Rossi: During E-Cat Plant Test, Research Continues on Hot Cats and Systems of Producing Electricity

What can you do to pass the time while sitting inside a shipping container monitoring a year-long test of an E-Cat plant?

Well, according to Andrea Rossi, quite a lot. Yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics he was asked by a reader about what he and others of his team were doing, specifically referring to testing the Hot Cat and generating electricity.

Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi

As I already said, the R&D on the Hot Cat is going on here where I am working with the 1 MW E-Cat, where a test line for the Hot Cats has been set up. About the electric power generation, we decided for the Carnot Cycle, made possible by the temperatures we can reach with the Hot Cat.
We are making R&D also for other systems of electric power production, about which I must hold confidentiality, but not reached so far acceptable efficiency and reliability. So far.
Warm Regards,

So it seems he is keeping quite busy, and focusing on the production of electricity. His reference to deciding on the Carnot cycle indicates they are doing to be starting out with trying for the most efficient piston-driven heat engine they can, but they are also looking at ‘other systems’, which we will have to guess about for now. Perhaps they are exploring the use of a Stirling engine with the E-Cat, or continuing the examination of the generation of direct electrical production from the E-Cat — Rossi has mentioned in the past that they have measured electromagnetic effects coming from the E-Cat.

And how is the 1 MW plant performing? I asked Rossi what kind of ‘mood’ the plant these days. He answered, “The voice of the E-Cat during these nights is constant and stable. But unpredictable too, as always!”

  • Bob Greenyer


  • I admire Rossi’s work, but it’s kind of symbolic that he’s working in such an isolated place. He’s been invited to ICCF and Mithchell Swartz invited him to the CF Colloquium last year at MIT and he refused. I believe he is going to create a mega business, but I think Parkhomov, who openly shares his research, is about to receive a hero’s welcome at ICCF 19 and will go down in CF history as someone who stepped outside of the snail’s paced capitalistic approach to advance CF for the sake of humanity.

    Imagine the affect of sharing a workable experiment at ICCF.

  • psi2u2

    I think you meant “posterity.” But prosperity, too!

    • clovis ray

      yep, thanks buddy, just good all around huh.

  • SteveW

    I have cut and pasted here a comment made to me by someone who I feel is connected with Industrial heat- “Warthog”. This comment is a reply to myself regarding a reactor design I posted to this message board a while back which is actually a disclosure.

    It is my opinion that this comment was made by someone connected to Industrial Heat and this comment is actually a partial disclosure of a future power generating reactor design of Industrial heat.

    If you are now asking yourself why would someone from Industrial Heat post a disclosure of a future reactor that they may want patent protection on to this board- the answer is quite simple. When someone posts an idea for an invention on a board such as this, they are actually making a public disclosure in a legal sense. Under US patent law, they now have one year to file a patent on any claims publicly disclosed provided that it is not prior art, publicly disclosed by someone else or a patent application has not been filed (by someone else),

    In my opinion, when I posted my reactor design, I believe it contained many elements of a future Industrial Heat power generating reactor. This created a problem for Industrial Heat If they had not filed a patent on the reactor design or made a public disclosure. If that were the case, I now had rights to file a patent on my disclosed reactor design that could eventually bar Industrial Heat from being able to sell their own reactor.

    In my opinion, Industrial Heat made the decision to disclose what they could for damage control.

    In my opinion if you take my reactor design description together with “warthogs” comment, you can get a pretty good idea of what Industrial Heat has in mind for a power generating reactor using hot cats.

    Here’s the post-

    Warthog SteveW • a month ago

    Well. it is certainly obvious to me.
    The basic structure is probably a channel, possibly rectangular. The multiple hot cats would be mounted transverse to the channel, with each end terminating at a wall. The “far” (plugged) end of would simply socket into recesses in the wall to provide lateral mechanical support. The “near” end would penetrate the other wall (probably through a lock chamber valving arrangement) to allow heater wiring, control sensors, and the like to connect to whatever control circuitry is used, and possibly for fuel element changes. The hot-cats would be in a staggered array down the length of the channel. Thus any single element can be accessed at any time
    With this geometry, the exact working fluid is pretty much irrelevant. Whatever best fits the temperature needs of the application, be that air, Helium, supercritical CO2, liquid metal, DOWTHERM, or pretty much anything else.
    And since I have discussed not at all any product other than Rossi’s “cats”, using information already in the public domain, I certainly am not “releasing bits and pieces” of anything.

    • Warthog


      I’m glad you thought highly of my insights, but in no way, shape, or form am I connected in any way with Industrial Heat (would that I were……..!). I am just a semi-retired PhD chemist/Analytical instrument engineer with some background in nuclear topics and a long-standing interest in cold fusion. My speculations (and that is all they are) are based on the external geometry of the “Hot Cat”

      • SteveW

        A month ago you said, “And since I have discussed not at all any product other than Rossi’s “cats”, using information already in the public domain, I certainly am not “releasing bits and pieces” of anything.”

        And now you say, ” My speculations (and that is all they are) are based on the external geometry of the “Hot Cat”

        If they are now just your speculations, that would seem to contradict your public domain reference from a month ago. Also, your statements seem to be oddly detailed for just speculations.

        So which is it? Are your statements based on information already in the public domain or are they just you’re speculations?

        • Warthog

          Both. The external geometry of the Hot-Cat is available on this website in multiple photographs, and thus in the public domain.

          My additional points are speculations based on those photos, and my own “knowledge base”. Specifically based on the “fins” around the circumference of the hottest part of the HC. The only reason for such fins is to maximize heat transfer of a fluid moving perpendicular to the axis of the HC.

          I know about fluid flow in such cases, because quite a few flow sensors (analytical instrument design, remember) use such a geometry, and there are “downstream effects” (and upstream effects) in such flow that can cause sensing errors (and heat exchange effects from the same phenomena). With sensors, those flow phenomena can be negative (data errors), but with heat exchange can be positive (better heat removal). And that info, too, is in the public domain.

          “Lock chambers” are ubiquitous in the process instrument design area, to allow insertion and replacement of sensors without having to shut down (or bypass) the main process flow. Again, all public domain info.

          Admittedly, my experience base is a bit of an odd mix for a chemist, but, given that, all the points I raised are really obviousl.

          • That’s just what a guy from IH would say : )

          • SteveW

            You state, “Specifically based on the “fins” around the circumference of the hottest part of the HC. The only reason for such fins is to maximize heat transfer of a fluid moving perpendicular to the axis of the HC.”

            These “fins” are the resultant geometry of the resistor wire surrounding the reactor- are they not? I would say that their main purpose is for providing heating in order to maintain the LENR reaction and possibly for electromagnetic stimulation and or regulation. They are obviously going to be located around the hottest part of the reactor because they are so positioned to interface the reactant charge. If they serve a secondary purpose of providing a means of heat transfer that certainly is not obvious.

            I find it interesting that these “fins” as in “coolant fins” that you refer to now were simply called ridges a month ago by you. Because the hot cat has ridges as a result of the geometry of the resistor wire, my reactor along with your revelations (speculations as you claim) become obvious. So basically the whole obvious strategy hinges on these ridges actually being cooling fins and also this being obvious which makes everything else obvious- good luck with that. In my opinion, there is no way an obvious claim would hold up in court- in my opinion.

            The way I see this, there are two options. The first option seems to be to just blow this all off and proclaim my reactor disclosure obvious from the shape of the hot cat (mainly the ridges), give up on any patent protection on your power/other generating reactor system and hope that I don’t file a patent based on my disclosure that could later result in a patent infringement suit. And also hope that some entity with deep pockets doesn’t approach me to do just that in a few months when this all finally explodes into the media.

            Your other option is for myself to just sign off on your patent application as one of the co-inventors which would prevent my disclosure from barring any claims in your patent as long as it was filed within a year of my disclosure which would fall on February 15, 2016.

          • SteveW

            It seems my reply to you was removed by Frank, Perhaps it would be better anyway to continue this conversation privately if you should so choose. If you e-mail me @ [email protected], I will respond with my deleted reply (and proposal).

        • ecatworld

          It’s okay to ask questions of another poster, but not to make assumptions about their identity.

      • Alberonn

        You smart-ass… well-done :>)))

  • US_Citizen71

    With a COP of 6 you could build a self powering heater with a blower. Any higher and power generation in the real sense would start to become possible. Could pricing be the issue? I’m not up on the cost of the materials needed to make the device in the patent.

  • Obvious

    That patent is expired.

  • Obvious

    Rossi had to make them by hand, over months, to get 20%. Mass production was a failure. They are made with gold and platinum to get best results.
    Those are a few good reasons to let the patent go. They are not cost effective (labor and money) in the real world.
    Maybe someone else has worked out how to make a better one, or make one better, by now…

  • Agaricus

    What I find a bit odd here is that the 1 MW plant is currently on the premises of a ‘customer’ – supposedly an outside commercial entity with whom IH have a supplier/client relationship and a performance contract – yet Rossi says that “R&D on the Hot Cat is going on here where I am working with the 1 MW E-Cat“. This begs the question, what kind of customer (in the normal interpretation of the word) would also allow a supplier to move their R&D on a related but separate product into their factory?

    The only scenario that makes sense to me is that the ‘customer’ is actually a company that is owned by IH/Cherokee and is directed by them, and the performance contract is one of those internal paper exercises that larger companies often indulge in, where ‘departments’ charge one another for various in-house services (for reasons that have escaped me whenever I encountered it).

  • Gerard McEk

    The only thing I tried to say is that I think that the E-cat and Hot Cat are not so easy to control yet. It may not be simple to adapt to an required external energy demand change, but that may change in the future. The reason is that it can only be influenced with the heater coil temperature. Additionally LENR may have a considerable hysteresis (think of self sustained mode).
    Your solution is possible of course but an expensive one.

  • Obvious

    He delivered his hand made unit to the U.S. military, who had it tested. It seems that it did work. The mass produced version did not assemble properly, and at best made around 5 %, when they worked at all. If someone spent the required 100’s of millions needed to get the design made by a process similar to computer chips, then perhaps the high output version would be feasible.
    I’m not sure what the upper limit is of these devices is, for efficiency, realistically.

  • True Alberonn. My fear is after we wait for the results of the one year test, we won’t hear anything for another year or two until Hot-cats are up and running in a number of factories. By that time the CF revolution can make significant progress.

  • Obvious
    • Asterix

      Thank you for the link; it made interesting reading. The only reference to 20 percent efficiency that I can find refers to a test done under LTI/Rossi’s supervision at UNH. LTI was unable to reproduce this, citing numerous problems, but basically an irreproducible phenomenon. Could the figure of 20% thermal conversion efficiency have been a simple mis-measurement/calculation?

      In particular, the paper says:

      “LTI established its own laboratory and bench scale production facility in New Hampshire. Although there is significant evidence to support further real world testing of TE Devices in DOD applications, neither current available production meets the ~16 percent efficiency requirement, nor are TE Devices readily available to perform system integration.”

      In fact, test results performed by ERDC/CERL demonstrated that LTI’s device submitted for testing was less than 50% efficient than currently available commercial products.

      So, maybe nothing more than experimental error.

      • Obvious

        Possibly a measuring error, could have had a slight build change that affected things better… who knows. Rossi seems to have had bigger fish to fry than fiddle with it after ca. 2007 at least. Maybe he has one more surprise hidden away, like a better version…?

      • the two kind of TEG were very differently.
        the first one was a very expensive prototype, hand made.

        all the others were test to see if an industrial cheap process would reproduce the anisotropic nanostructure obtaine by huge manual efforts.
        Its failed, as expected.

        today in TEG domain, this problem is very common. scientists in lab produce very high performance devices, then they realize the price is awful and it cannot be reduced.

        note also that it is not Rossi fraud, it is LTI company fraud that you question ?
        Is LTI a scam company ?

        the innuendo of Krivit who is all but rational when he decide, have worked very well to fog our eyes.

        LTI TEG story is veru classical and if it was not linke to cold fusion nobody woul question the result.