Rossi on the E-Cat Plant’s ‘Bell Curve’ Performance

Some recent comments by Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics reveal that there seems to be some fatigue setting in for the 1MW E-Cat plant. Rossi has reported numerous times over the last few weeks that there has been need for repairs to the plant which has been running for almost 270 days now, and yesterday he characterized the performance of the plant:

Andrea Rossi
November 16th, 2015 at 4:33 PM
Italo R.:
Let me say that the frequency of troubles is returning as it was at the beginning: we have an integral of troubles whose function’s curve looks like the profile of a bell, if you put time on the axis of the x and reliability in the axis of the y.
We’ll see.
Warm Regards,

Rossi reported that at the beginning of the test there were numerous problems to solve, which eventually seemed to be ironed out, and there was relatively smooth sailing for some months. Lately Rossi has reported a number of unspecified problems, and he recently reported that his team has had to “fight” to keep the plant up and running.

I asked yesterday if the problems were related to degradation of materials over the course of the test and he replied, “Part of the problems come also from the degradation of the materials, yes. I must say that we are learning.”

Another JONP reader asked if the troubles were related to the control system, and he responded, “No, it is not a problem of control system, now ( it has been, but we resolved the problems connected with this issue). I cannot enter in particulars.”

So it’s possible that the reactors themselves are being troublesome. Since this is the maiden voyage for this plant, and the current reactor design, it would not be too surprising that unexpected things would crop up.

Rossi has reported twice recently that he is “tired” — I would guess if there are problems to deal with that he would want to be on hand as much as possible, and that could mean even less sleep than normal. Yesterday he wrote:

“I must confess you that I have the ribbon covered patent on my desk here in the plant and when I am tired or down ( it happens) I look at it and the view is energetic! The USPTO has trusted my invention, now I must merit this trust.”

UPDATE: Here’s a more recent Q&A on the topic.

Without entering into details, can you say whether you now understand the reasons behind the particular problems you have had to deal with lately, and if you think you can prevent them from reoccurring in the future?

November 17th, 2015 at 8:51 AM
Frank Acland:
Yes, we have understood the problems and yes, we learnt how to overcome.
Warm Regards,

  • f sedei

    Hang in there, Andrea. Such set backs can be expected of any major project–particulary one surrounding a major, new discovery. We are rooting for you.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Pure speculation: maybe one of the reactors started to leak and they improvised a fix, or maybe a heater wire broke and they had to remake the winding. These problems are about the hardest I can imagine, while still being somewhat fixable without opening the core. Problems in hardware which surrounds the reactor (pumps, thermal transfer fluids, valves, flow sensors etc.) should be fixable more simply by taking the reactor unit temporarily out of service and replacing the faulty parts.

    • radvar

      “without opening the core”…that’s the scary scenario, if there were materials degradation issues in the cores that started occurring at days = X for all the reactors. Sounds like they have a grip on the problem, though. Interesting to know how many backup modules they have, how fast they can build new modules, and whether the contract allows for swapping in replacement modules.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi has posted on JONP that these 4-250kW reactors are the one & only’s. Also, getting through 1 year without the need to swap them out is part of the test. Durability. Without that, economics flies out the window. There has to be a cost benefit & I’m sure these reactors are not so cheap.

        • Agaricus

          At some point an assumption crept in among some observers that the pilot plant was a ‘final’ design that would be commercially replicated with minor mods on completion of the test run. But the truth is that it is simply a ‘test bed’ for refining e-cat design in an industrial environment, and not yet a commercially viable product.

          We have already been informed of at least one radical redesign (to the 4 x 250kW format) and there will be further ‘generations’ to be similarly tested under field conditions before even a hand assembled ‘Model A’ commercial reactor can be offered for sale/lease in an open market, let alone a mass produced ‘Model T’.

          This is the penalty of the linear design pathway apparently being implemented by IH; each step has to be completed before moving on to the next, and inevitably, due to commercial pressures, interesting potential sidelines that could be the future of CF will be ignored or shelved indefinitely.

          It is also why replication outside of IH’s empire is so desperately needed. It’s only when the essentials of kW output cold fusion reactors become common knowledge that cut-throat competition to grab a section of this vast market will give rise to the kind of multi-branched experimentation that will lead to rapid and irreversible development of the technology.

    • Omega Z

      Humidity & high temps can be very problematic.

      Someone somewhere has the answers. Someone in this day and age has experienced similar problems. However, they may not be accessible on the internet. Sometimes in industry, off the shelf doesn’t do the task & they develop there own fix. These tend to be secrets of the trade. Regardless, they seldom find there way to officialdom.

      Such problems can be solved. They just don’t always come easy. I speak from experience. Given your background Pekka, I would bet you can also.

  • The real breakthrough to the field of science will be a year of CF gain. Engineering the Ecat to efficiency is further down the list..

    • Observer

      The “field of science” has dropped the ball. The engineers have picked it up.

      As with the integrated circuit, the engineers will ignore the physicists until they hit a fundamental limit. Even then, they will demand empirical evidence to the usefulness of any theory.

      • Omega Z

        John Kennedy gave the moon speech in 1962. In 1969, the 1st astronaut set foot on the moon. That’s 7 years.

        Ask NASA how they accomplished so much so fast.
        Their Answer. They pushed the bureaucrats to the side and let the hounds loose. It was all the engineers show.

        • Manuel Cruz

          But the Moon speech specifically mentioned that the astronauts were to set foot on the Moon before 1970, which is why they had to fake it in 1969.

          The most obvious proof is, that the Moon from the recent chinese landing does not have any resemblance to the Moon from those faked videos.

          • Besides, how could mankind possible launch a rocket off of a flat earth?

          • Omega Z

            Aside from all the other obvious proof to the contrary that you would find conspiracy against.
            The Soviet Union & China allowed this “Charade” to go unchallenged.
            Seriously? I doubt that.

      • Warthog

        Unfortunately true. The false notion that “there has to be a theory before it’s real” is a GROSS felonious assault on the process of science, and will be hugely damaging to the practice of science in the long run. ANY so-called scientist who makes such an assertion should have any and all science degrees rescinded.

        The ONLY valid criterion for scientific proof is EXPERIMENTAL DATA, gathered by different researchers in separate experiments. The truth is that there is really no such thing as a “Law” in science, though some phenomena are labelled as such. There are only “theories”, many backed up by much experimental data, others by much less.

  • Warthog

    A minor point of psychology. The fact that Rossi is even discussing failures and problems makes it (at least IMO) far less likely that he is doing any scamming. Everything that has been revealed thus far is absolutely typical of a “first pilot plant” operation, and absolutely to be expected of such.

  • Hi all

    Hydrogen has some very strong effects on many materials, mon-atomic hydrogen even more so. My “in” on LENR was experience in preventing hydrogen embrittlement in welding of some unusual metals, in work I performed back in the early eighties. If radiation in the form of Alpha and perhaps Beta particles is included then materials problems become much more complex.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Roland

      The new materials were required for the E-cat-X design as materials failures were showing up in days or weeks rather than months, probably in response to both higher operating temperatures and the impact of more energetic particle interactions.

      If we’re fortunate the solutions to the E-cat-X materials failures will also prove of benefit in extending the life expectancy of the original E-cat and Hot-Cat designs.

      It’s interesting that the only category identified as being resistant to failure are the control elements; this does bode well for the most significant threat to commercialization, runaway reactions leading to thermal melt-down.

  • mcloki

    Are all of the problems of a mechanical nature? This seems normal. No product is fully formed. I’m sure that E-Cat 4.0 will look as different from E-Cat 1.0 as iPod one looks to today’s IPod.

    • Omega Z

      You have a 20 foot container with 52 20kW reactors & 4 250kW reactors. We know the next variation will be minus the 52 reactors. That is a substantial change in itself.

      • mcloki

        I was thinking more along the lines of something that automatically refreshes the hydrogen and more fuel.

        • Omega Z

          mcloki, I doubt there will be an automatic refresh. Such a system would have a substantially higher cost. The reactors themselves will also need periodic inspection.

          I would tend to think the fuel charge will be designed to last 1 or 2 years. For industrial/commercial use, probably the reactors can be changed out by employed technicians. The used reactors will be exchanged for replacement reactors, the toxic fuel recycled and the reactors inspected & rebuilt.

          At a 1000`C plus, these reactors will probably have an expected average life span of about 5 years. The lower temp reactors will maybe have a longer life cycle dependent on the material used.

          • mcloki

            True, then the money would be in making and supplying the “Toner cartridges” of fuel to everyones e-Cat. That’s a better solution and allows more scalability.

          • Omega Z

            We sell printers cheap-
            “Toner cartridges”

            Yeah, That’s actually concerning $$$$$$

  • Bob

    Almost all prototypes have problems and should not be too worrisome as far as the prototype design goes. It is an engineering function to make a design more robust and durable.
    That said, most tests for durability are prototypes based upon a theory or function parameter that is accepted. So the durability test is only to test durability….. thus the name!. Durability is not the norm when testing to prove or confirm a theory / new process / new function.
    However, we have been told otherwise for this test. If this plant does not run for 340 days out of 365 (I may be incorrect on the exact number, please correct if in error) then we are told the entire test will be deemed F9 negative and NO confirmation of LENR / Cold Fusion will be seen or at least revealed / published!
    Leaks in plumbing, cracks in reactor walls, burnt heater coils are all material problems. It will be most disappointing and frustrating that after 1 year of testing, after 1 year of measuring large amounts of energy in and larger amounts of energy out, long periods of self sustain mode, that we will be told “the test was negative”. No confirmation of the Rossi Effect, no confirmation of LENR, no confirmation of COP > 1 .
    We are getting closer to the end of the test and it appears we are likely being prepped for the F9 “negative” result. A bell curve, if it goes on as described by Rossi, will certainly be a negative result. I.E. ” if you put time on the axis of the x and reliability in the axis of the y.” Once the bell curve goes to zero on the Y axis, it is “non-working”, thus a negative outcome..
    Rossi has seemingly refused to separate the durability of the prototype plant with confirming that the “Rossi Effect” is real. If the bell curve continues or possibly the down time has already reached the test limit, we must accept the fact that in March, 2016, we will be no closer to LENR realization than today or last year as there will be no published report. Unless MFMP or others report replication success, we will not see LENR confirmation. It is my understanding that Rossi has said all along, results would only be published if the test was positive. 🙁
    Perhaps this decision will change.

    • LarryJ

      The Rossi effect has already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the Lugano report. Rossi could care less who believes the Rossi Effect is real or not. The current test is to determine if their current prototype is commercially viable. The test is designed to assure the investors that there will not be a massive recall of the first delivered reactors. If the test fails it means there are engineering issues that need to be addressed. In my opinion.

      • bachcole

        Your opinion seems right on to me.

        • Omega Z

          I wonder if Bob is a gambler. I recognize his style. Just not certain as to his alias.

          • Stephen

            If all goes well when they get to the end it will be amazing. Equally amazing will be looking back at the journey they took to get there.

            Do we know how long the e-cat x has been continuously running in the current run?

          • Bob

            Actually, I do not use an alias. Bob is my name.
            I purchase an occasional lottery ticket, but that is about all. I work too hard for my money and understand fully the odds in gambling. 🙂

      • Bob

        I understand your thoughts and they are not illogical to a point. Although Rossi has to care about what some believe! Without believing investors, he would not have the finances to continue. And it is certainly true, that he does not have to share any information with us at all….including me! However….
        He is the one that continues to post the tid bits of information. No one is forcing him. Yet his posts are at times a quite illogical (such as stating “long periods of time in self sustain” yet “will not confirm the Rossi effect is real”)
        There are some on the list that really think (and have stated to a degree) that in March, 2016, vast factories will start producing millions of eCats. I am simply stating that we will not even get a report in March based upon what we are starting to see communicated from Rossi. There will not be ANY eCats sold in 2016. My point being is that we will still be in almost the exact same place as when “Home Depot sales will start fall 2011”, “13 plants sold and customer test will be revealed/ published in Feb. 2012”, “public plant in Europe to go on line summer 2013”, etc.
        The Lugano test was certainly interesting, but has lost most of it’s impact. Even LENR stalwarts such as Jed Rothwell, Jones Beane, Bob Cook and independent researcher Bob Greenyer among others have stated that the results of the Lugano test cannot be taken as proof positive. Interesting but not “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. Serious issues with the test are unresolved. Even the Lugano group themselves have remained 100% silent and have not revised, published nor defended the test. Very strange indeed.
        My interest is in LENR, it’s confirmation and what it can do for the world. (Including me!) While I want Rossi to get his due reward, which should be a great reward indeed, I really want public confirmation and awareness of LENR!
        Rossi may or may not succeed. His involvement with Tom Darden/IH gives me an exponential degree of confidence more than when Leonardo Corp was the sole entity. If Darden was not invoived, I would place the latest 1MW plant test with no more credibility than any of the others listed above. Probably less with secret customer and secret referee etc.
        However, I would MUCH rather have LENR acknowledged as a proven fact so that this technology can be developed in a successful and timely manner. Thus I want LENR confirmation MUCH more than a durability test.
        I realize that what I want means very little to Rossi. It does not prevent me from posting my thoughts about it though! We can believe what we want. Some believe that LENR will solve the world’s problems and bring peace to all. I do not think for a minute that it will do this. Some believe that March will bring a LENR revolution because Rossi will publish the results of this test. I do not think this is likely to happen either, based upon his posts and past history.
        Just my thoughts on a public blog. No agenda, No bad intentions. I actually hope I am wrong! I am from Missouri however and they do not call it the “Show Me” state for nothing! 🙂

        • EEStorFanFibb

          Good post too Bob. We ALL want this really badly: “I really want public confirmation and awareness of LENR!”

        • LarryJ

          I would dispute the notion that the Lugano report has lost most of its impact. It has and I believe continues to generate great interest and widening acceptance of cold fusion in the scientific community. Rossi recently stated that about 1 million copies had been downloaded Whether or not Lugano proved cop>1 is almost beside the point. The major point in Lugano was the evidence of isotopic shifts in the spent fuel. I think I am correct when I say that the only objections to the isotopic surveys was the possible but implausible suggestion that Rossi salted the samples and the small unrepresentative size of the sample itself. Isotopic shifts are the litmus test for nuclear reactions. The Rossi effect is nuclear. Cold fusion is real. The rest is just engineering which is what they are doing now.

          I think you will find that a lot of people will claim their origins in Missouri when it comes to believing in miracles that only few have ever seen. As a result the widespread acceptance of cold fusion that you crave cannot happen until there are products in the market place “Show Me”. It will happen when it happens and since Rossi is thought to have the leading tech it will probably happen on his schedule. Ship no reactor before its time. That way lies madness.

        • Omega Z

          “Even the Lugano group themselves have remained 100% silent and have not revised”

          Actually, One did make a statement, but then retracted it. This coincided with Elforsk’s announcement that they were starting their own LENR research with a team slightly larger then the Lugano team. The Lugano team is doing their own replication(Who’s funding this? Elforsk?? Silence!)

          Given the connections between Elforsk & the Lugano team(Elforsk sponsored & paid for the bulk of the Lugano test & have ALL the data) one could conclude it’s all connected. Possibly we’ll hear from them when their replication work is done unless of course those funding them is working towards it’s own IP. Note, They wont do 1 & done. They would replicate multiple times(Repeatability). Maybe we will hear from them come spring.

          As to when we may here the situation of the (F9). I agree that March is highly improbable. I give June/July as an optimistical time frame. All the Data and issues will need reviewed & then reconciled among those involved. That takes time.

          One can prearrange a factory location & some intermediate selection of robotics & parts suppliers(The latter 2 require lead time), but nothing can go beyond that until the issues of the LENR device are remediated & consolidated. Only then can final decisions & selections be made. I would be surprised if full production started before the end of 2016. Possibly a few will be built and installed. No mass production.

        • clovis ray

          Bob,, I can take each point you keep making, and completely prove you wrong, i too appreciated, the pessimistic view but the constant running down Dr. rossi, will not stand here, debate is how we do it here , that means civil conversation, if you get out of line you will not be tolerated, this is not a political forum as some here thinks , just stick to the topic , no running down,of other members, scientist, or schools, no one wants to hear it constantly.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Fair enough, Bob, if I were you I would leave, come back in a year and see what is going down. For me, I just find it fascinating to watch history being made, one day at a time without pointing out, in multitude possible ways, how Rossi could be doing things a little differently.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        very well put. I agree with your post/opinion completely and especially this part: “Rossi could care less who believes the Rossi Effect is real or not.”

    • Omega Z

      Bob, The Rossi effect is real or Industrial heat & Rossi would never bother building a 1MW pilot plant. It would still be single reactor R&D in the Lab.
      Note, Darden doesn’t need to depend on Rossi’s opinion about the Effect. They have their own personnel working right along with Rossi everyday.

      The number of days. It gets confusing & I even need to reconfirm this myself. From Rossi on JONP- 400 days with 350 days operational.
      Since we have 400 days at our disposal to operate 350 days, in this test and R&D agreed upon with the Customer
      The 4 x 250 kW E-Cats are working, as you know, along a 350 days test and R&D. After the tests will have been completed, we will know if they are mature to become a product, but I must remind you that we know that the final results could be either positive or negative.
      The purpose is an overall test evaluation.

      Like building a Formula 1 in the Shop. You can say all you want in the shop, but you need to do a dry run on the test track before you know it’s ready for race day or it needs to go back into the shop for some fine tuning.

      Rossi’s pilot test evaluation-
      Average COP overtime?
      Longevity of fuel charge?
      Controlability issues?
      The Unknowns?

      This is all to determine if it’s ready for prime time or needs to go back to the shop for fine tuning. Many issues can easily be mitigated during the pilot test. Other maybe??? thus the (F9). F9 wouldn’t mean the end, but merely more engineering as long as the reactors themselves perform without issues.

  • LarryJ

    Rossi is correct when he says that widespread acceptance of cold fusion will only happen when there are products in the marketplace. This is a paradigm shift, not a better mousetrap. No crowd of armchair quarterbacks calling him greedy is going to throw him off his carefully plotted course. He will bring this technology to light despite disparaging comments from the peanut gallery.

  • GreenWin

    DISINGENUOUS: “(of a ​person or ​their ​behaviour) ​slightly ​dishonest, or not ​speaking the ​complete ​truth.” Cambridge Academic Dictionary

    It is tiresome to read posts on ECW that indulge in the above definition. They are by intention or pathology unproductive in meeting the intent and spirit of this site. Disingenuous comments dressed with cosmetic exclamations of success – are little more than fancy FUD. Take for example “Bob’s” surreptitious statements below:

    “Some believe that LENR will solve the world’s problems and bring peace to all.”

    “There are some on the list that really think (and have stated to a degree) that in March, 2016, vast factories will start producing millions of eCats.”

    Really? Who are these “some” and where do they make claim to these thoughts and beliefs? Here are a few more Bobisms:

    “There will not be ANY eCats sold in 2016. My point being is that we will still be in almost the exact same place as when “Home Depot sales will start fall 2011…”

    “The Lugano test was certainly interesting, but has lost most of it’s impact.”

    “Serious issues with the [Lugano] test are unresolved. Even the Lugano group themselves have remained 100% silent and have not revised, published nor defended the test. Very strange indeed.”

    Perhaps the professional scientists conducting the Lugano test see no need to respond to sniping from the peanut gallery, Bob. I have recently come across an interesting tool for moderating comments called “Buddhist Right Speech.” Some of its tenets are the following:

    How, where and when do I currently lie?
    What forms do the habits of falsification take in my external speech?
    How and when do I speak badly about others?
    How do I needlessly pour out negative speech, especially in key relationships?
    How do I unload my negativity onto others and the spaces I inhabit through being unnecessarily harsh and critical?
    Do I use sarcasm or cynicism as a form of suspicion to create distance?
    How do I waste time, my vitality, and integrity by engaging in nonsense chatter?

    Something worthy of consideration:

    • Agaricus

      The subtle use of part-truths, clever distortions and extension of fact into unjustified opinion stated as fact is the high art of the shill. This is the work of an expert – ECW is honoured.

    • georgehants

      Morning, I have always, like you been disturbed by the Fact of untruths but I take the path that to try and combat many of the negative traits you describe above, one I feel must resort to direct and harsh criticism, even sarcasm on occasions.
      Still very few want to listen.
      It is the old problem of should one speak or stay silent.
      In my case I believe that all should speak the Truth on all occasions, even when on most occasions that can alienate one from the majority, who either lie continually or do not wish to “rock the boat”.
      I will give two examples, I have put up a link to a government backed French report regarding UFO’s on many occasions both generally and to individuals asking for their scientific opinion of what action should be taken.
      I have only once ever had a reply, that from a space scientist, Pekka, saying “O, I don’t know about that.” (in essence)
      Second, yesterday Russia’s Mr.Putin publicly gave a speech calling for a united effort to combat and remove terrorism, to my knowledge neither the US or it’s lapdog the UK has responded.
      People close their minds to the Truth, as 95% at least of so called scientists have done regarding Cold Fusion and many other important scientific subjects where the Evidence is strong.
      I am guilty of some of the negative things outlined in GreenWin’s Buddhist comment, but not to create the negative, simply to highlight the Truth to what seems a World that has in many cases removed that word from their vocabulary.

      • georgehants

        I find it much easier said than done for us who hold no power or influence.
        Instead of cursing the darkness, light a candle.
        Benjamin Franklin

      • Billy Jackson

        could you provide a link to your UFO example? i would be interested in reading it.

        • georgehants

          Summary of French COMETA Report

          • Billy Jackson

            Unfortunately due to my own ignorance and lack of education i cant reach french 🙁 so i can only respond in general which would be more of a UFO phenomenon response than a direct response to your article.

            I will state for the record that i am biased on the subject and already a strong proponent in belief for the existence of extraterrestrials, as such i am sure my responses will show that bias so please take what i say with that into account.

            i want to make a couple of points.

            I believe there exist by our own hand through invention or reverse engineering some truly exceptional craft(s) that are being used to confuse the subject so as to maintain superiority via technology.

            I believe that most of what we see is mistaken, or our own devices that are wrapped up in black projects and thus not available to be explained to the general public. (nor do they desire to disclose this information)

            I believe this phenomenon crosses national lines and there is far greater joint work being done on this at the highest levels of security than we are being led to believe.

            despite all this.. there is enough unexplained and truly exceptional left over that borders on out right disbelief of the capabilities that my mind has no where to turn but either its not true or it is true..due to the wide range of individuals and multiple testimony and witnesses from all range of individuals.. i have come to the personal conclusion to believe something is out there that exist beyond our ability to explain easily..

            and finally.. despite seeing scale models and videos to scale and everything else that attempts to simulate the size of the universe.. i will say regardless of education or ability to assimilate the human mind can not grasp the immense size of our universe in its entirety even if we state we can intellectually… thus. the old adage .. if its just us.. that’s an awful lot of wasted space…

          • georgehants
          • Billy Jackson

            much bigger read 🙂 give me a bit 😛 (also i think we are endangered of hijacking the thread.. not sure where else to respond to this) 😛

          • georgehants

            Billy, sorry for slow reply, you must remember that I was not asking for a discussion re. UFO’s only an answer to the question, How should science respond to the report.
            It falls in to the same situation as Cold Fusion, denial and debunking with no concern for Evidence.


          • Billy Jackson

            I get your point but i am unsure they fall into the same category. there is not enough physically verifiable evidence that we can publicly lay our hands on from the UFO phenomenon to come out scientifically and say Yes.. that’s an Extraterrestrial craft from another world… that evidence may exist in black budget projects or some secret lab somewhere.. but its not available to the public so ..all we have is circumstantial evidence and some really unexplained events that leave us wondering.. a fuzzy light on a camera that wont focus or set still, or even collaborating testimony from separate individuals is still not evidence of extraterrestrials .. its simply evidence that something happened that multiple people experienced and believe to be true.. science requires us to be able recreate or verify our findings.. and unfortunately.. that is exceptionally had to do.

            The same can not be said for cold fusion. with cold fusion we have evidence of a denial and debunking campaign that we can physically investigate and retrace its steps. we have reports that we can use to punch in the numbers and do the math our self if we are so inclined. both events UFO and Cold fusion suffer from bad propaganda campaigns.. even out right disinformation, but at least with cold fusion.. we do have evidence that we can present to those who are willing to be open minded and listen rather than instantly say no it cant work because everyone KNOWS it doesn’t work. I cant do this with with the UFO stuff, all i can do is present the same testimonies and theories.. unfortunately.. theories are not facts and i have nothing physical to show for all my beliefs..

          • ecatworld

            Andrea Rossi
            November 18th, 2015 at 9:29 AM
            Frank Acland:
            The 1 MW E-Cat is working, with all of us on it to be ready to react to any issue. My 16 hours per day inside the plant now are 18.
            The E-Cat X is continuing to resist in a very interesting mode, very promising.
            Warm Regards,

          • bachcole


          • Ophelia Rump

            I get the sense he is talking electricity there. Possibly negative resistance?

            In electronics, negative resistance (NR) is a property of some electrical circuits and devices in which an increase in voltage across the device’s terminals results in a decrease in electric current through it.
            Negative resistance – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          • Hi all

            Those creating a commercial Lenr Reactor has a complex area of new materials science to consider. The correct choice of metals and other materials and how they are joined and protected has to be considered. A layered approach may offer more resistance.

            Kind Regards walker

          • Ophelia Rump

            Resistance to what Walker? Heat, corrosion? Perhaps material separation? We know they are using designer materials, maybe the atoms rearrange or transmute?

          • Hi all

            In reply to Ophelia Rump:
            A strongly reactive environment would seem to be prerequisite of LENR.

            Lots of materials change their composition in the environment of a hot reactor, the chemistry thermal and perhaps transmutational environment of an LENR reactor may need the consideration.

            Often materials that work well in a chemical environment are not so effective in an environment of thermal expansion and contraction. Work hardening and embrittlement by environmental factors need to be considered. Hydrogen and the nucleus of Helium both cause embrittlement. One often requires both flexibility and stiffness in a material, trying to square that circle can require some radical rethinking both in terms of layers to resist diverse effects and how one makes say a flexible pipe from a stiff material.

            I suggest you look at my post lower down as well.

            Kind Regards walker

          • bachcole

            Negative resistance or negative electricity. I am an electronic technician, or at least I used to be, and I never heard of either of those two things.

          • GreenWin

            Agree Ophelia. The Doc should be proud of his creation. At times the image of Gene Wilder crying “It’s alive!” pops up.

          • Rossi is italian and think in italian.
            He write in english but think in italian.
            Resistere –> resist
            It is use to denote something that continue steady.

          • US_Citizen71

            Resist failing maybe?

    • Billy Jackson

      Your passion is commendable and respect worthy. We all find ourselves wanting to believe and some of us come here daily in support of Rossi and the E-cat. Be it to comment, discuss or just read the opinions of others, who wish to support like us.

      The only Hard rules i have seen enforced, is to stay on topic, respect each other, and no denying the LENR effect is real.

      I went and read the post that bob wrote and i cant find anything disingenuous about it. What i did find was a slightly pessimistic opinion based on the logic that the reader is using as his perspective. I may not like to hear what bob had to say. but i cant fault it either he does have some points that cant be denied if we are being realistic when it comes to time frames, expectations, and past experiences.

      Voices of descent deserve a place in this conversation. they bring with them alternate view points that need to be addressed or looked at before we move on. The E-cat or Rossi Effect is going to face some very intense scrutiny by some very smart and sometimes devious people who’s intent may not always be honest. Learning to deal with those things now is to our advantage before someone asks a question that cant be answered easily.

      I enjoy this website immensely mainly due to people just like yourself. You bring with you passion and commitment to your beliefs that rings of unwavering support for what you believe in. The debates here are generally open, opinionated but done without hostility or outright disrespect. while we all get occasionally sarcastic and even defensive when we feel slighted or attacked, it can only be to the benefit of the overall conversation when we take multiple view points under consideration.

      I may agree with you, i may disagree with you. but i will not dismiss what someone says simply because i find their stance does not conform to mine. remember one truth.. perspective guides everything we say or read.

      Much respect as always!

      • EEStorFanFibb

        Very well said. There are some very good posters on this forum.

  • LindbergofSwed

    Andrea has been working so much that his temper is effected. Respect for his commitment.

    • LindbergofSwed

      But it is bad if he gets burnt out. He might act irrational and effect the project in an ineffective way. Often it is better to have a week of and come back with happy thoughts 🙂

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I’m thinking that it just might be that the rate of the reaction will slow down as the concentrations of the starting reactants decrease as the reaction proceeds.

    Li(7) + p > 2 He

    No big deal, just refuel it more often. The hot fusion gang makes headlines when they get a reaction that lasts 400 seconds.

    • Warthog

      It is highly unlikely that helium atoms will stick around. Helium permeates materials far better than any other material. Although Hydrogen ATOMS are smaller, hydrogen is normally molecular (H2), and thus larger. And operation at high temperatures makes this far more likely. Also, the hydrogen is bound to the nickel matrix….the helium is not.

    • Alan DeAngelis


      If there are more than enough sites on the nickel lattice for the reaction to take place, I think this might reduce to a 2nd order reaction where the rate would be equal to:

      rate = k[Li][p]

      where [Li] is the concentration of lithium and [p] is the concentration of hydrogen.

      (Actually, may not be this simple because of the on-off rates on the nickel catalyst and other factors but it may help us to start thinking more quantitatively.)

      This video will help explain reaction rates (only a starting point. Not a complete explanation).

  • LarryJ

    There has been some discussion here about when production would start (F9) and what is the state of certification. Here is the official line from

    August 20, 2015
    on ECAT Questions

    Updated Aug 2015: The ECAT 1 MW
    is currently on the market and the first Pilot is already operating
    gathering useful data to feedback in preparation for the mass production
    which is planned to start late 2016 to early 2017. The first Pilot
    Plant is undergoing a certification process where certification will be
    finalized in March 2016.

    You can already Pre-Order the ECAT 1 MW for Heat generation by filling out the inquiry form on the right.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The reactors are simple enough that in a worst case scenario you swap the entire core instead of refueling them and you still have the best energy source at the best price in the world.

  • LindbergofSwed

    Do you know how much fuel they have used during the customer test?
    Have they refueled? Is the test more about reliability than proven effect? When the plant is giving 1MW how much is consumed? Does ssm means they only consume a couple of hundred watts for controlling the effect? If so this is fantastic. Sometimes I forget about how great it is 🙂

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I think the best way to respond to skeptics is the same way Dr. Rossi does:


    November 17th, 2015 at 5:31 PM

    Mr Rossi,
    I think your E-Cat will never hit the market and that it will never reach the reliability necessary to be sold.
    Obviously, I know you will spam this comment.

    Andrea Rossi

    November 17th, 2015 at 7:22 PM

    Maybe you are right.
    Warm Regards,