Industrial Heat Slides Comparing Coal and E-Cat as Fuel (English Translation)

Many thanks to Bob Greenyer for posting these interesting slides, translated from the original Chinese, from the recently discovered slideshow prepared by Industrial Heat for a presentation in China in 2013. They provide an interesting comparison between the E-Cat and coal as sources as fuel. Obviously they are projections, but shows that IH have had faith in Andrea Rossi’s work for quite some time now.



  • Obvious

    Unfortunately the coal figure is still the input for the container figure, divided by your favourite COP figure.

  • Observer

    These slides are at least 2 years old. A predicted COP of 3 to 20 is now rumored to be 20 to 80.

    • Jarea

      There is a difference on what they provide and what they ensure they can provide.

    • Omega Z

      The info is outdated.
      It says a 20 foot(1mW) container, but the 250kW reactors take up much less space. A 20 foot container would likely hold 5mW plus in the 250kW reactors.

    • Hi all

      The signing ceremony on the 18th of October, for the new $2 Billion industrial and research park between Industrial Heat and Chinese Officials gave someone the necessary information on where to look!

      As quite often occurs in such cases what is found, when you look, is the stuff people put in the archive and forgot to secure and probably forgot was there or was passed around at lower levels to let the workers know what they are working on.

      A scenario such as the following: as they are busy dealing with the latest more important information, such things get forgotten, and left unencrypted on an Intranet that was made externally accessible via the web for a conference attendee to put before some stake holders, government officials, major shareholder, management groups, partners etc.

      What we mainly learn from this is a glimpse of the E-Cat history. The signing ceremony a partner in the project and the involvement of the source tells us the project is advancing. The more than $2 Billion tells us they are at the stage in the slides.

      Kind Regards walker

  • Mats002

    Good to see a consistent message, keeps confidence up.

  • Agaricus

    I find it a little worrying that the Chinese solution to replacement of coal burners seems to be a huge program of building new nuclear fission reactors (400 of them). These are not a short term hedging solution but a long term strategic program that will commit China to the nuclear fuel cycle for at least two generations (and incidentally, given the proposed use of primitive PWR reactors, will more or less guarantee a Fukushima-scale incident in the forseeable future).

    If their government was in the least convinced by IH’s presentation, it’s difficult to see why they would then opt for fission on such a scale, rather than look for mitigating measures to carry them over to rollout of CF reactors. There may be time left to head off this potential disaster by demonstrating the commercial reality of LENR over the next year or so, but if development plods along as it seems to be doing, the mentally deficient ‘leaders’ of the world will irreversibly commit to a new wave of fission, and the reality of Rossi’s reactors will remain an inconvenient fact to be denied and ignored.

    BTW is that the first time we’ve the the IH logo? I hope they didn’t pay too much for it.

    • georgehants

      Peter, as you say the semi-positive results of the Rossi test will then show us all if the PTB are sane.
      The question is as always, why not a massive Research budget now for science to confirm or deny the breakthrough?
      Can anybody put up any sound reason other than complete corruption etc?

      • US_Citizen71

        More likely than not, there is a huge western research project going on, but it is a black project. LENR would make a great power plant for submarines, surface ships and planes don’t you think?

        • georgehants

          That sounds like our governments really care about it’s citizens.
          A technology that could save millions of lives and abolish much suffering, but we will keep it secret and create wars and kill people so that we seem important, ego’s gone mad, I think.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Dude, one slideshow is not gonna change their whole energy policy, however convincing.

    • Omega Z

      “rather than look for mitigating measures to carry them over to rollout of CF reactors”

      Power plants take many years of preparation. You don’t put such planning on hold for something that doesn’t yet exist. Many things work in a lab that don’t transfer to the real world. Until all doubt is removed, you continue as if it doesn’t exist.

      Something to keep in mind. A Nuclear plant design is much more easily modified for LENR then a N-gas or coal plant. LENR reactors like fuel rods will be immersed verses fossil fuel that jet flames like a torch.

      We also need to keep the money interests in mind. Once LENR is proven, people will need to pressure governments to stop all nuclear plants that aren’t started up.

  • Now, can anyone present a credible and complete scam scenario, with all people and organisations involved – Rossi, IH, Woodford…?

    • LookMoo

      The scam scenario fadded away with the Lugano report. The race is on and I’m not totally convinced that Rossi will be the first.

    • Omega Z

      To Easy Mats,

      They intend to convince the Fossil energy concerns & Nations that it’s real & agree to bury the technology for 1 Trillion$. Once payment is received, they will publicly claim it was misreadings caused by the earths magnetic pole shifting. That and a touch of swamp gas reflecting light from Venus.

      It then quickly becomes a story of conspiracies about big energy burying the technology. Given a few years, the time lines will shift & Focardi will have died(A warning to Rossi) just a week before Rossi/IH divulged the magnetic shift caused error in the readings.

      We now have a scam wrapped within a conspiracy of conspiracies. 🙂

      • 😀

        • georgehants

          Mats I am a little worried, I have put my signed copy of your book in a safety deposit box for one hundred years, if it does not gain in value considerably, my great, great grandchildren may came after you to get a refund on the purchase price.

          • Omega Z


            Don’t you mean Your great, great grandchildren may come after Mats great, great grandchildren to get a refund on the purchase price?
            Just saying—

          • georgehants

            Omega, ha, no I am sure Mats will live to be a thousand.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Translation 02

    It should be noted that the current size claims for a 1MW unit are significantly smaller, in 250kw modules.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Two stage 1’s??

      • Bob Greenyer

        no – projected revenue from stage 1

        • Hi all

          I pointed out to Observer below; that the information in the slides is a glimpse of the projects history, the signing ceremony tells us the project is on going, the mention of nickel reactors confirms it is the E-Cat, and the amount of over $2 billion for the research and industrial development and manufacturing park tells us that the confidence in the project is that high!

          Kind Regards walker

          • Bob Greenyer

            One might ask what sort of due diligence was conducted by the funding bodies and state/land stakeholders that led from this presentation to the signing ceremony.

    • Omega Z

      Using multiples of 250kw modules, you can build power plants to any size you want within reason.

      Note in Stage 2:
      1. Produce 1-3MW mobile units.
      2. Produce 10-20MW medium units.

      This appears to fit the micro-grid system. Power at the point of use instead of highly centralized. By building a multiple of small power plants locally, you create a grid where power is always available for the individual plants. This also allows the ability to ramp up or down to meet peek and valley demand periods.

      One could always have a fail safe battery pack or genset should for some reason they all went down. A battery pack or genset would only need to be big enough to bring 1 back on line which in turn would provide the necessary power to bring the rest on line.

      Note with small plants, it become economical to use cooling towers instead of vast amounts of water. Thus, these can be built just about anywhere. It also makes the waste heat readily available locally for use in greenhouse plants or manufacturing. Something hard or impossible to do when it is centralized hundreds of miles away.

  • Paul Maher

    I have been following Cold Fusion now for five years, and folks it is nearly in our laps. I have been told that Louis DeChiaro has been heading a Manhattan style LENR development program. If this is true then his slideshow tells the world what is actually up in the world of LENR. Here are 3 relevant links. Rossi got his USPTO Patent ISSUED. This after FINAL REJECTION. What happened in Obama’s Cabinet?

  • The Fuel-Free piston engines of Aesop Energy, LLC, may be useful to those interested in using LENR to produce electricity.

    At least one LENR company is developing a Stirling engine, which almost certainly is a high-tech design in order to be powerful and efficient.

    Still, it is Carnot-limited and will have an actual efficiency below its Carnot efficiency. It also must reject heat as a waste product.

    Efficiency will undoubtedly be below 50% and may be much less.

    The high temperatures developed by LENR will push the materials envelope to state-of-the-art, high-tech science & technology.

    High temperature Stirlings will be expensive. The Stirling & heat generator combination will also require waste heat exchangers to dissipate unused heat.

    Where electric power is the goal, the use of Aesop Energy’s Fuel-Free Engines could streamline LENR development time and ultimate product costs.

    The Aesop engines are low to medium tech and are likely to be less costly to manufacture.

    They may be no more expensive and need less R&D development time and materials to prove.

    No waste heat exchangers are necessary.

    At elevated input temperatures, getting the heat into AESOP Energy’s engines will be relatively easy.

    See contact me at 707 861-9070 or [email protected]

    • Omega Z

      Mark Goldes
      There was a Stirling engine designed to be 40% efficient 6 decades ago. It was never actually built and tested because of cost to build & expected costs to maintain & operate. i.e. The efficiency is possible, but cost benefit isn’t, Thus, 25% seems to be the limit.

      • Allan Shura

        I am interested in the Stirling engine only because of the slow rollout of consumer
        clean energy products. I think new ways and materials could provide a good alternative. The Philips Stirling engine was purposed for remote radio and was
        nearly obsolete for that one purpose in 1951. A good design can be adapted to
        any heat source. Certainly if the home e-cat or solar prices fall rapidly it would
        only serve as a backup. I cannot comment on others costs my planned prototype will be cost competitive as it stands.