Cutting Overhead — E-Cat Partner's First Move

Andrea Rossi is reporting that the first E-Cat that the USA Partner has produced is going to be employed in providing heat to the partner’s factory — and when they have perfected electricity production, they will do the same for electrical power. I find this to be an entirely logical approach.

When people accept the idea that a new and superior energy source is coming along, a normal first response is, “when can I use it to cut my energy bill?” This seems to be the partner’s approach. If they now have the ability to build miracle energy plants, it makes perfect sense to install them first on their own premises before selling them to others. In doing so they will cut their energy costs tremendously, allowing for greater profitability — and also they will be able to thoroughly test the technology they are building. No doubt there will be refinement and development of E-Cat systems as they install and operate them.

This strategy will also have the effect of making it possible to make E-Cats as cheaply as possible. As a manufacturer’s production costs are cut, so should be the product price. In this way we should all benefit eventually from the low energy bills of Rossi’s partner.

  • andreiko


    • Gerrit


      • fortyniner


  • catbauer24

    I’m sure China can wait another 2+ years while stockpile is built up by Rossi and secret co. (makes sense, who would want to sacrifice their profits merely to decrease suffering and improve health of others?)

    • daniel maris

      China might help itself by respecting international patents. If that was the case then Rossi’s “strategical secrecy” might be less necessary.

      • G_Zingh

        “China might help itself by respecting international patents.”
        How true. You rip what you sew.

        • catbauer24

          Yes, anything I sew I end up ‘ripping’ 🙂

          If you meant ‘reaping’… you must be right that anyone experiencing health or life diminishing circumstances deserves it, they must have done something to deserve it, especially if someone else of their nationality used an idea without paying someone much richer than them for that idea.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer


    • khawk

      Interestingly – there appears to be some decent cooperation going on between the USPTO and the SINO IP agency. The have recently opened access via the USPTO to the issued SINO patent data base for prior art searches. The bugs don’t appear to be worked out and I am sure there will be snooping / tracking on collective searches but that is a step in the right direction.

  • Roger Bird

    Whenever anyone has ever told me about some free energy scheme [and how terribly excited about it they are], I would always say “Well, if they have a free energy device, why don’t they just make electrical energy and then sell some back to the utility company and then become rich. That would certainly prove it was real.” Seems like Rossi is doing exactly that. I don’t know what else the secret company does or makes, but I do know that they are going to become more and more profitable. Perhaps they will even sell some electrical energy back to the utility.

    • roseland67

      Roger Bird,

      Can ANYTHING this “secret company”, manufacturers be as important or
      world altering as the Ecat?

      Saving energy in their own plant? Really?
      They have one of the most important inventions in the history of mankind, and they’re concerned with saving some btu/hrs?

      Stop everything you’re doing and devote every precious manhour to manufacturing Ecats, nothing else, period, end of discussion.

      Unless they are printing money, nothing will be more profitable than a COP+ energy device.

      • Roger Bird

        It takes money to develop any invention. Money that could be used for invention development will not be wasted heating the plant. Heating the plant with the E-Cat will also be proof of concept for everyone. And heating the plant with the E-Cat will be part of the development process and proof of safety. So there! (:->)

        • roseland67

          Roger Bird,

          They have developed the cure for the “plague of the 21st century”.
          They prove that it works, which it supposedly does, and that it is safe, which again, it supposedly is, and people will get in line to give them money.
          It doesn’t matter what they’re heating, if it works, it works.
          Make em, sell em, simple.

          • Roger Bird

            Proof is in the eye (and mind) of the beholder. A factory being heated with LENR would go a long way to convincing many more people.

          • roseland67

            Roger Bird,

            Anything being heated is good, the factory is not portable, the ecat is.

            Again, if it works as stated, (COP>1),
            and is safe doing so, business will get in line to give them $.

            Is it possible, that the process is so simple and the catalyst so mundane that
            it can be reverse engineered soon after sale? Leaving the company nothing but years of R & D expense and little/no profit?

          • Roger Bird

            roseland67, this is the problem. With an I-pod or pad or whatever the latest gadget is, it is so complicated that by the time someone reverse engineers it they are economic history and the maker is sitting on a pile of money.

      • Omega Z


        As you say, the savings is nothing compared to the earnings to be made from sales. This is a minor detail.

        The real purpose is multiple.
        If it’s so great, why do you not use it yourself? We Do. Question answered.

        It’s a new tech. Operational Data is imperative. Got it. On Premises.

        Customer wants to see it in operation. No Problem. Come out into the plant. You can see it now.

        It is also under continuous development at this time. A working unit on premises is a necessity. Might as well put it to good use.

        • Rockyspoon

          And as they build more plants, they’ll equip them with the latest version of the E-Cat, so development and testing will progress as the market for their product grows.

          What’s not to like?

  • Edenloth

    Problematic from a cash flow prespective though, must mean they are well invested

  • Arthur B

    If Rossi’s partner is as big as say Siemens the new E=Cat factory could immediately go into full production supplying E-Cats in house.

    Any company/factory that gets this technology first will have a tremendous advantage over its competitors. And the longer it’s identity can be kept secret the bigger the advantage will be.

    The cost of energy is a significant percentage of overheads and cutting that cost down will either boost the bottom line or enable the company to reduce the prices of it’s products. It’s a win win either way.

  • Christina

    Aw, c’mon, Daily Tech, you think that the Chinese are going to buy the E-cat for their people right away! You think they care about their people and will immediately tell them about it, help them purchase it, destroying the coal “empire” they’re building in order to help the health of their people thereby showing biblically-endorsed levels of caring by shooting their previous investments in the knee. Hey, we can’t even get Christians to do that because it’s a Catch 22: if you help the customer, you hurt the employee because they’ll be out of a job; if you hurt the employee, you hurt the economy, and if you hurt the economy, you hurt the people you were originally trying to help, so the e-cat will probably slowly seep into China. In the first world the E-cat will be accepted fast in places where there is no easy hookup to heat or electricity–then when the e-cat can generate heat or cold and electricity, it’ll take off at Warp 9.

    What I’m trying to say is that it’ll probably be like a snowball: small for a while and then it’ll grow really quickly.

    • Rockyspoon

      China will rip it off just like they do just about everything else.

      They don’t honor patents and yet will turn around and sell their E-Cat copies to everybody in the world.

      And claim they invented them.

      As the Chinese would say: “Hou la!”

  • Gerrit

    Sad news

    John O’M Bockris died on July 7.

    Prof Bockris performed Fleischmann-Pons style experiments in the early 1990’s at Texas A&M University and detected creation of tritium during the experiments.

    • sempervivum

      Very sad that he could have not lived to see his much maligned theory of transmutation ,as the primary source of cold fusion , finally confirmed in the E cat

      I believe his students at the university ,where he worked in the USA ,put in complaints regarding him teaching this theory.

      Strange that younger students brains could be crystallised into completely accepting scientific dogma , but a much older intellect was able to accept and grasp this concept.

      I thought it was supposed to be the other way around with most scientific breakthroughs?

      • Rockyspoon

        Not anymore.

        A strange new approach called “post-normal science” has invaded our campuses.

        It is the reason global warming acolytes have spent $Billions with nothing to show except that the world isn’t warming at all (hasn’t for 17 years, 5 months by land-based thermometers; 23 years by satellite).

        Now we’re stuck with students that aren’t interested in doing experients–they’re more interested in sticking with some lame “status quo”.

        How sad to see the younger generation in regression.

  • artefact

    Something about Defkalion on LENR-Forum:

    “.. I am a friend of the Technical Director of Defkalion Europe in Milan, Luca Gamberale, who did me the honor of a demonstration of reactor R5.
    Impressive. ..”

    • Blanco69

      So, transmutation rears it’s head again. The presence of copper would be fairly easy to detect in the spent fuel. I’m slightly concerned, however, that if copper is detected in Rossi’s spent fuel why have we not spoke more about it. The observation seems relatively simple to me. If you find copper in your spent fuel then we have fusion. If not, then we have LENR, HENI or something else. The presence of copper solidifies the arguement so I’m slightly confused why we’ve moved away from the fusion label. The possibility for DGT to have fusion and Rossi to have something else seems like a belief too far so we either have copper… or we dont. We either have fusion ….or we dont. The fact that we dont know the answer to this at this stage is quite concerning.

      • Andrew Ma

        I recall it has been pointed out by someone in ECW that it needs to be shown that any copper found did not originate from the atomic migration of the copper piping in the device.

        • Blanco69

          Yes, I recall statements like that also. However the new hot cat design is all steel so finding any copper in the spent fuel should be a point of interest to anyone wishing to understand what is going on. I find it amazing that, if Rossi knows the atomic make up of clean fuel and the atomic make up of spent fuel AND there is copper in there, then I suspect we’d be talking a lot more about transmutation and fusion and a lot less about LENR etc.

          • Omega Z

            Early on, Rossi did have copper transmutation, but they determined it to be a side effect. Not the primary source of heat.

            All who have had positive results have had some transmutation of some sort.

          • Rockyspoon

            Brilloin claims to have prefected the process so hydrogen turns into helium (which I submit is still fusion). Anything less is considered a sub-optimal reaction and indicates better conditions are needed.

            But interesting nonetheless.

      • Preston

        The copper claim triggered lots of controversy. The isotopes were all the same as natural copper. That seems to indicate contamination or fraud was involved, you still see that argument from the skeptics.

        Other labs have shown production of Helium that is proportional to excess heat, there are lots of other examples of transmutations from LENR. Rossi is keeping secrets about how the Ecat works, but transmutations are happening. Giving people all the data including the specific isotopes might give away too much, and just generate more skepticism.

        Maybe natural Copper is formed from Nickel by a LENR process happening in the earth’s crust over long periods of time. The isotopes match because they are formed by the same process. But are all those isotopes of copper stable? Do the ratios not change over time? Anyway, just a theory, but for now it’s just fuel for the skeptics to talk about copper.

        • Andrew Macleod

          It could be a new form of natural fusion just excelerated….. Rossi did state that he thinks of it as more of a byproduct of the process.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      The quote below is from the 11/29/2011 article in Ny Teknik written by Mats Lewan. The above article quotes Alexandros Xanthoulis, President of Defkalion:

      “- Let’s say I have Rossi’s formula, but I do not say it officially. My scientists have found a way to accomplish it. They need three months. I know what is in the reactor. I know everything. It was done with spectroscopy at Siena University of Padova (…) They tested the reactor without [Rossi] knew what they were doing, he continued.”

      • catbauer24

        Thanks for pointing out, Defkalion might just be seen as the noble ‘Robin Hood’ of LENR, no need for Rossi’s one-man monopoly – corporate greed at its worst.

        Monopolies are bad, Mr. Rossi, and the public will be quick to dissolve. It is unfortunate the secret partner feels they can maintain the monopoly, or any lasting PR, they would be much better off engaging the rest of the scientific world, whose work Rossi derived, to engineer (oh, through issuing actual patents : ), instead of herding the world through their ‘secret’ to drive their profit. The ‘herd’ will realize quickly enough.

        “but Rossi can’t issue a patent, because people will know the secret”. Yes, we don’t want clean, limitless, pollution-free energy before rossi gifts the world with it. We are truly subject to the dominion of “Dictator Rossi”…. unless the good people rise up, and seek a better life, instead of making a better life (or even life itself) subject to the whims and profit schemes of another.

        • Anonymous Reader

          We know nothing more about Defkalion or Rossi. They may be the same; i.e. both good or both bad. Who knows.

        • Omega Z


          They merely want to keep it under wraps until their ready.

          As far as sharing the knowledge with the others in the LENR Field, The same could be said of them. They also hold their secrets.

          But Actually, Because of all this secrecy, You will have many different approaches and 1 may be much superior to the others.

          Rossi may or may not be the 1st to market, But that does not necessarily mean it is the best approach. By not sharing, you expand the possibilities. Maybe someone else will find something better.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Steal IP for your own profit, how is this Robin Hood?

          • Roger Bird

            Yeah, why is it that every far-left socialist and out-right communist government become disgustingly corrupt? The leaders tell the people that they are doing this revolution for “the people”, but the end result always turns out to be their doing it for themselves.

        • Rockyspoon

          Why is “corporate greed” even a term?

          Try building a business with your own money, and if you have sufficient, that’s fine.

          But most rich people aren’t interested in making money–they aren’t scientists or engineers or entrepreneurs, so their money just sits idle.

          It is the industrialist/entrepreneur (using the terms in a wide sense) that has an idea, figures it will benefit mankind, and yet needs money (capital) to get it out to the masses.

          So a corporationn is born (or a sole proprietorship, but that’s more risky) and based on the potential, rich people (and maybe even a lot of not-so-rich) are asked to invest, which they do so willingly.

          The corporation takes the money, leverages it into products people want to buy (not forced to buy; WANT to buy), and voila`, success!

          What’s not to like? The entrepreneur gets paid for his effort, those who bought stock get dividends and sees their stock value increase, the government gets taxes, employees get a job, and the rest of us get the product (which is better than the old one or there would be no need to produce the new one).

          You people that denigrate corporations are sucking up the propaganda that socialists/Marxists/Communists, with their own brand of “capitalism”, want to foist on the masses. Beware that this is the predominant driving force behind the bad attitude our Marxist institutions of Higher Education are using to turn us from productive capitalism to less productive.

          It’s all been tried in the court of world productivity. Capitalism has yet to be beaten on a level playing field.

  • orsobubu

    Cheaper energy would result in higher profitability only on the short time, just to achieve a competitive advantage. Then, when all the competitors have the technology, it will drive down the profits, of course, because the number of exploitable workers employed would be collapsed respect to the fossil fuels era. Exactly this is happening with the solar industry. The only viable alternative would remain expand the market geographically (already impossible) and inventing new products. But these products would wipe off other more capital-intensive technologies, so we have some srious problems here.

    • Andrew Ma

      I would think the total number of workers needed to provide energy using solar power would be significantly higher than providing the same amount of energy with fossil fuel. I recall this has been discussed in ECW before.

      • orsobubu

        The contrary, fossil energy industry is probably the more capital intensive activity in the world.

        The business of solar power is so weak that biggest industries in the world are dismissing it, even in its relative infancy, also because without state subsidies, it cannot make a profit. Imagine what incredible mass of unemployment if they dismiss all prospection societies, sea platforms, pipeline constructions, production plants, storage facilities, transporting ships, trucks drivers, mining companies….

        The problem, for the capitalists, is to find a technology that could employ tenths and tenths millions workers worldwide… extracting the relative surplus value. Definitely not the LENR case. You cannot make business with robots, aside from overprofits due to disastrous monopolistic positions. Anyone who believe the contrary is missing the fundamentals of political economy.

        • Jim

          So, when can we expect to see the mobs with pitchforks?

          I want to know when to buy pitchforks long…

        • Etburg

          I’m sorry, but this statement regarding solar is incorrect. The uptake on solar has been very dramatic particularly in Germany and is expected to grow significantly, especially in China, Japan and the developing world over the next few years. As for cost, prices are predicted to stabilize and then start dropping again in a few years because of technological advances. Grid parity in the U.S. for residential systems is predicted within the next few years and is already the case in certain markets. If your arguement is that the industry employs far fewer people than the oil and gas industry the same might be said of telephone receptionists being replaced by voicemail systems. Did businesses not sell them or not adopt those because they were concerned about putting receptionists out of work? Solar will be increasingly adopted as it becomes cheaper. If it doesn’t become cheaper than other sources then I would agree with you.

        • George N

          It’s called creative destruction, and it’s the exact opposite of a depression!

        • Job001

          Given that expensive energy prevents or constrains huge opportunities like mining landfills, ocean mineral extraction, cheap greenhouse operation, cheap climate control, population location optimization, minimum health, forest exploitation substitute energy, and sustainable need fulfillment, desalination, cheap transportation, etc.

          LENR has much more potential than cartel supporters pretend.

          The issue is innovation prevented rather than obsolete capital write off. Jobs will come with the huge new opportunities created.

        • Job001

          Given that expensive energy prevents or constrains huge opportunities like mining landfills, ocean mineral extraction, cheap greenhouse operation, cheap climate control, population location optimization, minimum health, forest exploitation substitute energy, and sustainable need fulfillment, desalination, cheap transportation, etc.

          LENR has much more potential than cartel supporters pretend.

          The issue is innovation prevented rather than obsolete capital write off. Jobs will come with the huge new opportunities created.

          • orsobubu

            I agree about the huge potential in LENR user value (benefit for mankind and ecosystem); but it seems that nobody here have a clue about how profits and capital is made in a mature imperialistic economy (monopolism, financiarization, capital exporting, competition, geostrategical influence sphere). It is not a question of “opportunities”. Think about which incredible means of production and scientific/technologic achievements are available today:robots, nanotechs, materials, software, alternative energies… and these are available above all in the western countries, exactly were the economic crisis is worst… and in many cases the crisis is deeper exactly in the more advanced technologies: solar panels, autos, etc… for example, too cheap electricity production is a disaster in capitalism!! Where are the biggest profits? In manual, low-level factories in Bangladesh, Africa, China, Indonesia… In the mature economies, instead, profits are often made in parasitic financial activities, without any user value, not in exceptionally high user valued robotized production. You often confuse user value with exchange value… it is a great, fatal mistake. Marx is always right, after all! Imperialism rules, today, so LENR will find main profitable application in military devices, not because there are more profits to be made there than with traditional fossil engines, but because It will give advantages in creative destruction.

        • Fibb
          • orsobubu

            An apologetic article by interested media. In any case, we are not discussing about spreading of the technology, the problem is its profitability in respect to fossil industry and in the collapse of the averaged profitability in the sector after revolutionary technologies kick in.


          • orsobubu

            I see another problem. Since carbon fuels requires heavy technologies, difficult to deploy for example inside a rain forest, large parts of the earth remained untouched by men. With LENR and its ridicolously low human variable capital required, profitability will be extremely reduced. The necessity to expand the market to compensate will result in an assault to virgin territories in africa and South america, where industrial development will be easy to reach, then. Bye bye to the forests. Industries everywhere.

          • Roger Bird

            No, investors will see that there is no point in investing in oil and they will find something else to invest in, like aluminum, which is energy intensive.

        • Rockyspoon

          I have to disagree with a number of your points, “orso”:

          First, the fossil energy industry is eclipsed by the minerals industry: ROI for fossil energy is generally 12%; for mining it is only 4%.

          So a dollar spent capitalizing fossil energy projects achieves 3 TIMES the return that capital on mining returns.

          And you’re wrong that capitalists need to find a technology that would employ tens of millions of workers. The beauty of being a Capitalist is that with the proper technology and a modest amount of capital, tens of millions of Capitalists can be created–having a lot of extraneous “workers” is much less of a requirement.

          With cheaper energy, many projects, large and small, that weren’t sufficiently viable using fossil-fuel energy now qualify–and this will be a world-wide phenomena. Watch the world economy boom.

          And it wouldn’t matter what sector of the economy you’re considering–it could be mining, public projects, manufacturing, sales, tourism, transportation–you name it. All will benefit from a distributed availability of cheaper energy. Even fossil fuels will be cheaper and more plentiful.

          Because you CAN make businesses with robots–that’s what many companies have been doing for decades, whether it’s manufacturing (automobiles is a stellar example), or automated telecommunications (larger computer server installations are far more efficient than smaller ones, and their appeal to the public is generally greater, too).

          You seem to think that Capitalism requires monopolistic themes to succeed, but nothing could be further from the truth. It’s true Big Business will no longer have a stranglehold on their positions, and more innovation will come from it, but Capitalism isn’t dead–not at all.

          China’s advantage will decline and more nations will enjoy the abundance capitalism produces as energy gets cheaper and more abundant.

          Unless, of course, you brainwash people into thinking socialism/Marxism through collectivism is the only solution, and we’ve seen from history what a disaster that’s been.

          And it is these historical results that determine the real “fundamentals of political economy”, not something you’ve read out of some slanted and questionable textbook written by an author that’s never held a job outside of his Ivory Tower office.

          Such is the difference between theory and practice. I suggest you try getting a real job and experience the difference.

          • orsobubu

            you cannot extract capital from robots: you DO profits, but only because, in the same time, you expanded the number or workers in their total number, because you eclipsed the competitors and expanded your market share thanks to temporary automation advantage.

            Auto’s example is not good for your theory: I see only monopolistic merges to survive, for an industry that makes bucks mainly by state bailouts, financial speculation, even home mortgages… come on, capitalism would be clearly dead without bailouts in recent years, where did you live rocky????

            finally, all your theory is dismissed because you clearly don’t know the mathematics of the profit sage. I cannot explain it here, but be aware that all bourgeoise political economy cannot absolutely explain where profit come from, because they cannot accept workers exploitation. Sraffa was a bourgeoise author that came nearer to the solution, without accepting Marx’s conclusions of course, but he made that math advances exclusively using Marx theoretical tools!!!

            the fact you confuse capitalists with rentiers and financiers is tragic. there is no capitalwithout exploited workers, is a mathematical evidence. All the best world logic and episthemology scholars in the world say that. popper was destroyed by Geymonat, Feyerabend…. is sad to see that in USA and UK the schhols are teaching so much crap, but this is clearly explained, as the capitalists rules the world from that countries.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I agree, that is why it is called a disruptive technology. But this one (E-Cat) is going to be a doozy, larger than horse/auto, ice/refrigeration and I think it is going to be a much faster transition, so hold onto your hats folks.

      • clovis


      • Rockyspoon

        Each new technology–electricity, automobiles, radio, airplanes, television, computers, cell phones–has taken less and less time to reach market penetration (designated as having 25% of the population using it).

        In the case of LENR, it will be on the order of a few years. What’s a “few”? I’d say from 3 to 5 years, once Rossi’s implementation of LENR hits main-stream news.

  • Bob

    Unfortunately, the proposition of the secret partner keeping the secret products for use in secret locations will also guarantee that everything about them remains secret.
    I don’t think that will contribute much to the acceptance of it all by any except the secret few.
    I would have much preferred that at least one of them was quickly made public so that the world can start planning their widespread use.
    They certainly wont be doing that while everything remains secret.

    • daniel maris

      Maybe they are going for a Big Bang approach? Not unknown in teh world of high tech is it? And it would make a good deal of sense in this market if there is a danger of others replicating your technology. Get to a position where you are able to begin immediate high rate production once you have launched your amazing new product.

  • frank sedei

    We are on the on the forefront of a new era of history. I feel privileged to be an early witness to it. What a great ride it has been and continues to be, largely due to the comments and discussions of you contributors to this great site. There is definitely some kind of intrinsic bond here.

    • psi


    • Bernie Koppenhofer


      • clovis


  • Piero

    It is more than cutting cost: if they used the grid it would be like a mercedes dealer driving a bmw

  • Enduser

    Rossi and his partners might be spending some time now in developing the charge units into a sealed, containerized system. To keep the IP he needs to be able to deliver re-charges in a way that the endusers cannot just look at what the charge contains.

    Something made of metal that slides into the E_cat when replenishment time comes. Probably with a second one in place so it can slide in and the spent one slides out, in a single motion.

    It seems that the charge is small enough and non-toxic, so it could be easily distributed like lpg

    • daniel maris

      We discussed this before – there are modern protection systems (using telecommunications) which would allow you to detect tampering with the charge units and maybe autodestruct at that point or alert the home company.

      • James

        If this tech is real (a real big “if”), it will be reverse engineered within it’s first year of availability. This is far too important for all humanity to allow big government/big corps to control it.

        I would rather spend my money to buy a reverse engineered clone than to to support TPTB and the current system. The current system is slavery and death for much of humanity. It’s insane that people don’t have adequate food, housing, education and power in this day and age.

        • orsobubu

          Thinking LENR = end of slavery is amusing.
          With electricity, nuclear fission, solar power, super-efficient vcarbon fuels engines we got plenty of crisis and wars. Really really funny wishful thinking. Crisis and death have absolutely nothing in common with LENR. It is all about capitalistic and imperialistic mechanics, a compleytely different and more complex animal. Lenin and Kissinger would laugh rolling on the floor for this ingenuity.

          • Rockyspoon

            Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else, orso.

            I submit you’re brainwashed and could care less about your wishful response by Lenin or Kissinger.

            And I’m looking forward to a cheaper power supply that will drop the price of oil significantly, remove it as a source of most of the world’s transportation fuel, and leave it as a petrochemical supply stock.

            LENR will destroy the economies of those countries who finance and foment terrorism.

            And about that I’m laughing.

    • AlainCo

      increase in productivity does not create unemployment, but vacations.

      what cause unemployment is bad training, rigidities (in workers or employers, in laws, states, corporations, contracts).

      what cause poverty is lack of growth, caused by unemployment and lack or productivity.

      not easy to solve it, but sure, experience says that it is not too much productivity, but too few that is the problem.
      the rest is politic to share the wealth or the poverty, to choose between sharing poverty or creating unemployment.

      we don’t need work, we need wages.

      did you forget the awful period in the 50-70 where people were paid more for more vacation ?

      • psi


      • daniel maris

        Unemployment doesn’t cause poverty if you have earnings-related benefit as we did briefly in the UK about 3 decades ago.

        However, I agree with your general point. It is most certainly the effective harnessing of technology to improve labour productivity that creates wealth. I just watched a horrible news item on TV which showed children in Pakistan working in terrible conditions at brick making from morning to night. The reason they have to do that has mostly to do with the structure of power in Pakistan, one of the most corrupt nations on earth that prioritises backing terrorism and developing nuclear weapons over educating her children.

        To increase productivity you do need to have capital investment (in effect setting aside a portion of production for investment in technology and infrastructure).

  • Curbina

    This is the first question I get from skeptics that remain skeptic after seeing the evidence (so why they are still paying their energy bills?), hence I celebrate it as a move in the correct direction.

    • Sanjeev

      (so why they are still paying their energy bills?)

      May be the answer is that the tech is not yet producing electricity directly. As household stuff mostly runs on either electricity or oil, not on steam, there is no effective way to use it even for themselves.

      All we have is a prototype and a giant box producing steam. It would make it impractical to simply cut the mains and sit in cold darkness all day.

  • Sean

    All this latest news is great. Things are moving along. However I had noticed that some references to ECAT with secret ingredients like cola-cola / KFC. Well in today’s technological world using investigative research to find ingredients through analysis of substances, scientist would easily crack the formula for coke, KFC if they wanted to, and I am sure ECAT too, if they reversed engineered it. It would have to be a gentleman’s agreement not to do so to protect Rosie’s patent. Anyway as with any technology, there is always other ways to produce the LENR effect. My belief is that there are others out there ready to compete. This is just the start of a new age of discovery.

    • daniel maris

      No one’s yet replicated the Coca Cola recipe. It’s a recipe – not just a formula…it’s to do with how you manipulate the ingredients. Looking at the detailed Finnish patent we see there seems to be a lot of prep involved. I doubt you could easily reverse engineer although clearly the basic ingredients involved may be indentifiable.

      • Jouni


      • Gordon Docherty

        Just how important preparation is is highlighted by this article from cold fusion now :

        This patent references Rydberg matter – usually formed out of hexagonal planar clusters. In fact, this reminds me very much of the self arrangement of matter demonstrated on a macro scale in the Primer Fields videos, and hints at what may well be going on around the “granular Nickel powder” used by the e-Cat / Hot Cat. Anyway, the EU patent (dated: 30-May-2013) is available to read at

        The patent clearly highlights the geometry of the nucleii as a key factor to realizing “the production of thermal energy based on fusion reactions induced by strong electric fields”.

        Of course, if this patent were granted, it would raise the question as to why one was not granted to Rossi – after all, I believe the main purpose of a patent is to protect a method or invention rather than a theory, however well that theory may describe what is “going on” inside an invention…

        As I am not a Patent Lawyer, however, I cannot say whether this patent would cover the e-Cat, and other similar devices, or not. Still, a patent system that stops an inventor from benefiting from an invention because someone else has patented a theory does appear to go against what patents are supposed to do, namely protect the IPR of inventors of demonstrable inventions!

      • Sean

        Agree somewhat. But have seen it with the TU-144 (Concordsky)which is a lot more complex to copy than the ECAT. Also the human DNA mapping shows just what scientists can do. There are some very brilliant minds out there for sure. Question is what do they know? I think a lot more is known than what the public is generally allowed to see. Just hope that the commercial ECAT is on the shelf by Christmas.

      • Sanjeev

        You are surely living in a small safe cuddling world.

        Everything and anything can be duplicated/faked. Does it matter if coke has secrets ?
        The law fearing people are not selling their own coke only because of the barrage of lawsuits it will bring. And its not worth really.

  • Stephen

    Before cutting the price, please sell something…
    …and possibly not to yourself or to your friends!

  • Dan

    In the software industry, maybe elsewhere too, it’s called eating your own dog food. It’s a great way to ensure that your product is really working.

    • Nelson Alencastro

      Belive they will take a long time LENR technology fall in hands of anybody, as it will be more profitable just sell cheaper energy for customers. This is the real Coca Cola way of marketing, keeping trade secrets for ever, if possible.

  • arian558
    • Rockyspoon

      I’ve read where the scientists and engineers that were given the mandate to electrify the US found helium in the residue of tests on their high-voltage switches–typically those that failed from overload.

      The presence of helium was discounted at the time, but now is thought to have resulted from the fusion of other elements since no helium was there before the “fireworks”.

  • Miles

    When is the next 3rd party report due for the eCat HT2? I know there is a 6 months of testing but wanted to know the approx date. It is safe to say, early 2014?

    • Sanjeev

      The only thing that can be safely said is everything about the future tests is uncertain. Take it as it comes.

    • Omega Z


      It was suggested by 1 of the previous authors that the 6 month test be started in the fall instead of the summer. Haven’t heard anything since. If it was postponed till fall then it probably wont be presented before April 2014.

  • TPaign

    Anyone remember, two years ago, when Rossi claimed to be establishing an office in Manchester, New Hampshire? There appears to be an Andrea Rossi with an apartment on Canal Street, within a few blocks of Dean Kamen’s DEKA organization.

  • BroKeeper

    Very enlightening diversity of comments presented in the past two days – from “bottom-line” profit paradigm to hope of enhancing world social economic equilibrium through cheap LENR energy. Between end philosophies the best approach is usually somewhere in the middle. Without profit and royalties there would be no influence of philanthropy. We must first attend to the family. Eventually supporting the needs of the world would benefit all. Unfortunately that eventuality may be inconveniently required sooner than later. Everyone’s health and the ecology whether pollution originates from afar or near is at stake.
    I sense the same urgency reflected in many of Andrea Rossi’s discussions and articles. With academia in engineering and philosophy he often remarks on the humanitarian aspect of his discoveries.
    Hopefully in time, if China and other desperate countries do not have their own LENR solution, and perhaps after patent approval and certification, consultation with royalties could be provided to accelerate the healing processes. Again forgive any naïve idealism but I still believe it’s within our grasp.

    • Roger Bird

      Yes, Rossi is a very charitable man. But he is also a very conservative man, and he won’t be too keen on any scheme that causes him and his wife to live out their last years in poverty like Nicola Tesla.

      I know that it might be difficult for a liberal to think that a conservative can be charitable, but in reality conservatives are generally more charitable than liberals, who talk a lot about being charitable with other people’s money a la the tax system.

      • Rockyspoon

        Demonstrably more charitable. The Liberals are pikers compared to conservatives in their charitable donations.

        (Yet Liberals like to be “charitable” with other people’s money—hmmmmm…..)

    • psi


      Its nice to have some common sense. There is nothing wrong with earning profits while making the world a better place, and many benefits to humanity have been implemented in part because they also enriched the inventors or simply provided jobs for those who need them. Rossi has my full support in this regard.

  • glhf

    An interesting take by Edmund Storms on Vortex-l about Rossi,
    “He is in a serious situation. The more other people publish, the less basic understanding is available to patent because it becomes prior art. At some time, the granted patents will only describe various engineering designs, with each competing for a small part of the market, like selling a better toaster. The basic process will not be granted a patent any more than the laws of thermodynamics could be patented.”

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Not sure about that, do we have a patent expert tuned in?

    • Robyn Wyrick

      I believe he submitted in the U.S. a while ago, and the USPTO (as of this year, I believe) uses a “first to file” approach. I think it was the last large industrial nation to switch, making everyone use “first to file”.

      I think Rossi should be fine.

      • jjaroslav

        Robyn is correct…that is if AR had the appropriate Claims in the application to cover. If it was filed before the policy change I maybe covered by first to discover.

    • Ted-X

      Ed Storms is perfectly correct. The key to Rossi’s invention is the catalyst, which was not disclosed in Rossi’s patent application. From some Edisonian work, the catalyst will be found, no doubts – then my guess is that this will happen not later than in two years from now. The discoverers may openly publish the formula or patent themselves how to make this particular catalyst. If they will get a patent on catalyst then Rossi will be at their mercy (at least in some countries). I have some experience with patents. This is pure logic.

      • jjaroslav

        Let’s all hope that AR has gotten decent legal advice on this.

        • Gerrit

          let’s hope the LENR revolution will not become bogged down with legal disputes.

      • Sanjeev

        “my guess is that this will happen not later than in two years from now.”

        Its happening now, as we speak.
        Most probably there is not only one catalyst, many methods can work. If you are unsure just check the Etiam’s patent or DGT’s work.
        Of course, two years from now, there will be several more (hopefully).

      • lcd

        don’t forget the moment that Rossi “sold” his first plant the catalyst became prior art.That is unless he submitted another patent describing it it became a trade secret which is undisclosed prior art for which nobody van be awarded a patent for. The moment a patent is awarded for the”catalyst” Rossi has a right to challenge the claim and revoke the patent.

      • Rockyspoon

        Yet I doubt somebody that invested the necessary funds to find the catalyst would be so foolhardy to just publish the information.

        They would probably try to patent it first and then compete in a serious way. Ususally it isn’t the “first to the party” that ends up with the pretty girl.

  • Roger Bird

    My mistake for trusting Google Maps. 175 Canal Street is R.G. Sullivan Cigar Factory, or at least that is what the name of the building is. That does not mean that there is a cigar factory there now. It looks nice, and it is for sale, as far as I can tell. And it is not an apartment. Although I suppose that it could be re-zoned for residential and the rooms could be used for apartments.

  • kwhilborn

    Rossis partner is still Ampenergo(dot)com

    Read this from their website…
    Archive for the ‘Press Releases’ Category.

    E-Cat Commercialization in the Americas
    27 June 2011, 13:18 New York – AmpEnergo Inc. along with Leonardo Corporation and the inventor Dr. Andrea Rossi are working on commercializing the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) technology in the Americas, including North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. Current efforts involve setting up strategic financial and business partnerships and negotiating licensing agreements with interested parties. At the present time AmpEnergo Inc. is not offering stock to the general public, but we appreciate the many inquiries and words of support we have received. We look forward to bringing this world changing energy technology to market and will keep you informed of future developments.

    We have known this for years.. since 2011

    They are based out of Ohio and would REQUIRE HEAT.

    Mystery solved.. TY. TY.. TYVM….

    • glhf
      • kwhilborn

        so why do people act like it is some secret?

        • Rockyspoon

          They just aren’t saying much.

          They’re too busy working, which I take as a good sign.

          Those that have more to say than do aren’t typically successful ventures.

          • Roger Bird

            Do you mean like people who have time to go to conferences?

    • MaxS

      the news you have posted is 2 years old. What makes you think they are still in business? Business status is inactive.
      Their website doesn´t look even close to starting an energy revolution. It looks like a dead company.

      • kwhilborn

        The Ecat is 2 years old.. It was announced in 2011.

        Ohio requires heat.

        They say money changed hands and these investors had known Andrea Rossi for many years.

        There has never been any article saying they parted ways (to my knowledge).

        They say they are not accepting shareholders as that would remove any secrets, as any of us could look at thte company in detail if we owned a share or two.

        The company is not in production, how should their website look? It’s probably an oversight that it’s still running.


        I’m just saying why would we think otherwise. Who started the entire “partner is secret” thing?

        We already know it’s Ampenergo.

    • Barry

      kwhilborn, I sure hope it’s not Ampenergo. They seem dead as a doornail. Nothing from them since June 2011.

  • Sanjeev

    Etiam speaks.

    Etiam Inc. update

    • daniel maris

      The inventor, Pekka Juha Sionnisen, seems to have a credible background working as R&D director for several years at Picosun which appears to be a leading atomic deposition technology company operating in N America as well as Finland. Can anyone confirm Picosun as a credible company?

      If so, surely this has got to be very strong anti-sceptic info!

      • John Littlemist

        “Can anyone confirm Picosun as a credible company?”

        Well, take a look at their web pages:

        • evleer

          It sure looks credible to me.

        • Roger Bird

          That is called semiconductor equipment manufacturing. I used to do that for a while. I never heard of Picosun, but that does not mean anything. It could play a role in LENR someday, if not already, in Finland and elsewhere hopefully (pun intended). They deposit atoms on to or etch atoms off of discs for the purpose of making semiconductor chips, as in microprocessors etc. It is an important and expensive step in the process. You find these machines in clean rooms. We at Matrix Integrated Systems had machines in the $80,000 range, but they can go much higher than that, like $1 million or more.

  • Sanjeev

    Synopsis of recent Finnish patent from

    Great for those too busy to read the entire patent.(or have no clue yet about all these Finnish rumors).

    • Roger Bird

      This is really all very exciting, but I am afraid that poor Frank may have to change the name of his forum to or perhaps or perhaps Oh, it is all getting so confusing.

      Seriously, we, the human race, are rockin’. This really is very exciting. This means that the possibility of us losing this technology is nil. It also means that the chance that it is a con is also nil. I wonder how the skeptopaths are doing tonight. If the cognitive dissonance is too great, they should see a homeopath. Really. (:->)

      • Rockyspoon

        I’m sure they’ll bring up some of their old comments and achieve confirmation bias by reading their own, worn-out drivel over and over.

    • Omega Z

      Filing date Nov 27, 2012
      Priority date Nov 27, 2011

      Why is priority date 1 year earlier the filing date.

      I also found a mention of the new company having only 2 share holders.
      It’s Web site seems to still be under construction. Not Completed.

      Also wonder if this is somehow connected to Rossi.
      NOTE that His Italian Patent wasn’t filed under his name, but his wifes.
      Maybe this is a similar arrangement to slip passed Curious Eyes.

      • Sanjeev

        There is so much to speculate. Lets wait till they come out of the closet.

      • Karl

        A normal process. First you file a national patent application. With in a year you night apply for an international application based on information on the already filed application.

        • lcd

          don’t forget the disclosure process gives you one year to file with that priority date under the new law as well

  • Sanjeev

    HOPE CELL – hydrogen generation through LENR exothermic emission

    Heard this for the first time. Does it work ? Another player in lenr market ?

    • Roger Bird

      I am having a lot of trouble with this one. “Leaders”, when NO ONE has ever heard of them. I don’t mind something coming out of Finland because he is not pretending to be some kind of LEADER. Rossi is a leader. McKubre is a leader. Who the frick is this dude Robert Vancina with all of his friends having a conference when I haven’t heard of a single one of them, not one, except a few celebrities who I doubt have had anything to do with LENR.

      If these people are venture capitalists, great! They should visit some real LENR+ people and stop bending over for Al Gore.

    • Torbjörn

      It seems to be a fraud.

    • Joe Shea

      The other thing cutting overhead can mean is a slowdown in production.

      • Rockyspoon

        Or it could be establishing a critical base.

        I worked with a gal whose had worked as a programmer coding modules that controlled the autopilot of airplanes.

        They tested them by having her fly IN the plane as it utilized the autopilot programs she wrote. She stated that the very best way to make sure it worked was to put her own life on the line.

        That’s similar to what these guys are doing with their product–if it doesn’t work, it will be a cold, cold winter.

        And it’s no fun working in the cold.

    • John Littlemist

      Hope Cell patent application:

    • John Littlemist

      My comment went to moderation, but meanwhile check this out:

      They claim cop above 1 and their concept seems somewhat similar to Hope Cell.

  • hopecell

    Regarding comment from the beginning – HOPE CELL – hydrogen generation through LENR exothermic emission

    Heard this for the first time. Does it work ? Another player in lenr market ?


    Torbjörn on July 11, 2013 at 6:41 am
    It seems to be a fraud.


    How can you judge somebody’s work and results with more than 10 years of sacrificial effort with such an idiot statement?
    Robert – Hope Cell Technology

    • MK

      how much more Hydrogen is generated than predicted by Faradys law?
      What would be the COP of the cell if you calculate the energy content of H2 + O2 versus input energy? What would be the COP of the cell if you calculate the energy content of H2 + O2 plus “waste”heat versus input energy?


      • John Littlemist

        I posted a question about COP to Robert’s blog but my question got removed.

        • Sanjeev

          Seems he got seriously offended by the comment of Torbjörn below.

          It has become a standard ritual to demand a ton of proof whenever there is a claim of invention/discovery, and to provide no evidence at all when accusing someone of crime.

          • John Littlemist


    • Roger Bird

      From my retarded scanning of the Hope Cell application, I could not see anything about low energy nuclear reactions. It seems to release hydrogen from water, I think. Of course, if it creates more energy via hydrogen than it uses to do so, then it would be an energy source. If it creates more hydrogen than with the usual electrolysis, then it is a green improvement.

      I always go into moderation so by the time that you read this it will be too late. I am already in correspondence with Robert and I have already had to apologize for my denigrating attitude. Give Robert some slack and let him explain what he is doing for us.

  • John Littlemist

    Thank you Sanjeev for noticing the Hope Cell. After a quick glance I could not find any mention of COP from the patent application.

    This Hope Cell reminded me of a Finnish company called Turosteam. They claim that their combustion device has a COP over 1. I’m just wondering whether Hope Cell and Turosteam technologies have something in common.

    References to Turosteam in finnish:

    • Sanjeev

      Interesting. Very good research.
      Looks like the inventor himself replied here.(below) Perhaps he can comment on overunity aspect too.