Rossi: Production of Electricity with Hot Cat Achieved

I think this is quite a milestone. I don’t remember Andrea Rossi saying that they have produced electricity with the E-Cat before now, but it seems that this has been achieved.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics there was the following Q&A between Andrea Rossi and Mark Saker:

1) During your R&D can you confirm that you have produced electricity using the e-cat?

A: Yes, but still at R&D primary stage level.

2) If so, have you recycled the electricity into controlling the e-cat creating a closed loop or is that in the future?

A: No

A recent comment from Rossi indicated that they were working on this, and he said that their primary focus on the means of electricity production was via the Carnot Cycle, but that they were “totally open to new commercial breakthroughs related to other systems.”

In a related comment, after Rossi has said that this new plant (with some changes) could be adapted to operate Hot Cats, a reader asked Rossi whether the new 1MW plant could be used for the production of electricity.

Rossi responded, “Probably”.

So it seems that R&D work goes on, and electricity production is certainly a focus. We don’t know anything about the power levels or efficiencies attained, but probably at this point they are fairly modest. In its essence, the E-Cat is a heat producer, and heat is a vital form of energy. But if the E-Cat can turn heat into electricity in an economical way it will become a much more versatile and useful energy technology.

  • artefact

    Hot news 🙂 It would be interesting to know if he got more electricity out than in even if he had not tried a closed loop.

  • Bob Matulis

    2. “If so, have you recycled the electricity into controlling the e-cat creating a closed loop or is that in the future? – No”
    It will be a great day if and when the answer is “yes” and can be demonstrated to the world. Demonstration a closed loop system would be akin to people seeing the Wright Brothers flying the plane.

    • Agaricus

      Wrong place – sorry.

    • SG

      Rossi has at least implied in the past that the “certifiers” had safety concerns about self-looped systems. Perhaps such concerns are justified, perhaps not. Given that most homes these days have open natural gas flames, microwaves that emit harmful radiation (within the microwave), electrical wires running through walls, light bulbs filled with poisonous gasses, etc., a self-looped energy system doesn’t necessarily sound all that scary.

      • jousterusa

        Who the hell knows who those “certifiers” are beating a drum for; could be any number or any association of conventional power generating systems and plants.
        If the hot Cat can generate a really substantial volume of electricity, they may be headed out of business.

    • jousterusa

      Great analogy, because it refers to an equally historic event!

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Hum, so that means either a steam engine, or a sterling engine! Love the way Rossi by “instinct” answers a question, but does not give away what road they are going to down.

        My best guess would be sterling, but then again, does anyone know where I can purchase a deceit small steam engine? (there are none to my knowledge). In fact there are VERY few well built sterling engines also. (Dean Kamen Becon 10 is an exception to the rule and as I stated, their setup is near perfect for e-cats).

        So a good quality steam or small sterling engine is not readily available right now. And it is NOT practical to engineer such a heat engine for JUST a test.

        At least Rossi notes this was NOT a thermocouple. So they are looking likely at some kind of sterling engine – this is good!

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • friendlyprogrammer

          Why would it not be practical to build a steam engine for ecat testing? Once Electricity is possible with LENR it would add Billions or more likely Trillions of dollars to the income capabilities of these devices.

          Imagine if 600 million cars and trucks currently running on fossil fuels could generate electricity as opposed to using batteries for operation.

          More than 80% of the worlds electrical supply comes from steam engines that were custom designed for similar tests that proved fruitful. Nuclear and Coal both boil water for steam engines that provide all the electricity coming from those plants.

          Small steam engines may not exist at present because there is no need aside from hobbies or science classes, but steam was once used for trains that built the infrastructure of most countries, and they are well understood and simple to replicate.

          “JUST a test” may become one of the most profitable machines in history and a boon to our economic development as well as prolonging millions of lives when we end fossil fuel pollutions, without even mentioning such a machine might slow down or even reverse global warming.

          I agree it is good though,

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            Steam generally does not work overly well at low economies of scale, so for a home generator, stirling would be far better, for a large plant, obv steam is better.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Agreed. Low steam is the major hurdle. My position above was that tests are well worth the potential payoff for mankind.

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            not really much reason to test steam until someone decides to build a large scale ECAT power plant. Steam technology for these applications is well established.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            — Because if this is ever to be adapted to cars and trucks then a 5000 pound shipping container would ideally fit into the trunk of the car?

            Your vision sounds nice, but I’d prefer they make the automotive ecats a tad smaller if possible.

            Mainstream science was still saying flight was impossible several years after the Wright brothers had flown. If someone could build a car trailer or 5 ton truck that was able to create its own electricity then a car, truck, camper could drive for months without refueling which mainstream science would be forced to acknowledge.

            The same could be said if the ecat ran off its own electricity. If we could unplug it and watch it run for half a year that would also be impressive.

            Steam technology may be well established, so why is there so much controversy over what kind would work best if at all?

            I actually dislike the idea of Rossi being involved in the electrical aspects of this. I’d prefer his focus be on making LENR as efficient and understood as possible. I am still under the impression Siemens was investigating the electrical generation aspects, but that is without complete proof.

            They do not need to have Formula races to show off engine designs either but they do. Maybe you would rather they just run the engines at a certain speed and see which ones gives up first?

            Rossi and others can ignore the electricity aspects of LENR, but they will look foolish when the mainstream media finally looks at them. Imagine as Rossi demonstrates LENR a Japanese fellow drives by in a LENR driven car because they took some initiative.

            I think 99% of the people here would find it negligent of Rossi and others if they did not allow energy research with the ecat.

          • Omega Z


            I don’t think it’s Rossi’s intent to be directly involved in building electrical power plants. However, Rossi & his teams involvement is kind of essential at this stage of R&D. At present, They can’t even provide the fundamentals for others to work with. It is not mature enough to hand off.

            As to cars & trucks, It is a long way from being applicable to them. However, with 1st stationary power, it could soon become applicable to maritime shipping of which already have power plants with a large footprint. They are the equivalent of 300K cars in oil consumption & probably twice the pollutant content.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            If people choose to R&D the electrical aspects of the ecat then ecats are not really necessary. I’m sure when they designed the engines for nuclear power plants they were not heating it with nuclear elements, but rather a heater that could mimic the properties of the nuclear elements.

            The post I replied to suggested that it would not be worth building a customized engine for the ecat which seems absurd given the weight of our current energy situation coupled with global warming, etc.

            I have followed this website since 2011 and was an early Rossi supporter and I seem to recall we were wondering if Siemens was involved in this sort of engineering, but I’ve not been following the ecat story as much as of late.

            I’m not as excited about stationary power as I myself aim to retire in one of those maritime vessels you speak of.

            I understand conversion equipment would be quite large and require a trailer or at minimum a 5 ton truck or mobile home to be a showcase, but such a vehicle would be as convincing as the airplane was for the Wrights.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, it saying it not practical to build a diesel, gas, sterling or steam engine.

            I mean exactly who has that kind of money and time just “laying” around doing nothing of value?

            A good small efficient steam engine would take a good team of engineers a good year or two to create, if not more. That is quite a bit of money and time for just a “test”.

            The same thing goes for a good sterling engine. Dean Kaman built a great engine, because he needed one, and was wiling invest some millions of dollars doing as such.

            On the other hand, you can purchase a GREAT quality small gas generator these days from the likes of Honda etc., because such engines of a small size exist.

            So no, I don’t think it is practical to build a decent small steam engine for this purpose unless you have people, time, and money, spare engineering just “laying around”. Or you have a business plan to sell such engines.

            Now on the other hand, if a good decent small steam engine is available for commercial purchase these days, then sure, do a test!

            But build an engine? Gee, you need a system to re-cycle the water (a condenser), and all kinds of parts and infrastructure to build a small practical small steam engine, especially one that is efficient.

            I am not aware of any decent commercial sterling engine available for purchase either, however as noted due to several companies having built good “free piston” sterling engines for solar, then such engines are WELL suited for such testing with LENR.

            Here is an example of such an engine:


            And above engines output MORE then solar panels (PV) for a given area of sun “collectors”.

            And since companies like above really did not take off, then I sure MANY spare sterling engines from them would be available for testing and purchase. And ask yourself why they did not use steam engines?

            So you need an “existing” engine, unless as noted you have all kinds of engineering and resources just laying around. And such money spent would have to be justified.

            Now it is not hard to build a great small steam engine but it still going to require resources, time and money. It not like good quality steam engines grow on trees!

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Wow! You make steam engines sound like rockets science.

            If electricity becomes practical with the ecat then we will see TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS. spent in LENR and LENR to Electric Research.

            YES. I said Trillions of dollars. Not millions. Not Billions. Trillions!

            You say,” you can purchase a GREAT quality small gas generator these days from
            the likes of Honda etc., because such engines of a small size exist”.

            The reason Honda engines exist is because Fossil fuel engine design has already been subjected to TRILLIONS of dollars in research (since before the days of FORD).

            If suitable second hand engines are available for testing then that is fine, but it would be foolish to think LENR does not deserve a customized “steam” engine design of its own.

            I’d actually be upset if Rossi devoted too much time to electrical
            conversion, as I’d prefer he stay focused upon LENR mechanisms and
            improving the ecat.

            You stated in your first comment, “.So a good quality steam or small sterling engine is not readily
            available right now. And it is NOT practical to engineer such a heat
            engine for JUST a test.”

            Imagine second or third hand “steam” engines don’t work with the ecat. When would it become practical to custom design some for ecat testing? At what point would it become practical? Ever? Next year? A decade? A century? Millennia?

            (P.S. Do you work for UOA? I used to live in Edmonton and have a friend who is a professor there.)

          • Albert D. Kallal

            >make steam engines sound like rocket science.

            No, it not a problem to build a gas or steam or diesel engines as I stated ALREADY in my previous post.

            So no problem at all to build a steam engine. The problem is who has the money and resources laying around to do as such? That is the problem!

            And yes, my exact point was that good quality small gas engines exist today because that industry is MATURE and has received large investments over time. And such investment into appropriate designs for sterling and steam engines has NOT occurred!!!

            And while the steam engine been around for a VERY long time, there are not practical well designed smaller models, especially those with low maintains requirements.

            So it is without question that LENR will fuel investment into steam or sterling engines – that is a no brainier. (so a heat engine is a “carnot cycle” engine – as such we are talking about steam, or air, or some working fluid as a gas here).

            The question remains:

            Who now has the money time and resources to build a Carnot engine for a test right now?

            Answer: no one!

            >When would it become practical to custom design some for ecat testing?

            A Very simple answer:

            When they have some real cash flow, or additional investment that warrants such testing of an engine! This question is really not much more of a challenge then those who are able to put their socks on in the morning!

            So the instant they have a commercial working system with decent COPS’s, and start making money is likely about the same time they can and should and will be to afford building such engines!

            So the instant they are able to afford doing so is about the time when they should do so!

            It is a “given” that as LENR moves forward, then a decent and well built Carnot cycle engine WILL be required and WILL be produced.

            In fact, any company NOW with a great Carnot engine is poised to do VERY well as LENR takes off. So just like cheap hotels in Vegas are great and benefit the airlines industry (more people will fly), then LENR will be great for whichever company has a good quality and low maintains Carnot cycle engine.

            As I pointed out, this suggests that Dean Kamen is in a speculator position to take advantage of LENR with his Becon 10 co-generator. Many other companies will make fortunes in the LENR industry just like hard drive, floppy disk and memory chip makers did when the PC computer industry took off.

            I mean right now assume the Wright brothers just flew. So now you asking should they design kitchens for their aircraft for transatlantic flights?

            Never, now, 100 years from now? When?

            My gosh, the ANSWER is SIMPLE!!

            When planes reach the ability to fly across the ocean with ease is ABOUT THE SAME TIME they should start designing kitchens for their transatlantic aircraft.

            Now how hard was that??

            So the answer as to putting money into a Carnot cycle engine is really no more difficult then putting your socks on, or answering when the wright brothers should have started designing and building kitchens for their transatlantic aircraft.

            The instant anyone has a commercial working LENR system that is approved or “soon” to be “appropriate” or ready for commercial distribution is likely about the same time that investing into Carnot cycle engines should occur.

            So anyone who can put their socks on will figure out about the right instant it is high time to pour money into building a Carnot cycle engine for LENR.

            The simple fact is no LENR company is in a position to use up precious resources building a Carnot cycle engine right now. If you are aware of a LENR company in that position then do share this information with the readers here.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • friendlyprogrammer

            You say,”In fact, any company NOW with a great Carnot engine is poised to do VERY well as LENR takes off.”

            Yet, you also argue that it would be foolish for a company to develop such an engine.

            You also say,”Who now has the money time and resources to build a Carnot engine for a test right now?”

            Answer. Aside from listing a thousand corporations here including companies already up to their necks in LENR research like Toyota or Mitsubishi. I seem to recall some discussion here that Siemens might be looking at ways to adapt the Ross ecat.

            You say,”I mean right now assume the Wright brothers just flew. So now you asking should they design kitchens for their aircraft for transatlantic flights?”

            That might be a poor metaphor because kitchens are not even necessary for the airplane to operate. It is a want as opposed to a need.

            Ecats are nice heaters, however for it to have the most benefit and impact in the world we really are hoping it can replace coal, diesel, and even gas.

            I have one question for you.

            How big would the market be if the ecat could produce the cheapest electricity?

            Currently the ecat is a nice warm box capable of replacing heaters in homes down the road. That would be lovely but it would not be nearly the market it would receive if it could provide power.

            You yourself said,”any company NOW with a great Carnot engine is poised to do VERY well as LENR takes off.” so the smart money would be investing in a great Carnot engine.

            Despit the hype the ecat seems like it is simply a container with the right stuff. It has less moving parts than a dollar store flashlight, and I think the earliest models were sealed off pipes. It is the fuel that matters. If this is true then the ecat really is not much of an invention as it is merely the fuel that is important. If this is true then Black Market ecats will be made in basements on every street in the world.
            An engine that can be adapted to the ecat might be worth investing in.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            > That might be a poor metaphor because kitchens are not even necessary for the airplane to operate. It is a want as opposed to a need.

            Sorry, EVERY single plane that fly’s transatlantic has a kitchen or so called “galley”. We not talking about a full sized kitchen, but an area to prepare and allow the plane to deliver food to passengers. As far as I know, EVERY SINGLE AIRLINE COMPANY flying transatlantic provides such meals, and a kitchen (galley) has been designed and incorporated to facilitate the deliver of meals on those planes.

            But, to help you, there is this new fangled thing called the internet. Do a search on 747 kitchen, and see what comes up! You don’t have to use “galley”, but kitchen will suffice.

            > Answer. Aside from listing a thousand corporations here including companies already up to their necks in LENR research like Toyota or Mitsubishi. I

            > Yet, you also argue that it would be foolish for a company to develop such an engine.

            For existing LENR companies that we know of with a product? Yes! Not for just any industrial company you fool! Please do NOT put words in my mouth – the ONLY people who do as such are dishonest because they been called out on something stupid they said.

            We were talking about Rossi and IH building such a steam engine for a SINGLE STUPID test!

            It is stupid and impractical for Rossi to build a steam engine for a test at this point in time. Simply stupid, and anyone who can put their socks on should be realize this, and be able to figure this out.

            The idea they Rossi can go out and simple build + design a steam engine out of the blue without requiring SUBSTANTIAL engineering is beyond stupid. Building such engine could take SEVERAL years of significant design and would require a TEAM of engineers spread among MANY types of engineering disciplines.

            Sure the likes of many major industrial companies are EASY in a position to build such an engine.

            However, as I stated Rossi building one for a test? Geesh, time to get back on your meds.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Wow. Are you new to this topic?

            You said,
            “For existing LENR companies that we know of with a product? Yes! Not
            for just any industrial company you fool! Please do NOT put words in my

            After I suggested Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Siemens.

            I’d wager 99% of the readers and commenters here are aware that Toyota and Mitsubishi have confirmed LENR results. Toyota even employed Martin Fleischmann after he was tarred and feathered by mainstream science back in 89. There was also some notions that Siemens might be cooperating with A. Rossi. on the steam engine front.

            So as far as your comment,
            “But, to help you, there is this new fangled thing called the internet.”

            It appears if you knew how to use it correctly you would have known this, although it is common knowledge to most here.

            Another thing. You write an entire paragraph explaining that airplanes have galleys. This was never in question although your literacy now is. I had said, and will again that a kitchen/galley is a want as opposed to a need. THIS MEANS THE PLANE WILL STILL FLY WITHOUT A KITCHEN. I’ve had meals on a 747.

            If we compare that exact same airplane to adapt it to LENR (as NASA is trying to do atm. use internet if you doubt) then no airplane will fly with LENR power if all it produced was heat. Electricity is NEEDED.

            A want is something nice to have, and a need is something necessary for operation/survival (see internet).

            You say,
            “We were talking about Rossi and IH building such a steam engine for a SINGLE STUPID test!”

            First off: If we believe in the ecat (I do) then we know it is not going anywhere, so why would it be for just one “SINGLE STUPID” test.

            Now the first combustion engine or first of anything of use in this world was first built for a “SINGLE STUPID” test.

            Rossi and IH can collaborate with any corporation they choose in this matter, and for a while it looked like Siemens might be tackling the power aspects.

            You seem to think IH is broke? If they wanted more money they could go public and I’d invest. Obviously they want to explore power generation or this article would not even exist.

            Power generation from the ecat has potential to be the best invention of this century and could possibly save mankind if Global Warming is caused by CO2 emissions.

            Yeah. You are comparing a airplane galley with an invention that will could prolong millions of lives by reducing coal/fossil pollutions, not to mention millions more lives if Global Warming can be slowed or reversed, not to mention the thousands of acres of infertile land that could grow food for millions more lives if cheap electricity/desalination is possible, not to mention the savings to businesses and an anticipated economic boon if cars/trucks/ships/planes/blimps all run on uber cheap ecat power.

            Hmmm. Airplane galley vs Billions of lives and an economic boon and possibly saving us from extinction if Global Warming goes worst case.


          • Albert D. Kallal

            A few things:

            Designing and building an efficient steam engine for e-cat power generation is NOT an easy task.

            >>You write an entire paragraph (Two actually) explaining that airplanes have galleys

            You are missing the WHOLE point here! The issue is NOT if a plane needs a kitchen. The question YOU ASKED is “WHEN” someone SHOULD like Rossi build a steam engine?

            I stated the SIMPLE LOGIC is to imagine the Wright brothers just flew.

            I THEN stated does it make any sense at THAT POINT in time to use precious time and money to build a kitchen or galley or “whatever” for transatlantic flights?

            Answer = no:

            Does it make sense to spend money on dinner ware and cute beer mugs for transatlantic flights?

            Answer =- no

            Does it matter if the transatlantic flight needs kitchens, dinner ware, porta potties, washrooms or whatever?

            Answer = no


            Because the Wright brothers did NOT have transatlantic flights and they were MANY years away.

            Why have the mind of an 8 year old child? Why are you BOTHERING to focus on that a plane needs kitchens, or some navigation system? Why bother if the feature is required or not? And it is NOT a necessity that Rossi build steam engines – the world will not end!! And any other company can build such engines for the e-cat anyway!

            The simple matter here is the issue HAS NOTHING to do with the fact that the transatlantic flights need kitchens, or bathroom, or dinner plates. Or that mankind needs kitchens in planes!

            Now if you wish for your fun and “jollies” to categorize and prioritize WHAT systems and things should be designed FIRST for transatlantic flights, then by all means go ahead and have all the fun you require!

            The SIMPLE POINT:
            It would be brain dead stupid for Wright brothers to invest money and time into transatlantic flights when they don’t exist and are many years into the future.

            But you asked “WHEN” should someone invest in these things?

            The NEXT SIMPLE POINT:
            When it becomes obvious that transatlantic flights are going to appear on the horizon then the makes sense to start investing in THINGS that belong and apply to transatlantic flights.

            Now hard was the above? For what POSSIBLE child like reason are you focusing on what transatlantic flights need or require vs that of something a transatlantic flight might need or like?

            The issue is MOOT until such time that transatlantic flights are possible and therefore any logical reasons suggest that the SIMPLE concept here is you don’t invent money and PRECIOUS engineering resources into something that not going to occur years in the future.

            >>so why would it be for just one “SINGLE STUPID” test. Even if it did fail, that is also worthwhile information and one less filament to test a la Edison style.

            Because then IH and Rossi would have to stop what they are doing now, and spend the next 2-3 years building and working on a steam engine as opposed to working on commercialization and building plants they have now. Unless of course you think IH and Rossi has all kinds of spare engineering resources and people sitting around doing nothing? Are you 5 years old here?

            You think no one needs to make a return on EXISTING investments?

            You seem to think that Rossi and IH can out of the blue start designing and building a steam engine – and for one test!!! This is a SIGNIFICANT understating.

            >>Rossi and IH can collaborate with any corporation they choose in this matter,

            Very good! You 100% changed you tune then!!! Rossi and IH is not going to build such an engine then!!! As I STATED using existing technology and industry (such as the Becon 10) is certainly possible. However Rossi building a steam engine out of the blue would take significant resources and I stand by that statement. Such investments would need designs that result in VERY low maintain engines else they would be of little use for the e-cat.

            And just like transatlantic flights, it is too soon for Rossi and IH to consume huge engineering resources building a steam engine FOR A TEST when they not even reveled a commercial product for sale to the public.

            And WHEN they have a commercial product for sale, then they will have more orders then they can handle for likely for MANY years.

            If existing industry has some appropriate steam engine designs then as I MUCH STATED it makes sense to use existing engines and industry for a test.

            However for Rossi to build a steam engine is a different matter and would take significant resources and time of IH + Rossi. And you think you build something appropriate here from Home Depot? (please!!! don’t be so silly!!).

            Until such time that cash flows exist and their products are producing revenue, then talk of engineering, designing, and building a steam engine is child like folly.

            Now if you are stating that Rossi can and should look to use existing industrial companies and partners? Then fine but EVEN in this case, those industry partners will NOT spend millions on designing and building a steam engine UNTIL such time that it makes sense in the marketplace, no more so then the Wright brothers partnering with industry companies willing to build washrooms for transatlantic flights. They simply will NOT spend the R&D until such time it makes sense to do so.

            The ONLY reasonable path at this point is to look for existing industrial designs that are appropriate for the e-cat and then partner or sub contract to such industry.

            As sales of e-cat rise, then Rossi can certainly consider designing and building a steam engine or any kind of Carnot engine appropriate for the e-cat.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada
            [email protected]

          • friendlyprogrammer

            No. Steam engine design is well understood and if you have ever participated in any engineering then you would realize that most design innovations are involved in making designs smaller and more compact.

            Just a few small machines could be built using Home Depot plumbing supplies as I’ve already said. If you want a device to look like a space ship and fit in your trunk then that’s more work.

            Most of the above “rant” was addressed in my previous comment.

            An airplane NEVER requires a galley even if it was a flight to Pluto. An Ecat requires electrical generation as soon as possible. This way the R&D guys can get it down to trunk size someday.

            If the ecat cannot produce electricity its use is only 5% of what most of us are hoping for. It would not revolutionize anything except heating units.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        it also refers to an equally controversial event. people did not believe the wright brothers either.

  • Axil Axil

    Steam is not compatible with a reactor whose operating temperature is 1400C. To get the most out of that amount of high heat, helium, lithium vapor, sodium, or supercritical CO2 is the best mechanism to produce electric power. I like supercritical CO2 the most because the turbine is so very small and uncomplicated. The thermodynamic efficiency of such a high temperature reactor should be over 80% making a closed loop self sustain mode possible. It takes lots of know how in electric power generation to utilize non steam based electrical production.


    • Agaricus

      There shouldn’t be any problem with steam generation from reactors running at 1400C – that’s pretty much the same as the temperature of a gas flame. All that’s required is a buffer to distribute the heat before it meets the coolant, such as a metal mass. Reactors could occupy one set of bores through the mass, while water flows upward through another set of through-bores.

      There are enough variables (position of reactors, rates of flow or set level of coolant, number/diameter of bores and distance apart, etc.) to get any operating spec. required. As you say, non-steam systems require specialist expertise, and IH will probably want to keep the whole thing in house for the time being.

      Frank, if you read this – why ‘hot cat’ in the tile of the piece? The exchange you quote doesn’t specify whether the LT or HT version is referred to

    • builditnow

      An even simpler design is a converted jet turbine. Efficiency is lower, perhaps 20%.
      However, since the Hot Cat is exothermic, if control is switched from controlling input power and leaving heat loss uncontrolled to controlling both, once up to temperature the only control needed should be on the heat loss side. Once controls are on the heat loss side, there is no need for input power, COP goes to infinity (less the small amount of power required for the electronic control systems).

      This could be achieve using air and fits very nicely with a converted jet turbine.
      Connect up to a generator and you are self sustained with excess electrical or mechanical or thrust power.
      Seems obvious, so, I expect Rossi is already on to this scheme.

    • Sandy

      “These properties make supercritical carbon dioxide an incredibly tantalizing working fluid for Brayton cycle gas turbines. For the past several years, I have been part of a team of researchers at Sandia National Laboratory that has investigated these sorts of turbines for power generation, and we are now moving into the demonstration phase. Such gas turbine systems promise an increased thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency of 50 percent over conventional gas turbines.

      “The system is also very small and simple, meaning that capital costs should be relatively low. The plant uses standard materials like chrome-based steel alloys, stainless steels, or nickel-based alloys at high temperatures (up to 800 °C). It can also be used with all heat sources, opening up a wide array of previously unavailable markets for power production.”

      It appears that this “very small and simple” system could be installed in an automobile and could generate enough electricity to power the automobile’s electric propulsion system.

      • NT

        Good to see someone from Sandia Labs interested in these events. My wife worked there for 35 years at Livermore…

    • Omega Z

      Axil Axil
      Your working fluid will never achieve the temperatures of the reactor.

      That said, I find multiple references that indicate most power plants obtain about 60% or 1000″C will get you 600’C steam. I think it’s quite probably to exceed 60%, but I think it is a matter of Cost/Benefit. Additional Gains are negated by additional loss either in efficiencies or cost to do it.

      An E-cat operated at 1400’C would not allow any headroom so I suspect the objective is an E-cat with a normal operating range around 1100″C to 1200″C. This provides 700’C steam which would allow a heat to electric conversion of about 45% to 50%. A COP>10 would give a 1/5 ratio Electric to Electric.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Producing electricity with the ecat is the holy grail when done with a high enough COP. I wonder how he achieved that electricity: directly from the reactor or through the carnot cycle?

    The fact that Rossi feels they are ready to research and already produce electricity tells me he feels pretty confident about the reactors and their controlling mechanisms. He really could be years ahead of the competition.

    • Casey

      Rossi said, that they are working in this direction, to produce electricity. But he always say. the results might be ‘positive” or “negative”. 🙂

      • Sean

        Now we have the ECAT producing heat. The challenge is out for the next breakthrough.. A nearly 99 % miniaturized thermal to electric power converter. This will just do nicely.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          The Johnson thermoelectric energy converter.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Just had a thought.
            I posted this before but here it is again (see 10:30). Have the high pressure
            hydrogen of the hot-cat circulate through the jtec in its closed loop where it
            will be cooled and returned to the hot-cat (cooling the hot-cat while generating
            electricity in the process).

          • Alan DeAngelis
          • Omega Z

            Alan DeAngelis

            I have followed this for a long time. If he can perfect the JTEC it would appear to be a perfect match for the Hot-cat. As there would be zero mechanical losses, It could possibly exceed the Carnot limitations. Theoretically of course. Material science may need to improve.

            At the assumed sustainable temperatures of the Hot-cat, you could see 70% plus conversion efficiency. And efficiency of scale would be of much less influence.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, I think the combination would be a really elegant solution. Once Rossi gets the patents he needs maybe he could have a joint project with Johnson.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            How about a Hot-Cat powered Super Soaker?

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Rossi always says that about test results, etc. It is as if to say he is not influencing the testing teams because he is not involved. He said the same things regarding his validation studies.

        It is not second guessing himself. It is his way of saying here is my “lightbulb”, make of it what you will.

      • georgehants

        MLTC, my excellent malware program advises that it is a dangerous page.

    • guest

      “this new plant (with some changes) could be adapted to operate Hot Cats”….
      I missed it; when did it become clear that the current 1MW plant uses “regular” e-Cats vs Hot Cats?

      • ecatworld

        Rossi has mentioned this on a number of occasions over the last few months.

        • hempenearth

          That doesn’t preclude a large scale hot cat prototype

  • Agaricus

    I think the milestone has already being achieved by successfully running the 1MW plant – generating power is just one more possible use of the steam that is being produced. Perhaps Rossi is just referring to experiments with thermoelectric or MHD devices, rather than any ‘serious’ power generation using steam engines and alternators.

    Frank, if you read this – why ‘hot cat’ in the title of the piece? The exchange you quote doesn’t seem to specify whether the LT or HT version is referred to

    • jousterusa

      I wonder if he created a custom MHD for this project, and whether he will patent it?

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      creating steam isn’t necessarily creating ‘electricity’ because of the efficiency losses both in the ecat, steam pipes etc, and in the conversion of steam into electricity, the COP might not be high enough to offset the amount of electricity used. For example take an ecat with COP 3. if the heat to electricity conversion rate is below 33%, no go, using more electricity to run it than it produces. Also take into account that in creating a closed loop system that can ‘run itself’ you’ll also have losses of efficiency associated with batteries, voltage converters, etc.
      I suspect that we are probably looking at a realistic constant COP of 6 or more (which I think the ecat probably has) before we can reasonably expect a closed loop system that feeds electricity back into itself.

      • Omega Z

        With heat to electricity conversion rate at small scale(10Kw), 20% would be optimistic.

  • Jonnyb

    A Giant Step Indeed.

  • Frenchy1459

    What’s happen if a fiberglass is sealed in an Ecat. light goes out? Photovoltaic .Sorry for my english

  • georgehants

    I cannot find the total cost to the Worlds taxpayers of hot fusion research, it seems on Google to be hidden, GreenWin I think has the figure, that has not produced one watt of over input electricity.
    The cost will be in many billions, yet the establishment investment into Cold Fusion is publicly Zero.
    Is something wrong with this World?
    Just add, I use an American spellchecker and even allowing for their distortions it is crap.
    I have been too lazy to find an obviously better UK version, can anybody recommended one?

    • Just watched “Modern Marvels”, the theme was all things nuclear. Towards the end they went into hot fusion quite a bit. I was holding out for a possible mention of CF, but no luck.

      • jousterusa

        Not so “marvel”ous then!

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Is something wrong with this World? Maybe it fell under the wrong spell. Which under lines the importance of spell checker 🙂

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Mainstream science still maintains CF/LENR is Junk.Pathological science, which means government agencies or schools risk backlash if they spend taxpayer money on it.


      You are wrong stating that no taxpayer money is allocated for LENR research.

      You said,”the establishment investment into Cold Fusion is publicly Zero.”

      There are many government agencies researching LENR such as NASA, SPAWAR in America alone. Many Schools are also involved which are subsidized by our governments.

      Writing blatantly false notions is helpful how?

      • georgehants

        friendly, as you correctly say I said “publicly funded”, please back up your complaint to me with links to the announced “public funding” from the establishment to the places you mention.
        Many thanks

        • friendlyprogrammer

          I cannot be bothered looking up links for you, but it has been shown here on Franks website that NASA does budget LENR research.

          You said,”the establishment investment into Cold Fusion is publicly Zero”.

          Now you say “publicly funded”. Maybe it is a language barrier. Im’ guessing you are not a native English speaker because of spellings like “Las Vagas, as opposed to Las Vegas”.

          The word Establishment could mean big business and/or government, both of which fund LENR contrary to your post.

          Publicly in context with your first post would mean visible to the public eye.

          Even if you did change it to “Publicly funded” as you try to do in your last post, the government is still an arm of the public relying on public votes, etc., to stay in office.

          If you mean no PUBLIC money has been invested then you could also mean individuals have not invested time and money into this which is also very untrue. I could write a long list of names of individuals who have conducted LENR research in their garages at heir own expense.

          .Here is a quick example of a link, but it is common knowledge to those of us who keep informed about LENR.

          • georgehants

            Please show links to any publicly funded Cold Fusion Research or stop making the point that it has.
            Thank you.
            I wrote ” total cost to the Worlds taxpayers” that can only mean publicly funded.
            Please apologise.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            I’m sorry. I do not think you are understanding that public means people.

            Your language barrier is not helping. The owner of this website Frank Ackland is publicly funding LENR research simply by hosting this discussion.

            Try this link.


            Anybody even reading a book about LENR is conducting privately funded LENR research.

            I don’t mean to sound rude, but your comments are not making much sense.

            Try to be clearer what you mean by “public” and what you mean by establishment.

            I’ll show dictionary definitions below to make it clearer and why your comments are confusing atm.

            PUBLIC (Webster) definition: supported by money from the government and from private contributors rather than by commercials.

            i.e. Frank Ackland and his supporters are publicly funding LENR research on this very website.NOTE: DONATE TO FRANK and you also will be publicly funding LENR research.

            ESTABLISHMENT (Webster) definition: this can be a public or private institution, or : an established order of society such as a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class.

            LENR research is being funded by individuals, corporations, sole proprietorships, and governments. This covers everyone possibly considered public or establishment.

            You know NASA is budgeting LENR that is government.
            You know Frank is budgetting this website. That is public/sole Proprietor.
            We know Rossi is researching LENR, That’s corporate.

            I think you are confusing english terms. Try writing a response in your native language and let me interpret it. This way I can provide you with the answer you seek.

          • georgehants

            friendly let us except we are talking at cross purposes, in the UK publicly funded, usually means funded by the establishment, funded by the Taxpayer, I apologise for any confusion.
            My point is that there is no openly taxpayer funded Cold Fusion Research as far as I know anywhere in the UK or US.
            Any work being carried out is not publicly acknowledged as the establishment funding Cold Fusion, as far as I know.
            I would appreciate if you do have a link clearly giving the amounts and recipients of such funding.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Okay. So you are saying government is not funding LENR research.

            This is untrue.

            NASA is a government institution short for National Aeronautic and Space Administration. They are the people who sent rockets to the moon, and launched Voyager into space, etc.

            Here is an example of projects they are working on.

            Aside from NASA there is also SPAWAR and possibly DARPA involved as many think DARPA is the ecat customer.

            Here is a video produced by NASA which was originally hosted on their website.
            The budget assigned to LENR research is relatively small, just over $200,000 per year presently. Bushnell explains that, “Langley’s
            Center Leadership Council (CLC) made the original decision to support
            the LENR research. The annual C&I continuations of this funding were
            approved by the Langley Science Council, which is comprised of Langley
            senior scientists.”
            His answers seem to confirm that this research has the official
            blessing of the leadership at Langley. Bushnell also acknowledges that
            Joseph Zawodny, who has put out a couple of videos about his research
            interests, is the person who is heading up the effort.

            The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley wrote this (and much more)

            That is only in the United States.

            Many governments are looking at LENR and everytime you see a politician like a governor or head of state examining LENR potential that is government research into LENR.

            ABOUT SPAWAR,

            New Energy Times sent the list of instructions to James Fallin, the director of public affairs at SPAWAR San Diego, and asked for confirmation.

            “In response to your recent query,” Fallin wrote, “while I won’t
            discuss details of our internal decision-making processes, I will
            confirm SPAWAR plans no further low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR)
            research. There are other organizations within the federal government
            that are better aligned to continue research regarding nuclear power. We
            have taken initial steps to determine how a transition of low-energy
            nuclear reaction (LENR) research might occur.”

            report here….
            After 23 years, researchers at the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare
            Systems Center in San Diego, Calif., have been ordered to stop their
            low-energy nuclear reaction research.
            On or about Nov. 9, 2011, Rear Admiral Patrick Brady , commander of
            SPAWAR, ordered SPAWAR researchers to terminate all LENR research. The
            order came seven days after Fox News published a story about Andrea Rossi’s Oct. 28, 2011, demonstration of his Energy Catalyzer

            Because NASA, DARPA took over research.

            ABOUT DARPA…
            A key document shown in CBS’s “60 Minutes” program “Cold Fusion Is Hot Again” was wrongly attributed, New Energy Times recently learned.
            During the 2009 program, CBS said that the Defense Advanced Research
            Projects Agency did its “own analysis” of the anomalous heat effect seen
            in LENRs (low-energy nuclear reactions) and that CBS had obtained an
            “internal memo” written by DARPA.
            “The Pentagon is saying [that LENR is real], too,” CBS said. “The
            Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, did its own
            analysis, and 60 Minutes obtained an internal memo that concludes there
            is ‘no doubt that anomalous excess heat is produced in these

            That is only the tip of the iceberg, and not even that.

            To claim governments are not funding LENR research or looking at it with taxpayer dollars is an untruth/lie no matter how you paint it.

            Perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this website (Ecatworld) and read about LENR.

            This entire website is mainly about LENR research and could show you literally hundreds of links/discussions about government involvement. Andrea Rossi himself will tell you the government has come to his doorstep.

            If you truly believe government has not invested in LENR then you are seriously behind in this discussion and do not deserve to be spoon fed the correct data. Take some initiative and read a bit about LENR before jumping to wrongful conclusions.

            Especially if you are willing to give opinions about a topic which you are OBVIOUSLY (underline that also) misinformed/uninformed about..

          • problem is not funding…
            public money, military money or private money, both are available for LENR research, and is even allocated today.

            problem is as you notice that they have to hide that money from the public visibility, or all the sylvie coyaud and huizenga will call the press to say money is wasted… taxpayer money, or shareholder’s money.

            Spawar lab was closed when the boss changed ans they made some press conferences…
            CEA stopped research when the lab boss wanted nobel prize.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Have the hydrogen be the working gas for the Stirling? Yeah, if it’s in a closed loop that’s not exposed to oxygen, it should be safe.

  • jousterusa

    Even though it’s sketchy about the details – like how much electricity, and for how long – this is terrific news! We have all been waiting to hear this from Rossi. I know I cheered out loud when I saw Frank’s headline. However faltering and tenuous the start, we are at the beginning of an extremely important new phase, probably of E-Cat 2.0.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Yes. I cheered also. Now I just wonder if it will be another few years before we hear from BLP. Their 4 month deadline has passed without a peep. At least Rossi always does what he says and tries to keep some semblance of a timeline.

      • US_Citizen71

        As far as I have been able to research it doesn’t appear BLP has ever made a self imposed deadline. At least they’re consistent.

        • friendlyprogrammer

          lol.. Yeah. They are consistent. They did imposed a few deadlines last summer when they gave dates of their demonstrations in advance. They then said they should have a prototype in about 4 months which passed (Nov 21) without so much as a hiccup from their website.

  • SteveW

    Possible New Details of an Electricity Generating Reactor using Hot-cats.

    On a somewhat heated exchange between a poster going by the name “Warthog” and myself, new information was released about a possible electrical generating reactor using hot-cats being developed. Statements made by Warthog seem to be consistent with someone directly affiliated with International Heat (IH), but of course there is no way to tell for sure if this poster is actually affiliated with IH. I say “possible electrical generating reactor” since the writer, Warthog, didn’t actually specify the use of this reactor but if hot-cats are being utilized, this could be an obvious assumption.

    Warthog makes the statement, “… is obvious from the design of the Hot Cat that has been shown that it already encompasses the basic concept you are suggesting. Why do you think it has all those nice little ridges around the circumference??? Because coolant flow will be perpendicular to the mounting of the hot cat, with multiple “cats” mounted in the coolant loop. The ridges will maximize heat transfer in such a geometry.”

    From this statement, it can be deduced that Warthog is suggesting that the new reactor design follows the basic concept of my reactor design using hot-cats in a “coolant loop”. I would surmise this coolant loop would be analogous to my heat exchanger styled reactor vessel of my reactor design description. Warthog goes on to state that multiple hot-cats would be mounted perpendicular within this coolant loop with the ridges of the hot-cat maximizing heat transfer. To say that the design of the hot-cat makes my reactor design obvious is groundless. Furthermore, if one were to read my reactor design description, it can easily be deduced that hot-cats would not be an appropriate substitute for my reactor tubes which I refer to as fuel rods. The hot-cat in no way matches the specifications I have made for my fuel rod.

    Other points taken from these comments by Warthog. If this future hot-cat reactor encompasses the basic concept I am suggesting in my reactor design description (by SteveW), this seems to suggest other aspects of my reactor design will also be implemented though all may not be included here. Other aspects of my reactor design description are low and high temperature molten salt (or other suitable medium) storage tanks to buffer power output from the reactor vessel to energy demand. A reactor tube shell composed of a material to encourage thermal diffusion. A medium for fuel rod submersion of a temperature in range of the reactant fuel operating range- this seems to be directly contradictory to the hot-cats resistor coil control system. A means for agitating the reactor vessel medium so as to promote an even temperature throughout said vessel. Again, to suggest that by the design of the hot-cat, these other basic concepts of my reactor design description are obvious is groundless.

    This exchange between myself and Warthog may be read directly on the “E-Cat Plant Needs New Design (SteveW) thread of the E-Cat World website (near the bottom portion of the comment section). My reactor design description is contained in this same comment section starting out with “Funny you should ask” if you are interested.

    Again, I have no idea if this poster, Warthog, has any real affiliation with International Heat or not.

    • Owen Geiger

      IH = Industrial Heat

      • SteveW

        Whoops, I knew that, I don’t know how it slipped my mind.

  • Linda

    Ok, this post has cured me of my fascination with the eCat. I’ve got Hype Fatigue.

    I’m onto Thorium now. Cya.

  • Marcelo Pacheco

    Mr Rossi, please forget about electricity. The world needs a lot of process heat. If you can transform 1 unit of electricity into 10 units of heat, then focus on process heat. And heating buildings (actually easier since 200C steam is plenty hot to heat any environment.
    Get it done, get it to market. Then you will silence all the skeptics including me. I want you to succeed, but it doesn’t look like you yourself want to succeed (or it’s actually a hoax).

    The heating market + process heat is a 100 billion / yr market. Huge.