Waiting for the E-Cat: Attitudes of E-Cat Observers

It’s an interesting thing to have been watching the story of the E-Cat for over a year now. Aside from learning about the technology itself, it has been instructive to watch how fellow followers have been reacting to the various ins and outs of the story. I would say that there are some broad categories of attitudes into which observers fall into.

1. “It will never work. The whole story has been a scam from the beginning, and eventually the house of cards will fall and Rossi will be exposed as a fraud.”

2. “Intially I was hopeful that Rossi had made a breakthrough, but it has taken so long for us to see anything fully convincing that I am losing hope of ever seeing anything come of this.”

3. “The more I hear about the technology from Rossi, the less impressed I am. A COP of 6 for heat is really not that impressive — it won’t save me much money to have an E-Cat in my home. I’m losing interest.”

4. “Rossi made the technical breakthrough, but Defkalion is the company that has better engineering and will have superior products. They are the company to watch.”

5. “Rossi is motivated by greed when the world is desperate for the technology he has discovered. Why doesn’t he just open source it and let people around the world develop his technology so all can benefit from his discovery as soon as possible?”

6. “Rossi is building a new industry here, and is acting like one would expect an engineer and businessman in his position to act. He’s working on developing his product and giving no secrets away to the competition. Be patient and give him time to get the job done right.”

7. “Rossi has just scratched the surface of the possibilities for LENR. His E-Cats will be very primitive compared to what will come when others build on his discovery — but he has opened the door for a bright technological future”

Having read thousands of comments from E-Cat observers these are some of broad and not always mutually exclusive categories of attitudes towards the E-Cat that I see. Waiting for something that could turn out to be wonderful is always a difficult position to be in. The anticipating can provide hope and motivation, but the suspense can be frustrating and hard to deal with, and delays and disappointments can increase uncertainties and doubt.

The gamut of attitudes is not at all surprising considering the position E-Cat observers are currently in. Rossi has said plenty about his work, we have been given some demonstrations by Rossi, and heard from firsthand witnesses of those demos, but questions remain, and there is still plenty of distrust and uncertainty surrounding the E-Cat.

It is going to be a while before we find out what the final result of this whole story will be, but it’s likely that the discussion will continue and perhaps increase in volume. I’d be interested to hear if anyone has a different attitude than one the areas I have outlined above.

  • Andre Blum

    People finding themselves in category 3 (“The more I hear about the technology from Rossi, the less impressed I am. A COP of 6 for heat is really not that impressive — it won’t save me much money to have an E-Cat in my home. I’m losing interest.”) should be ashamed of themselves for being such capitalist pigs.

    The E-Cat and LENR in general are not about money. They are about making the leap to a new form of energy that is practically endless and does not seem to have any nasty side effects like pollution. That it comes at the same price as our old forms of energy at all at this early stage, and that it has the potential of becoming much cheaper, is nothing but a big plus.

    • psi

      One has to wonder how much this perspective is a “fall back” for those who want to put themselves in categories 1 or 2, but find themselves unable to do so given the mounting evidence for the reality of the technology. As you suggest, this is an absurd position given the dynamic of every past innovation of this kind. Its a bit like scoffing at a model-T because “it only goes 40 mph.”

      • Carmania

        A domestic heat pump (that around 50% of Scandinavian one-family houses use for heating) is generally around COP 3. A Rossi e-cat doubles that at a much lower price. See – there you have a market for millions of units!

        • dsm

          If only Rossi would show one for certification to Uppsala University. But while he said he was going to, he then never did. Why ?.

          There was no valid reason to state was was then quietly walk away from the commitment. (same re his claims for Uni Bologna & his claim that NASA was ready to buy an eCat).


  • Filip

    You are a great moderator, it is a very good evaluation, it helps “us” to get back on the right track.

    • Filip

      The cost of the new energy source(Ecat) is secondary to the benefit for the environment. If it is cheaper in time people will spend their extra money on other things, it doesn’t matter how rich you are, there will be always things you cannot buy, even Bill Gates.

      • Filip

        ofcours it cannot be more expensive

    • psi


  • Loop

    This article is missing one category:
    I was believer but after Defkalion recent moves they made me to a septic.

    • Steve Robb

      It is unfortunate that Defkalion seemed to hold out much promise to us the casual observers and to seemingly yank it away. Defkalion is a company in it for the money and wishes to keep their product under wraps until they have some part of the market wrapped up. That is the same with Leonardo Corp. and any other in the business. They need to protect their intellectual property to make a profit on it and to expand their business and the technology at a rapid a rate as possible.

  • Martin

    3. it’s got to be much better than COP6…

  • daniel maris

    There appears to be no certainty about any of this.

    I tend to divide the narrative into Rossi/Defaklion and the others.

    The NASA patent makes me believe that LENR is for real.

    I find Rossi’s recent comments quite persuasive. We will have to see if he can now deliver on his statements.

    • NASA has done nothing but denigrate itself and its image and damage the field of science in general by letting this guy in their organization pursue his LENR hobby with the NASA stamp of approval and logo attached. The only reason NASA isn’t officially admitting to an error is because the video/patent has not hit mainstream media.

      • daniel maris

        How can an approved patent be an “error”? I’ll be interested to hear.

        • dsm


          An approved patent for a process does not prove the process works. Patents aren’t about proof !.

          That is a well understood fact !.

          You seem to repeatedly think that patenting a process is the same as patenting a working device. It isn’t.

          The NASA patent (irrespective of what the patented process is claimed to do) does not prove LENR !. Research in labs is where the proof is sought and it is disseminated usually by publishing peer-reviewed papers. Even then there can be reasonable doubts.


          • daniel maris

            I never said it was a “proof”. I asked how it was “an error”.

            Ponzi said the patenting was an error. Why?

            Do you agree it was an error? Why?

            PS Get a grip. NASA doesn’t patent nonsense.

          • When I worked for NASA the US Marshall came to my supervisor’s house with a gun to take her into custody. A $700 million dollar satellite was about to fly. Turns out the software project that we were working on which was a key component of the system was hijacked and turned into a technology transfer venture for her firm. The launch of the satellite had to be delayed. A year or two later you would read how her venture was a fantastic example of how NASA transfers technology from the space program to private industry. NASA allows employees not only to run their own private companies within NASA, but to run amok. Get a grip. NASA doesn’t patent nonsense? True but just because it has a NASA logo doesn’t mean it’s an official NASA project. Rest assured, it will be, if it pans out and becomes successful.

        • If I work for NASA and develop a machine that finds poltergeists and get it approved. Does that mean that ghosts exist? No that means somebody at NASA made an error.

          Do you want proof that it was an error? I can easily prove it. No official entity at NASA is working on LENR. Dr. Zawodny is a climate scientist. The official entity that he works for is … drumroll…


          SAGE III Project Scientist – Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment. Flies up there in space on a Russian satellite and observes ozone, aerosols, water vapor.

          Key word here is “observes”.

          LENR is a hobby of his. NASA allows employees to use their patent office for pet projects.

      • dsm

        Sorry but your statement is not backed up by observable facts. NASA is investing and researching LENR. The below links are not to imaginary devices and they are not a Zawodny hobby and they contradict your rather wild assertions !!!





        • Sorry but my statement was backed up by more than adequately observable facts. You dsm in contrast presented a bunch of websites to a project which has nothing to do with LENR. An engine that transforms heat energy into mechanical energy is not LENR. DSM I worked at NASA for 15 years. I know the place and how it works. If they were working on LENR then either there would be an official project with that name attached to it or there would be a team, group, section dedicated to the work and would be named appropriately. Can you name it? I don’t think so. Links to engines similar to the Siemens model presented on this we bsite a few days ago do not disprove my assertion.

          • psi

            Good luck, Ponz.

  • Renzo

    To me it’s both 6 and 7 at the same time

  • 7,6,5 mix.

    I was always suspicious of Defkalion however, as they lied a lot, and never ever showed anybody a product except Sterling Allen. I believe their spec sheet was just a fake.

    LENR is undoubtedly real however with hundreds of labs confirming it worldwide. Over 16 entities have verified Nickel/Hydrogen is possible, so this verion of LENR also seems true. The one aspect of LENR that has made it a fuel potential instead of a fuel is that only 2 entities had claimed the ability to control the reaction. Andrea Rossi, and Defkalion.

    Now that Dr George Miley a physics professor from the University of Illinois has also made a working AND CONTROLLABLE version of the Nickel/Hydrogen reaction we may see some belief come quicker.

    Andrea Rossi simply by introducing a new green technology has put himself into the role of lunatic as many “new energy” developers tend to fit into the whacko department. It is rare indeed that any of these new energies has had the merit the ecat does.

    Let us hope that Dr George Miley will allow his product to be poked, prodded, and otherwise scrutinized with details of how third party experimentation can be made possible to verify LENR.

    Anyone providing such a catalyst to the LENR fuel revolution will have schools named after them and accolades of humanitarian prizes. I hope Dr George Miley is keen to prove this reaction as a viable energy once and for all.

    This month is interesting.
    – We have “Defkalion” if they exist supposedly sneaking around behind the scenes getting “verifications and third party testing.
    – On March 22, we have a LENR presentation at CERN, home of the worlds elite scientists in a multi multi billion dollar research facility located mostly underground. Hopefully attendance will be maximum.
    – On march 23, we have Dr George Miley giving another lecture on the success of his Nickel/Hydrogen cell in Texas.

    It will be interesting to see what transpires at these conferences, but scientific acceptance may come a long way from these two events.

    It still surprises me that the mainstream media seems more preoccupied with Lindsay Lohan than they do with a proven new energy (controlling it needs proving still) that may make gas prices and smog vanish from this planet.

    I will be happy when I see over 1 billion dollars invested in LENR research, and finally see it on the 6 o’clock news.

    • mrG

      Thanks for the George Miley reference — I’ll look into that; that certainly salves one of my sore points.

      • mrG

        ok, this is exceedingly odd: a google on Dr Miley shows a lot of fanboi sites (the “I want to BELIEVE” sort of LENR site) making great claims, and yet on Dr. Miley’s own site, there is no mention of anything even remotely similar: http://fsl.ne.uiuc.edu/ does not list any LENR research in any form.

        if they had been so successful, wouldn’t they be proud enough of the result to at least publish a paper about it?

        • Dr George Miley is well known to have replicated the LENR Nickel/Hydrogen device. There are various youtube videos where he explains his power cell. He has a conference scheduled for March 23, 2012 in Houston. I hope you find what you are looking for. It does look like George Miley may be intending to prove controllable LENR ahead of others.

    • psi

      Kwhilborn, nice summary of where we are.

  • mrG

    I think #3 combines two points, so I’d agree with the first part, the more I heard about Rossi the less impressed I am, but it isn’t about the COP or the cost, it is about two other things: it is about building up a great deal of hype over a product that so far has not even been delivered as a prototype (if the story about the 1MW being ‘delayed’ for a ‘gasket’ is correct) — Rossi should have stayed quiet until he was ready to ship, and the other nagging suspicion is over Defkalion for no other reason than that they are an impossible product being offered out of a devastated economy, and again, there’s no trade-show demo, only posters and mock-ups. I also haven’t heard any convincing scenario for how this is able to work, transmuting nickel into every-day isotope copper, and then the contradictions with Defkalion saying there is and Rossi saying there are no gamma rays.

    I’m not saying fraud, that’s way too strong a word, but I am saying that if it is not a fraud it is a tangle of farce, a parade of blunders, which could even mean that, as with Pons and Fleishman, the thing worked ONCE, but the grad student who made it work left and it hasn’t worked since, and this parade of blunders would make me highly hesitant to buy into the product even if it did appear on the Home Depot shelves.

    Can anyone name a prior product that was delivered in this way? Something game-changing that was announced as if it was real only to find out it was barely a skunkworks project of duct-tape, tin foil and garden hose, and then only media speculation and name calling for more than a year, but finally emerging like a beautiful butterfly from a cocoon of chaos?

    • mrG

      As a repeat-offender entrepreneur myself, another suspicious aspect of the Rossi/Defkalion machines is their proprietariness — it is illogical to assume you can introduce a new technology to the modern world as an independent; human beings, indeed all the great-apes, are highly influenced by alpha-ape endorsements, and we humans have been slapping endorsements on products since Babylonian times. As an entrepreneur, one of my largest expenses was always the arranging of endorsements, Tony Kubek and the major league players assoc for my old PCjr baseball game for example, was the second largest set-up expense. So it would be in Rossi’s best interest to PARTNER with NASA if only to get the NASA logo on his boxes. Certifications are good, they are required in most places, but nothing sells a product like an alpha-ape endorsement, and the huge boost in sales would more than compensate Rossi for the loss in profit, even if the endorsement was largely bogus, a rubber stamp doled out by a marketing geek (just so you know, Tony Kubek insisted on trying my game personally before he’d endorse it 😉

      • Jim

        You’re assuming that Rossie even needs an endorsement. This isn’t like a pc game where there are a dozen different baseball video games and literally thousands of different video games. This is device which will be the first one out and already has a huge demand.

        Microsoft didn’t need an endorsement. They were the first and only available OS for the pc.

        Ford didn’t need an endorsement. People already wanted the cars. He made them cheap and available.

        People aren’t going to be buying the e-cat because there’s a nasa logo on them. They might buy a dried orange drink mix because of a nasa logo, but the e-cat won’t need it.

      • NH

        You have obviously not worked with or for NASA before. Just saying. Very poor suggestion. VERY VERY poor. Yes, I have worked with NASA and for NASA. They all feed from the same diversion trough, by the time a product is brought to market, the history is so obloviated with cost overuns and hype, it would then be competitive with oil prices.

    • sapain

      the airplane and wright brothers.

  • Andrew Macleod

    I foresee marketability issues for his current home 10kw reactors. With the latest specs its for a small niche market. If he could change the design so the units could replace baseboard heaters this would help immensely. He should move forward with the larger plants and electrical generation, get that working and deal with miniaturization later.

  • Thomas Ammons

    Oh no, you guys are wrong– we will be buying our 10KW @$500 home E-cats this fall at Home Depot. (let me state explicitly that this is sarcasm in case you are so overwhelmed by hopeful belief that you don’t get it.)

  • Kim

    They have locked themselves in their rooms
    and don’t want to come out a play.


  • andreiko

    Het ongeduld van de mens is geen schone zaak.

  • Sven l

    Defkalion forum..

    If you miss the forum from defkaion, there is a new forum to discuss the company. It has different categories for different languages. I hope this forum will remain and not be edited. http://www.defkalion.se

  • Lu

    My attitude has been to give Rossi and Defkalion the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise. I also feel that if one them has a viable commercial LENR device than the other does as well, and vice versa. I also felt that it was a race between the two and that Defkalion had the advantage based on their higher stated COP and their announced testing plans.

    Defkalion reneging on their stated procedures for independent verification and then going dark for no real reason was a huge red flag for me and in my mind Defkalion does not have a commercial LENR device.

    Rossi unwilling to submit even a photograph prior to E-Cat sales and providing false and misleading statements in a recent response to my post on JONP about product assurance and subsequently blacklisting me on his JONP when I tried to follow up on his response leads me to believe that Rossi also does not have a commercial LENR device. His recent statements regarding changing his E-Cat in response to identified shortcomings also does not sit well with me.

    They both may have a LENR device that works somewhat some of the time but at this point I don’t think we’ll be seeing LENR in our homes and factories anytime soon. I hope I’m wrong.

  • The plumber

    I find these discussions are boiling down to wether you are a half empty or half full type of person. If you can generate heat with a COP of 6 you have a winner. As a plumber I can assure you there will be a race to adopt it. You personally may not see a short term benefit but the killer app is there for others. If you have a efficient heating system you my want to wait but what about those who have to replace worn out equipment or are planning new construction. The smart money is always with efficiency even if there is a 5- 10 year payback on the additional costs for the equipment. Saying a COP of 6 is not impressive is looking the gift horse in the mouth. The price of oil does not go down over time.

    • Stephen

      I think that even a COP of 1.01, if really demonstrated would be a MASSIVE breakthrough because it would mean that LENRs are real and we have a new safe nuclear power source. If this thing really exists it can be studied, optimized and engineered. In this case, I am sure we will have flying cars and holidays on Pluto within 20 years 🙂

      So: who cares about the COP…

      The problem is: is this real? I am not so sure…

  • PersonFromPorlock

    I think we’re at the point where ‘pathological sceptic’ applies more to those who refuse to believe the evidence E-cat’s a scam than to those who refuse to believe the evidence it’s real.

    • Levis


    • Ged

      The evidence still supports Rossi, and not that it’s a scam. But it’s always been teetering.

    • Stephen

      I would love it to be true. Based on evidences, I cannot conclude anything. I am still waiting. Probably we have a different definition of “evidence”. Based on Rossi behaviour, I bet on the fraud.

      • raj

        Rossi is exceptionally good at *appearing* like a scammer. There are points in favour and against believing the whole thing.

        Points for believing his technology is real:
        1) Observed tests by Swedes, who we all know are goodly and beyond question 🙂
        2) It’s perfectly reasonable for Rossi to protect his intellectual property, considering patents haven’t been approved.
        3) Competing technology by Defkalian means this is not an isolated scammer.. Chances of 2 scammers is less than 1.

        Points against:
        1) Not one indepedant and openly known customer. Not one independant beta tester or leaser. (this is the biggest point for me. Couldn’t Rossi just give a free unit to someone or someones trustworthy and respected, who could then comment on its effectiveness over the long term. That’s what I’d do in his shoes.)
        2) No collaboration or peer review with any respected scientific organisations and no independant verification of results.
        3) Defkalian is closely associated with Rossi, so they are not exactly independant competition
        4) ALL Rossi’s investors, customers and partners are 100% SILENT. No confirmation, no gossip coming from them, not even in terms of the most trivial logistical information.
        5) Rossi is apparently CEO of a company with substantial investors, yet there doesn’t seem to be any business transparency, in fact the other directors of the company don’t seem to exist at all!
        6) No reported test carried out over a long duration.

        • Stephen

          For example I don’t classify people’s words and behaviors as “evidence”. People have tons of reasons to lie, intentionally or unintentionally, to be fooled, to be stupid, distract, crazy, delusional, etc, etc. Only hard facts, consistently verified by different observes, should be regarded as “evidence”. The rest is misleading.

          Not even Rossi’s behavior is an evidence. In fact based on that I *bet* on the fraud. It’s more like a vib I feel…

          About your pluses:
          1 – Swedish guys were not convinced… they said it’s interesting but in the end they said they don’t know. Which means nothing.
          2 – Rossi behavior is not an evidence of any kind. He’s also directly involved so this means less than nothing.
          3 – Fair enough, but not very convincing. Two scams are perfectly possible.

          In my opinion we are still at step zero: we have an unverified claim of a signficant breakthrough. The physics is not impossible as previously believed… but this could still be a smart scam.

          In conclusion, I am still waiting… and despite being the potential breakthrough of the millennium, I am very bored.


          Differently, I believe there are *some* interesting true evidences about LERNs as a physical phenomenon. However this does imply anything about the reality of the eCat or of the Hyperion.

          • raj

            I’m strongly veering towards scam at this stage. I was hopeful about Blacklight Power initially too, but now I think probably a scam too… Actually I think the word ‘scam’ is a bit harsh. A lot of the time I think these guys genuinally believe they have some breakthrough, but then it turns out to be due to erroneous testing procedures. I’m still open minded enough to follow this website from time to time though.

  • Petrol

    I still await independent (non self-referential) verification of Rossi claims. Everything else is meaningless.

    • Dan Absher

      I am waiting for the E-Cat that I pre-ordered. I will purchase one if the price stays around the currently mentioned numbers. Then I can test it. That will be meaningful to me. I have a plan for my shop heater and its control system. I don’t believe my wife will let me put one in the house yet.

  • daniel maris

    One thing: if Rossi really has a working device, he should think about setting up a finance operation to lend people the money to buy his system. If it costs $1000, they might be able to buy it back at $200 per annum over ten years. This means people don’t have to scrabble around for the money, and you can also tie it into maintenance agreements.

    • Jim

      At $200 per year for 10 years, I imagine just about any lender will be happy to finance these. I doubt if Rossi will need to get involved with that. That interest rate would be almost 15.9%

      Generally, mfrs only really finance in order to push sales. I doubt if Rossi is going to have a sales problem, especially with the device selling for under $1000.

      But I bet what will happen is that Home Depot, or whatever big store gets involved, will sell you the device plus the labor to install it to your furnace, plus finance all of it.

      The installation into existing furnaces is going to be interesting. Boilers will be simplest, I bet, but I’m not sure what they will do for a gas furnace like I have. I bet Rossi’s company will be training hundreds of people on how to install them, and they will go out and train contracters through stores.

      I really wish some tv producer would document this process. I’d love to see it.

      • daniel maris

        There is still a case for the producer putting the deal together on a new product to overcome consumer conservatism.

        It means the difference between the person having to consider an investment of $1000 or more and a one year payment of $200 under an agreement which can be cancelled after one year.

  • Ged

    Some of us observers teeter back and forth only on the basis of the evidence. As the facts accrue and change, so does our outlook. Time alone is the truest test.

  • John

    I really wish I’d never heard of e-cat. It’s like the OJ Simpson trial, but 100 times longer. In my heart of hearts, I know that it’s probably not real. I try to understand Rossi’s intentions, and don’t get anywhere.

    The price of solar panels has dropped a lot recently, all it takes are a sudden drop in the price of one alternative energy source, and e-cat will become obscure, whether it’s real or not.

    • Jim

      I disagree. No matter how low solar energy, windmills, or whatever drops, if the e-cat is real it will blow them away. Solar energy, even if the panels are free, still require a lot of installation, expensive parts to hook up, and cleaning. They also degrade in efficiency over time. Worse, there’s no good storage of power for night or cloudy days. Similar rules hold for any alternative energy source except fusion.

      With the e-cat, it’s always running at a consistent rate. The only maintenance is replacing a core every 6 months, which is supposed to be easy to do. No going on the roof or climbing ladders. Instead of extensive space like a windmill or panels, it’s tiny and may even allow eliminating or shrinking other appliances in the future. (water heater or furnace might be half the size in a few years due to the e-cat)

      Installation is unknown, but Rossi is working on that. But the hardest part will be integrating it into your furnace. When the generator for it appears, it will be much easier to integrate into your house power than solar, as it’s power will be constant, unlike solar or windmills.

      Finally, solar or wind power is not even possible for many places, as they take either too much real estate, or there is no good direct sunlight except for a few midday hours.

      The only real potential option I could imagine would be for fission reactors to generate hydrogen at a constant rate, converted to hydrocarbon, and pumped to homes through their natural gas lines, which would then be run through a fuel cell for power. But this itself is merely a more efficient system for transferring power from nuclear plants.

      • sapain

        1-1000w syatem on a tracker is like having a 2000w system and takes up very little space.
        2-storage, lead acid, 550 cycles from 100% to 10%, 5500 cycles from 100% to 80%. pick up a few extra batteries.
        hydrogen is easy to produce and can b stored in simple tractor rubber tubes.
        3. passive solar can b a wall mount or a solarium.
        4.china announced they will b slashing their solar prices this year.
        5.ecat will b useless in a week long black out.
        6,when clouds move and effect pv output, there is a wind that comes with the low pressure system, a small wind mill 800w windmill helps to keep the system topped up.

        • Meta

          The reality is that the above poster sounds like he just invested everything he has in solar only to discover its about to collapse..Ecat or hyperion don’t need the grid to run , they could easily produce stationary power or mobile power for cars if the will was there.

          • sapain

            it took me three yr to get pay back on my system, i do not pay utilities. i beleieve in enviromental protection and supported the alternative energy industry to help it flourish. solar won`t collaspe.
            ecat may come out in a yr, okay but today, i still put $2400/yr in pocket from not paying utilities. if it takes 2 yrs for lenr to hit market that`s $4800.
            using lenr to produce silicon will drive the prices so low that solar will be cheaper than lenr.
            lenr is still in the unknown stage of electrical production and may still be unknown for another 5-?yrs. the REALITY is to support alternative energy sources to help clean this planet up and get off the carbon based feul nipple and away from corperate controlled energy prices.
            the name of the game is unlimited energy for all.

      • daniel maris

        Sadly unsubsidised PV panels in my part of the world UK are still a very expensive form of energy (will be different in the SW USA of course).

        In the absence of the E cat or LENR devices in general I support green energy solutions, but let’s not pretend that they are directly price competitive. The argument for green energy relates to climate, security of supply, clean air and domestic employment.

    • londo

      Thing is, LENR is probably true at a level of a few watts per reasonably sized device. The kW device, well, may not be true. Rossi jumped at the technology, a head start or a false start maybe, hoping that the kW device would be possible to make down the road. Maybe even he’s managed to get tens or hundreds of watts but if he had the tens of kW device, he would be able to convince any engineer beyond any reasonable doubt. That’s why I find it difficult to believe Rossi or Defkalion. They are probably playing the same game. Wanting to be first if it happens. Rossi and Defkalion are probably in stand-by mode right now. Making press releases just to stay afloat.
      If their game doesn’t work out, they may add another decade or so for this technology to reach the public.

      • atanguy

        That’s a new one! 😉

      • I so totally agree with you. You hit the nail on the head. Only I didn’t see it in the bullet points listed in the main article.

  • The physics world is going to freak out when they find out this is not bullshit. Massive Neutrinos already prove the standard model wrong. Good thing people die because facts won’t change their mind. I think Max Planck said that.

    • londo

      Considering that the big weakness of the standard model is its inability to predict masses at all, massive or massless neutrino is hardly a problem for the standard model.

    • Craig Binns

      Give me a reference for your assertion that massive neutrinos disprove the Standard Model, please.

  • Kim

    Have not seen one of these lately in the free energy

    Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).


    • Kim

      The thing about this is that in 25 years with

      free energy, Their will not be a need for money.

      But its is money that’s stopping it now!

      Can’t seem to achieve escape volocity…




      • clovis

        Hi, Kim.
        I like the way you think, in this line of business you must think positive, and keep your money in your pocket.–smile

  • clovis

    I say 6-7, I think it real. time will tell.

  • Daniel Steward

    At the end of the day this is one of those “proof is in the pudding” concepts. Having grown up with a father who has had ideas taken away from him by big corporations I respect Rossi’s desire to keep control of his technology. It does however leave him in a precarious position because he can’t allow independent scientific verification of his ideas. I hope that he’s not a fraud but I’m open to the possibility he is. Time will tell.

  • Jerry Green

    .. seen on Vortex – March 22 – Celani speaks at CERN & March 23 – Miley speaks at NETS
    Two top LENR researchers speaking about the current status of research the day before and on the 23rd anniversary of the Utah press conference.

    That almost looks like an orchestrated effort. Could it be just coincidence?

    Oh, almost forgot Yeong E. Kim. So make that three top researchers.


  • Wes

    LENR reminds me of the “Lifter” technology pioneered by French technologist J.L. Naudin (www.jlnlab.com). Dozens of amateurs built HV devices which seemed to defy gravity. Naudin even turned a live mouse into a lifter pilot, raising the mouse off the ground in a lifter as if carried aloft by some invisible hand! NASA, seizing upon the possibility of controlling “anti-gravity” technology patented the lifter engine. At the end of the day it determined that the “magical” anti-gravity effect was due to simple ionic wind, powered by the high voltage corona around the lifter; there was no anti-gravity force, just known weak ionic forces.

    LENR its current state is a novelty force. It could be huge, or a complete bust. Dr. Randal Mills (www.blacklight.com), one of the true LENR pioneers, spent millions of dollars at a sophisticated research lab in NJ for over a decade chasing the elusive LENR breakthrough. Promise followed promise; success was always just around the corner.

    Looking at the lifter experience I wonder, are we panning for gold or ‘fool’s gold’?

  • the snake

    So what’s with radiation. Rossi and Defkalion both stated there is some low nuclear radiation. Prove that this is true, radiation can’t be faked easily.

    • Manu

      Moi aussi j’attends la video avec le compteur geiger qui detecte rien pendant la phase de chauffe et qui commence à s’affoler quand la courbe de température change de vitesse de croissance.
      La vrai démonstration est là, elle confirme vraiment le gain énergétique si controversé, qui n’est pas si évident que ça puisque même Peterson confirme que la mesure de l’ énergie produite est fausse ( les capteurs ne sont pas le flux d’eau chaude produit). Non vraiment, comment travailler et communiquer pendant un an sur une réaction de fusion sans jamais faire mention de mesures de radioactivité?

  • Brad Arnold

    Rossi is Prometheus, and his decision to proceed toword successful commercialization was the correct one (rather than seriously trying to convince people with demonstrations, or independent testing). OTH, once successful commercialization convinces everyone that LENR is legitimate and the energy technology of the future, that is the beginning of deep pocket corporations with large talent pools sinking tremendous amounts of money on R&D to integrate LENR into all niches of our economy.

    “Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

  • GreenWin

    What I cannot tolerate is why these LENR people and products do not do it MY way on MY schedule. They ought to be more courteous and follow MY demands. Dammit.

  • Pingback: Waiting for the E-Cat: Attitudes of E-Cat Observers | ColdFusionBlog.net()

  • Stephen

    Actually, now that I think of it, there is something very close to an evidence that the eCat is a fraud. And it has been provided by Rossi&Levi themselves.

    To me the killer DISPROOF was the steam issue. This is when I got convinced it cannot be true.

    Given the declared water flow and the declared heat power the eCat should produce a massive high-speed flow of vapour… while it was pointed out that the eCat produced just tiny PUFFS of steam (as visible in one of the latest videos released). It is basically impossible that such a flow reduction is due to recondensation in the pipe… it is almost obvious that the eCat was not really boiling out all the water in the reactor.

    SO, the declared power and/or water flow is almost certainly wrong. The fact that no more precised test are being released and the angry replyes of Rossi only adds to my impression that this is a fraud. The test with the heat exchanger was clearly ill-conceived: the output thermocouple was super-close to the exchanger, I don’t believe its reading (assuming it was real) was reliable.

    • Stephen

      This steam flow


      is BADLY INCONSISTENT with the declared water flow and output power. This almost closes the issue on its own… I think Rossi knows it and in fact got super angry and never provided anything to solve the issue anymore. To me this an almost certain indication that this is a fraud.

      I think this almost certainly closes the issue.

      • Ged

        Badly inconsistent? I don’t think you’ve worked much with steam, have you? I’ve played many times with steam set at 1 PSI. The rate that you see steam is going to be determined by the PRESSURE. Flow rate and pressure are determined by the DIAMETER of the hose. The hose has a very large diameter as we see from the video. The flow rate of the steam there is completely consistent with a CONSTANT flow rate of 7 kg/hour.

        Nor are the “puffs” in any way puffs, but a constant stream, if you actually watch. Remember airflow will push the steam around, so sometimes you get a better view and other times there seems to be less. You see the same effect with steam being shot at 1 PSI (by the way, don’t ever get in the way of 1 PSI steam).

        Sorry, but the video DISPROVES what you’re saying, as you don’t actually know what you are saying.

        • Stephen

          You are right, in order to have a flow one needs pressure, actually a pressure gradient along the flow… but I think this is a super-mess and you won’t go far in making a flow estimate starting from the pressure. Plus my memories of fludodynamics are almost unexistent so I don’t even try! 🙂 I wouldn’t know where to start from…

          Whatever is the pressure profile along the hose, the simple argument is that 7 liters converted 100% in dry steam at 1atm (right outside the hose for instance) occupy a space of 1700×7 = almost 12 thousand liters. Whatever the pressure pushing it, that stuff has to pass through the hose end, in 1 hour. Of course this is very very rough estimate… in particular

          * yes the hose might have a diameter of 1/2 inch… still, that is barely a +25% over my 1cm2 section (that was just a quick number)…

          * probably the pressure at the hose exit is not exactly 1atm… (mmmh, help, I can’t remember anything about the fundamentals) so the 1700 factor might be a little bit off

          * ok there will be some recondensation… how much? say even 50%? mind that this would some kW heat power are being transferred to that pipe… the room would get smelly, I think 🙂

          So, say the estimate is wrong by a factor 2, or even 4. That would still be 15 mile/h. Do you see that flow in the video? I don’t.

          And YES, as you comment below… I don’t think water should be fully vaporized to do something useful like driving a turbine. The point is that the whole eCat power estimate is done assuming the water is 100% converted into steam. If this is not true, the declared power is not reliable.

          Btw I found the original comment I have read some time ago…

          See? This estimate is off by a factor 3 because the guy assumed a radius of 1cm, so a much larger section. Still the estimate is considered to be inconsistent with the video. The precise number is not important I think… because the steam output in the video is SO low…

    • Stephen

      I recall here few numbers, the calculation is very easy:

      Water flow = 7 liters/h

      multiply this by 1700 to get the steam volume (one random reference for this number can be found here http://en.allexperts.com/q/Chemicals-2460/Boiling.htm)

      You get

      7×1700/3600 = over THREE liters vapour per second

      The pipe has something around 1cm2 section. This means the output speed is about 3000cm3/1cm2/s = 3000cm/s = 30m/s or about 100km/h or about 60miles/h (fast, uh?). I suggest to re-watch the video at this point.

      The vapour should go through the pipe in arouns 1/10 of second and exit at very high speed. It the eCat was really working it would be very dangerous to keep that pipe in your hand.


      Maybe LERNs really exist, who knows. But the eCat is almost certainly not complying with the declared specifics. Very likely a fraud.

      • Filip

        radio silence

      • Ged

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDNMwkyKsTA here’s a steam engine that drives a CAR at work. Notice how SLOW the steam is ejecting from the engine? Inside the engine, the steam flows fast enough to give you a car you an drive; much quicker than 7 l/h. The VOLUME of steam is higher, but flow RATE immediately drops to simply a cloud of steam as soon as it hits the open atmosphere. You can’t ever make steam shoot in a stream when in the open atmosphere without VERY high PSI, and even then it won’t go very far.

        Also, notice that hose is around half an inch in diameter, not 1 cm like you claim.

        I should also point out, that 7 l/h of water per second does not mean liquid water, nor does it mean all the water is turned into steam on the first pass (not even nuclear reactors turn ALL water into steam and a great volume gets constantly recycled!). All power generators I know about only turn a fraction of their water pool to steam, but that fraction is a known quantity that drives the turbines. For instance, an overload that blows up a power plant plant typically comes from flash boiling of that recycling water reserve if the plant gets out of control (think Three Mile Island).

        You did a good job trying to deconstruct the video, and I’m glad someone did. But your conclusions are completely incorrect I’m afraid, and way off the mark–as anyone who’s worked with steam will tell you. Everything in that video SUPPORTS Rossi, actually.

        • Ged

          Scratch that “per second”, and the extra “plant”. Oh editing.

      • Ged

        Actually, now that I think about it; without directly measuring the steam flow (for which there are devices) we can’t know the amount of energy coming from Rossi’s device. Water flow does not mean anything, it’s the outlet steam flow that has any bearing on energy production.

        So actually, that instance in that video may be a doc against Rossi for -different- reasons, namely that we can’t tell if his energy calculations are anywhere near correct, or if he’s producing excess energy at all during that demonstration!

      • Robert Mockan

        I tend to agree the amount of steam that appeared to be coming out of the hose seemed less than 3 liters per second, but unless Rossi was scamming that could be attributed to experimental error in one or more of the measurements.

        Just a few comments:

        Was the current meter that measured the wall current set for root mean square, some average, or peak? And saying what the wall voltage was is not the same as measuring it. I’ve seen wall voltages, especially in factories, varying up to 10 percent low depending on other loads on the circuits.

        Trying to guess accurately the steam hose inside diameter from the video is difficult. Saying a cross section of 1cm^2 could be off by a factor of 2 or 3. That would affect the appearance of the steam leaving the hose.

        Rossi might have said condensation inside the hose was little, but when he picked it up there were water droplets coming out. Any condensation would change the amount of steam actually appearing to be ejected. So trying to draw conclusions from observing the steam exiting might not be reasonable.

        Weighing the water supply to calculate steam generation is lazy. Rossi should condense all the water leaving the reactor and then measure that at specific times, and ideally put a water droplet filter on the reactor exit so water droplets return to the boiler. Saying the water droplets were 1.7% by weight from a third party measurement without knowing if the procedure was done correctly is worrisome.

        He should be measuring the water inlet temperature after it has passed through the pump, and close to the inlet port, not in the container.

        I would have liked to see the calibration charts for all the equipment being used to make measurements. I’ve bought off the shelf meters that were inaccurate by several percent.

        I did not see any demo killers, or large flaws in the calculations. Rossi was dumping all the error into the 5% bin, and without rigor for absolute accuracy that is acceptable.

        Still, I did not find the demo satisfying.
        Just me, but I would have to do it myself to be sure.

      • Andrew Macleod

        There would be condisation in the tube no account for that in your equation.

        • Stephen

          True… and hard to estimate.

          However, say 50% recondense (which in my opinion is still insufficient to lower the flow enough to make it consistent with the video)… I think this would be above 2kW (of the 5kW total) dissipated over that pipe.

          My iron runs at 1kW and gets pretty hot. 2kW on that pipe… mmmh… strange.

          Also, I don’t think the steam is spending much time to go through the pipe and recondense in such a huge fraction…

          Anyway, true, this is a weak point and my reply is handwaving… however, I am not convinced.

          • Stephen

            Actually, this would be a nice test…

            can’t anybody build a insulated boiler, seal it to a few meter hose and stick 5kW electric power into it… and see what comes out?

            Don’t look at me… I don’t have access to such power and I don’t know how to get dry steam 🙂

          • Robert Mockan

            > Stephen

            I have a 100 amp 240 volt circuit in my workshop power panel, and an empty stainless steel tank. I’ll put something together to boil water in the tank while controlling the input power to a heater, and show the steam exiting from a hose, in a You Tube. I need the data anyway for some other experiments I’m doing.

    • Lu

      It is a red flag but this wasn’t really a test, only thrown together demo for Krivit. Clearly there are what appear to be issues with the steam but this is only conjecture as there were to real measurements (science works both ways!). The E-Cat may not have been functioning at that time for whatever reason and Rossi decided to go ahead as if it were. I wouldn’t call it killer DISPROOF as Krivit has done just a red flag.

    • Ged

      Steam is never high speed when it hits open atmosphere. Watch a steam locomotive in action and you’ll see what I mean. It immediately slows to a PUFF and then expands to a very large cloud determined by volume. But flow rate drops precipitously once in the atmosphere. Your analysis of the steam is incorrect.

    • Joe Heeney

      You missed the most important factor, it is not using water, it uses oil and a heat exchanger.
      No steam from oil. Aside from that, can you tell me the HP of a vehicle by watching the exhaust pipe?
      No? So what makes you capable of telling the output of what amounts to alien technology from what could be just a weephole for all you know?

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    From Vortex: Interesting tail

    Joe Hughes
    I know there was a flurry of posts a couple of weeks ago regarding National Instruments not working with Rossi anymore. Additionaly, speculation at some levels of Rossi working with Siemens and posts pointing to the US Navy being the first customer

    I stumbled across this article on the web regarding the US Navy and Siemens:


    “Siemens also received orders for project management services along with gas, water and steam flow meters that provide data to the WinPM.Net systems”

    So does this support NI being dropped for Siemens because of their contract with the US Navy?

    • Stephen

      I don’t think news about possible Rossi’s contacts with any industry, secret customers, whatever… provide any sort of evidence for anything. This is all just misleading.

  • John Adrian

    At best, unless a major tech breakthrough triples solar-voltaic efficiency, SOLAR can NOT produce electricity for less than ~5X the cost of coal/nuclear.

    At best, unless a major tech breakthrough cuts the cost of wind-turbine materials and construction by 4X, WIND can NOT produce electricity for less than ~3X the cost of coal/nuclear.

    Of course:
    – we’ll continue to support the LIES about Solar and Wind, supporting governments that steal the payment from the masses to subsidize these PRETTY industries to make them appear viable;
    – we’ll continue to force human inspiration/perspiration to produce the real breakthroughs — then
    – we’ll do everything in our power to squash them whenever they threaten to shift our paradigm!


    • Lu

      The costs of solar is rapidly decreasing. Solar is only 2-3 more expensive now than coal. GE has stated that Solar Power may be cheaper than coal and nuclear soon:

      “Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE),”

      Solar is not a complete replacement for fossil fuels but it is making a huge difference and will continue to do so.

      • Robert Mockan

        I like the idea of satellite solar power stations beaming power to ground using microwaves or lasers. Maybe someday.

        • J

          What would be the point? The solar irradiance in orbit is only about 50% greater than at sea level. Hardly worth the ~$5K/lb orbital launch cost.

          • Robert Mockan

            In the orbits studied it would get sunlight almost 100 percent of the time, and has no weather problems like clouds and storms. Also once built would have little maintenance. Besides all that would provide jobs in space and that would progress naturally to living in space habitats and making colonies on the moon. It would be a stepping stone to getting off this mud ball. Out of the cradle so to speak, and into the universe.

    • J

      Solar is already much cheaper than nuclear. The overnight cost of nuclear power generating instruments is currently estimated at $4.31/watt(https://epic.uchicago.edu/sites/epic.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/EPICOver…) That is for the generating instrument and does not include mining, refining, transmission, security, regulation, disposal or decommissioning of the instrument. The current average Si PV module retail cost in the U.S. is $2.30/watt with factory gate prices at around $1/watt (http://solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/module-p…). There are no mining, refining, security, regulation, disposal or decommissioning costs for the instrument. I consider this to be “much cheaper”. If you would like to dispute this, then provide data and references, not speculation and hearsay.

      • daniel maris

        Depends where you are. In the UK the one watt on a PV panel only averages 2 Watt Hours per day. So you pay $1150 to get a Kw of power for two hours a day. So that’s something like $1.50 per KwH for one year.
        Of course you have some maintenance costs and the costs of the connection equipment as well. Plus maybe insurance? I’m not sure. Anyway, it’s not cheap. If unsubsidised it will probably take you 15-20 years to get your money back. After that you are effectively getting free electricity.

        I think the cost needs to come down by about 75% to really make it economical unsubsidised.

        • sapain

          try setting up a small bussiness that uses the power and lower the cost through tax deduction. some countries u can write off 100% of the panel cost, same with support equipment. put the panels on a tracker.

    • J

      The “Lies” have been clearly and consistently about nuclear, starting with Eisenhower’s “too cheap to meter”. As far as subsidies go, nuclear has gotten two to three orders of magnitude more subsidy than solar over the past 70 years, and that doesn’t even include Price-Anderson.

    • Paul Richards

      “SOLAR can NOT produce electricity for less than ~5X the cost of coal/nuclear”
      John Adrian

      The technology is moving faster than you last scan John. Do another honest one.

      When did nuclear industry ever accurately publish the full cycle and it’s cost of production over 40 years plus?

  • Tomas

    Of course it’s a scam.

    And why Rossi does it? He’s an attention whore.

    Move along people. Nothing to see here.

    • dragon

      I wonder if Focardi is attention whore as well?
      That will be sad.

      • Stephen

        Why not…

    • Stefan

      If you say so…

    • Paul Richards

      Why are you here?
      Are you the information policeman?
      Caveat emptor.

  • I said in a statement before that I was not going to say anymore but now I feel I must, in light of the facts that Defkalion has gone dark because they are overwhelmed with emails, and people are making outrageous statements that make no sense.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make a statement. It is about time that the whole world understands how this simple technology works. The key to understanding this technology is terminal resistance and surface area. Once the material is fired by a pulse or repetitive pulses, almost like what you would have in a car’s distributor, the nickel and hydrogen in the reactor will now produce a simple burst of energy controlling the duty cycle and the Rep rate of the pulse. As a matter of fact, nickel is not the only material that can be used. There are 15 other elements in powder form that can be used and COP’s can be reached as high as 250 and greater. The momentary ignition that produces a tiny amount of radiation is due to the ignition of the hydrogen at plasma temperatures, because the material is acting like a resistor that is saturated with hydrogen. Once the material has ignition internally at a molecular level, then you get a tiny impulse of gamma radiation; but very very small and usually always just once, and that is until the material heats up again. Once this takes place there is no need to worry about any radiation. I now believe that it is possible to go beyond that I have learned and experimented, with plasma technology and pulse impulse systems that can drive nanomaterials to extreme temperatures and high outputs. Defkalion should be reaching COP’s as high as 50 with a multi-chamber device as they described in their prints. With the research that they are doing now, they will find that a multi-stage firing system is one way to go about it, once they discover that the surface area and the terminal resistance is the key to understanding how this technology works.

    This technology should be for everyone, for every country. China should have this technology and so should the United States and every other country in the world this will create non-polluting energy independence for everyone. Is this not what our creator God wanted? I also disagree with the fact that this is called cold fusion. This is in fact a chemical reaction with the involvement of electrolysis that is producing this burst of energy . So is this a type of fusion? Yes, it is. Is it cold fusion? No, it is not. In the strict definition of the word, cold fusion does not apply. Is there a transmutation taking place within the reactor? Yes, there is. It is now time that mankind understands the term resonancy, and how it applies and is used in situations like this. To illustrate; imagine if you will, the same materials used in the core of the reactor of the Starship Enterprise. Remember how the core oscillates as the ship draws more power? That is a form of resonancy. This knowledge and understanding at a molecular level is how nanomaterials work. With the same principles applied to this reactor, power levels can be achieved beyond any of these people’s imaginations.

    As far as this technology is concerned, this is kindred to an electric motor. Once you understand the terminal resistance and a few more small things, the motor can run by itself and even generate power. Of course the naysayers will say that this is all poppycock and I do not know what I’m talking about. So be it. It is their loss, not mine. But the people out there who are doing real work will know exactly what I’m talking about. And my warmest regards to all of you, and keep doing good research.

    Also with this understanding, it is now possible to see how this technology can be used under water for drive systems using a unique type of magneto hydrodynamic fluid drive system. But of course, maybe I’m getting beyond myself on this subject a little bit, and should stick to the minimum basics in explaining how this works for now. This is but the least of what I know.

    The people who are doing the work with Defkalion, United States Navy, NASA and many other industries that are playing with this technology will in fact understand what I’m saying. This technology is extremely simple, there is no need to make it difficult. And there is also no need to make it look more technical than it actually is.

    For people who are capable of grasping what I’m saying about this technology, it would be easy to make a device that produces thrust from such technology, as well as just heat and the direct conversion of electricity. To fully grasp this technology one needs to understand nano- technology and grasp the full concept of surface area. Once this is understood, next apply terminal resistance at levels related to high current for small things and plasma for large items. Then it becomes easy to understand the capability and the future capability of this technology.

    There will be a lot of people that will say that this is not right and is BS. They are the ones who are wrong, because they don’t fully understand or grasp the science they claim they have learned.
    It is now time for man to expand his knowledge and his world both small and large, with the understanding that all of these laws and principles apply in the same way in both directions. And I know to some of you out there this will not make sense to you at all, because you are still hampering your mind with dogma learned from the men whose math proved that bumblebees cannot fly. One more time and again; so be it.

    My warmest regards to all,
    Dave Farnsworth
    Global Energy Systems

    PS. By the way, I forgot to mention that the above information is not new technology. It has been around for a very, very long time. One of my relatives went beyond this technology in the 1930’s and 40’s. So please do not think that all of you people are the first; you are only the first in respect to how you implemented some of this technology. That’s all.

    • Lu

      It’s very simple: demonstrate in a controlled and independent environment that the energy produced exceeds the energy input and then reproduce this test by a number of other credible organizations a few more times. The world is waiting.

      • DavidenEspana

        …and the world will continue to wait while the investors are fleeced. It seems to be a nicely organised pyramid scam. You buy the right to sell on production and distribution rights.

    • Doug

      How do you know that 15 other materials can be used ?

    • Robert Mockan

      More theory about why it works would be helpful.

    • Kim

      I believe that these mechanics of pulsed resonance and resistance come very close to what is occurring

      Massive amounts of energy are at our disposal,yet
      American scientists are asleep.

      So are the American People.

      Big cover up and lie by the MSM


    • vbasic

      Build one. Don’t talk about it.

    • Stephen

      I keep on wondering how such a revolution can be so boring… I am almost falling asleep.

      Please wake me up: go out there build some generators and become the 21st century’s Rockfeller. Don’t waste your time in explaining us how to “grasp the full concept of surface area” 🙂

    • alex

      Now that the Dekafalion blog is shut down, we will see some of their trolls here. Bummer huh.

      • I hope Admin will keep an eye out for that possibility. Ecatnews.com was nearly wrecked by troll overload recently (mostly ex-Vortex, following the purge there).

  • If the 10 kW version of the Ecat is available, organic turbines from Infinity Turbine LLC will make small scale electrical generation possible with the heat output available from a stable Ecat. They use commonly available refrigerants (r134a, etc) to create vapor pressures well within the operational specifications of Rossi’s LENR device.

    The rankin cycle does not require water – it requires vapor pressure. It can operate at any tempurature range.

    Rossi should investigate the Infinity Turbine solution as a natural combination of the Ecat power module.

    • Jimr

      Better than tthat if it is price compeditive are units from MTPV corp, a company started by MIT. People with technology developed by them that is solid state heat to electricity small (2.5 – 25kw) units. No moving parts, don’t know the effiency.

    • s

      Sorry people, but, in the link below, the inventor of the Ecat seems to possibly imply that the home Ecat might not be able to make steam. And no steam might = no electricity. As always, there could be a translation issue so don’t take the no steam assertion as fact.


      • alex

        No Steam does not equal no electricity. There are other ways to produce power, just not as conventional as steam is.

      • Rossi is still talking about generating electricity using a home unit, but only in very vague terms:

        “Andrea Rossi anticipates that an air conditioned generator and a electricity generator will eventually be suitable accessories for the ECAT.”

        From his March ‘update’ at ecat.com:

    • Joe Heeney

      Incorrect my friend, Infinity’s devices and most existing ORC devices are way overpriced, 3 yr to payoff. have relatively low percentage recovery,15% and prefer high pressure steam. The good old piston steam engine gets 50-60% recovery pays off in under a year, and works with a temp /pressure of 120c /50 psi ~ 140c / 100 psi, High pressure gets expensive and dangerous. A Tesla turbine or piston is far more well suited to low temp waste heat recovery.

  • X-prize

    Report #5: Rossi’s Profitable Career in Science
    Posted on March 7, 2012 by Steven B. Krivi

    • daniel maris

      The usual half truths from Krivit.

      The way he writes you would think it was impossible to extract diesel from waste. Whereas, it is possible – there are a number of processes being used around the world now. Rossi was clearly a pioneer in this field – and maybe he was a messy pioneer with poor environmental practice.

      And why didn’t the DOD prosecute him for the thermocouple debacle or refer him for prosecution for fraud?

      • joe

        Rossi did not invent thermal depolymerization, that was known long before rossi was born. Rossi’s process claimed, for the first time to be efficient enough where the cost of producing oil from waste was less than the sale price. Maybe if his raw materials were free and he hid the left over sludge in his basement instead of paying to dispose of it.

        Rossi always claim great levels of efficiency in all his previous scams that were always false. Maybe this time his claims are not fake but i will let someone else buy one first.

      • Frank

        If you call Krivit’s reports ‘half trues’, what to you call the misleading statements Rossi makes then???

        Does somebody here really (still) believe what Rossi says???

        • dragon

          I don’t think somebody here actually believes Rossi. But we all hope that he is telling the truth until PROVEN that he is not.
          So, not guilty until PROVEN applies here. He may drag this story for years, and it is mine or yours right to believe him or not. But we cannot BE SURE until he is PROVEN guilty, which (with all of Krivit efforts) he IS NOT YET. So he might tell the truth still.

          • Frank

            If one of your neighbors would claim that he managed to tune his car so that he can drive 300mp/h with it, but he refuses a test-drive. – Would you believe him or grant him the benefit of doubt, or would you just call him a ‘big mouth’?

  • This is for Ruff Limblog you can get me at :: [email protected] …..best regards
    Dave Farnsworth

  • My friend suggested your website and I came across your post is very clear and useful and so i bookmarked and will come back usually.

  • paolo

    ” In view of the impending world energy crisis, the proposed experimental tests of the BECNF processes are urgently needed as LENR phenomena may well represent a viable long-term alternative form of clean energy.”
    Selected Publications
    1. Y. E. Kim, “Cryogenic Ignition of Deuteron Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles”, Purdue Nuclear and Many Body Theory Group (PNMBTG) Preprint PNMBTG-11-2011 (November 2011). Invited paper presented at Topical Meeting of the 2012 Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS), the 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, March 19-23, 2012, the Woodlands, Texas. (PDF)