature into chemistry, physics, biology – and pretend to know everything.
    In the end we know just simple basic rules, applicable to realities we fragmented in our very own way.

  • fritz

    or did this look like a car ???

    • Sanjeev

      Good comparison.
      Only that things evolve faster nowadays. The car took 100 years to come this far. Ecat/lenr will take at most 10 years to turn into a magic lamp.

    • daniel maris

      Good point Fritz. I am constantly drawn to the analogy with the early development of the motor car when you had competing technologies but basically everyone moving in more or less the same direction.

  • Sanjeev

    Mark Gibbs is probably more uninformed than an average e-catworld reader in the area of LENR.

    Or it seems that his bias is not letting him read papers, patents, reports and presentations or to talk to the actual scientists who are seeing LENR in action on a daily basis.

    Should we call it an arm-chair journalism?

    • Steve Robb

      I like the expression, “Arm-chair journalism.” Mark Gibbs is good for nothing except drawing an audience to his articles. I am looking forward to more such journalists loosing their jobs.

    • daniel maris

      Behind the sofa with your eyes closed journalism?

    • Roger Bird

      Gibbs is a philosophical retard. A theory is a group of ideas or a model to explain phenomena. Dark Matter or Dark Energy or Relativity are theories. LENR is, according to Gibbs, an unsubstantiated phenomena; according to some, it is a substantiated phenomena. It is not a theory. A theory is a group of ideas. Relativity is a substantiated theory that describes various phenomena. A fact is a substantiated phenomena, like gravity. Newton’s theory of gravitation is not a fact, it is a theory. Einstein’s correction to Newton’s theory is still a theory, however better it describes the phenomena. A theory can never be a fact, it is always a model or group of coherent ideas that explain phenomena.

  • lol
    • Frank

      I’m wondering what will happen to all the ecat-websites and blogs when the Rossi saga finally fizzles out ? (Although I think that Rossi will still be around with claims of amazing improvements and break-troughs for quite some time.)
      Will those sites just replace the term ‘ecat’ by ‘LENR’ and continue?

      • Mary Sutton

        I’m sure all the e-cat websites owners will just cash out all their ad revenues when traffic falls off.

      • Rogerborg

        I’m thinking they might just skip straight to “Over-Unity Energy”, “Elerium-115” or “Unicorn Farts”.

    • Steve Robb

      So, what is the point of your post? Is it just to say there are persons who doubt claims that come from the non-priesthood-of-physicists of something new under the starts? Or are you trying to prop yourself up by saying you have friends to back you up and you are not alone?

  • Lévi
  • Robert Fisher

    Has anyone even considered that the excess heat being observed is a reaction between the D2/H2 being produced and the O2 to form water, catalyzed by the Pd, Pt, etc elecrode? Pd and Pt are particularly good catalysts for this reation.