'Strong Progress' Being Made on Domestic E-Cat Certification

It’s been over four years since Andrea Rossi first announced that he was going to put domestic E-Cats on the market that people could use to heat their homes, and hundreds of thousands of pre-orders have been placed for these units (although no one has had to put any money down), but still there has been nothing made available.

The problem, according to Andrea Rossi, has been that the safety certifying agencies have yet to provide safety approval for these E-Cats, and without that certification Rossi says he will not put anything into the marketplace. He has said that 0ne reason for the holdup is that the certifiers want to see data from working devices before they will put their stamp of approval on the device as being safe to use in the home.

Yesterday Rossi made a comment which indicates that there may have been some progress on this front.

Andrea Rossi
January 5th, 2016 at 8:51 PM
Prof. Neri Accornero:
We are making strong progress toward the certification of the domestic E-Cat.
If the tests on course will be positive, possibly all will come together.
Thank you for your attention,
Warm Regards,

Rossi seems to be saying here that certification depends largely on how the test on the industrial E-Cat plant goes. We have been told that there is an independent testing agency involved in collecting data from the year-long plant test, and I would assume that the data collected by this referee could prove to be very important for the certification process.

While this sounds encouraging for those who are hoping for E-Cat heaters in their home (me included), there’s no promise here — he says that ‘possibly’ everything will come together.

UPDATE: I asked Andrea Rossi on the JONP whether the ‘progress’ in certification refers to the old-style domestic E-Cat, or the new E-Cat X, which is designed for domestic purposes. He responded:

Frank Acland:
Both, because now I know the rules and have designed the E-Cat X to ease the difficulties. I come to you to get a thing, but you reject me for a reason: I lose, but I learn. I return to you, and again you reject me for another reason: again I lose, but I learn. I return to you…and this cycle is repeated if necessary one thousand times, because I do not give up: at a certain point I will have learnt enough to empty your reasons tank. This is how it works.
Warm Regards,

  • note the typo “strong prog(R)ess” 8)

    • ecatworld

      Thanks Alain, I need to fire someone for that!

      • georgehants

        Admin, do as the establishment do when mistakes are made, fire the tea-lady and cover it all up.

        • GreenWin

          Frank has a tea-lady?

          • Skip

            Green, please. When she has a minute…

      • Fire “the new”
        (“the new” always pays of the errors of the older)

  • Hi all

    On the matter of Rossi talking about a micro grid. I think Rossi and indeed industrial heat may be already be facing political pressure from legislators who work for the GRID companies. I think Rossi is trying to show them how they can control the emergence of LENR and thus still have a way of continuing to play a part and make profits.

    Conservative Entrenched market groups always arrange laws to slow down innovation and new market entrants, that is after all what conservative means: “I wish to keep/conserve what I have” I experienced this while introducing a low cost Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) product into the the military market where the traditional Cost Plus Primes model rules.

    Most Laws that are designed primarily by legislatures so as to prevent low cost market entrants like ourselves or Rossi becoming a threat to the well connected entrenched market leaders. In many cases entrenched market players write the laws then hand them to the legislature to be rubber stamped.

    Getting round such big players requires a lot of work and a strategy. Being low cost, is a big start, but one of the ways of increasing the cost for a market entrant is place big legislative hurdles requiring massive investment in bureaucracy, in order to surmount and reach the market.

    The easiest way round the legislative hurdle is exceeding the requirements off the bat. I hope Rossi succeeds in this strategy.

    The next solution is to go around the hurdle. Easiest way of doing this is sell in market where the legislature has no sway. Hence China 😉 Then balance of trade forces the hand of other nations legislatures.

    You can than recruit supporters, in the legislature and in the bureaucracies.

    You can then appeal to the plebiscite/the public.

    We succeeded and our product became the de-facto product in our market. Pushing out some of the biggest primes in the military, in fact last year the biggest prime adopted a version of the product I introduced to NATO back early in this century. I think we were lucky though. I don’t work in the market any more but we used to regularly get emails from those serving saying; what our product taught them, saved their lives. As I say the product is now the de-facto simulation for NATO and a few years back separated from the parent company.

    Kind Regards Walker

    • GreenWin

      Great comment Walker. As you note establishing a market outside the resistant one is a reasonable strategy. To this end we may see Elforsk/Vattenfall establish some kind of LENR distributed energy project in Sweden.

      The most progressive utilities will see opportunity in E-Cat or similar. Like 20th century carriage makers e.g. Studebaker Brothers who transitioned to automobile manufacturing. IF utilities remain in the energy business – designing, manufacturing, marketing, installing and maintaining home energy systems is a huge opportunity. It is for industrial nations an opportunity like home refrigeration was in 1920s.

      One large utility, David Crane’s NRG Energy seems to be aware of these new opportunities. NRG is partnered with Dean Kamen’s Deka Research field testing the Beacon 10kW Combined Heat and Power unit. This product’s heat source is natural gas – but could easily be an E-CatX or other LENR module.

      Point is, legislators should push utilities to continue to adopt fossil alternatives like PV. That paves the way for LENR/E-Cat certification once there is supporting data.

      • Alain Samoun

        I looked to the Beacon 10KW, it has only: 3 YEAR/1500 HOUR LIMITED WARRANTY –
        Not too incentive to spend $5,000 for it at this point…

    • William D. Fleming

      I’m thinking that the global climate change hoopla will greatly facilitate governmental approval. Once the word is out there’ll be tremendous political pressure from the public.

      • Agaricus

        The old English phrase ‘Hoist by their own petard’ comes to mind (meaning blown up by their own gun).

    • Alain Samoun

      Thanks Ian for sharing your experience. One of the hurdles that I can see actually is “Being low cost” In this society where profit is the rule, a lot of entrenched companies who make money with the statu-co, have no interest to accept a change that can be beneficial for the society. They in fact use a part of their huge profit to buy officials,then legislation, to protect their business. Tesla Motors may have the right strategy to start with very expansive products that can attract deep pockets at first,then lower prices with new products to finally change the market.

      • Hi all

        In reply to Alain Samoun

        Being a low cost market entrant has some major advantages for winning a commanding share of a market. If you approach it right.

        For us, the price model was always a tenth or less the price of our nearest competitor. Quite often we gave additional modules away free. And encouraged all users to join a cut price maintenance model, we then shifted our cost base to this branch as in reality because of the nature of our product the initial development costs were already done, our only real costs were maintenance and upgrades. We also took the decision that when one customer paid for a product upgrade that a version of it would be past out to all customers, so they then shared development and upgrade costs. For a group that wants to all use the same material and learning from the same package, this works very well.

        One method I used was offering clients, particularly those who could in no way afford the entrenched market prices FREE use of the product for a period of several months, to test it out to see if it fit their needs. Ideally with an academic test by a professor as part of the deal, this then gave us access outside the market the Primes controlled. This then exposed others to our product that cost and legislation might have prevented from seeing it. Once you are in, you try to make the offer so good, only a fool would not take it.

        You also look to move the market out of the area where the competitors exist, to a market you control, so that their market no longer exists, instead it becomes your market. Then you are the entrenched party and they become the market entrant. The idea is to change the market so that your high cost competitors can no longer survive. The above strategy is called “A Land Grab”, it is the same strategy, Google and Facebook employ.

        In an academic environment we offered an academic license for a nominal sum. The purpose was to expose those who would make future purchase decisions to the product as early as possible so as to make it the product they were used to and therefore would choose. We wanted the customers young leaders to think oh we can use that to do the job. Microsoft do the exact same strategy.

        The whole idea was that the product was a tin of beans, so it worked out the can, then we gave customers a bunch recipes to make it in to what they wanted. The purpose was to make the product the cupboard staple. Which is what it became, issued in our case with a soldiers boots. This is the basis of the COTS model.

        Kind Regards walker

        • Alain Samoun

          Thanks for more info on your experience Ian. Now, I don’t know exactly what your product was but I doubt that it could change the economy of a society,of a country or even of a big company like a product based on LENR. Tesla Motors attacking the statu-Co of the auto industry may be more relevant. One can imagine Rossi or someone else offering an heater or electric device of maybe 100 KW at very high price,not competitive with oil/gas that would interest only deep pockets buyers or governments for specific applications like – Mobile Energy source for disasters area or military. Then with time,prices decrease and new markets open up, the technology improves and eventually replace most of the energy sources What do you think?

          • cashmemorz

            Actually Rossi answered that question by a marketing model where his product will be as low priced as possible to prevent competitors from getting a foothold in the LENR market. Continuous Improvement and manufacturing by robotized factory would further leave the competition far behind

        • note that many of your ideas and oncern connect with LENr-cities ideas.
          changing the structure of the market, creating a new market is the key.

          LENR-Cities propose also an idea discuted here, to involve the incumbent in the revolution (it was involving the utilities).

          proposing new product at marginal cost (often very low, because innovation is mostly research) is a good idea.
          proposing a free period is also good, to convince and make the client dependent on the product (drug dealers know that!)

          If we want to have support from the establishment, from the crony capitalism aristocracy, the best way is to involve them.

          Whatever you do, you cannot get much more money than what you invest.
          an inventor cannot earn more than few million, and beyond pocket money, the margin will be from 30 to 50% as usual.

          The idea to get rich with LENR is to involve someone who will invest one trillion, gain few hundred billion, and pay you few million.

          If you try to have bigger margin with a smaller market, you will simply be washed by trillion-funded competitors.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Alain, your comment kicked the void I was about to answer it as follows:

    In my head I had:

    France: harmless.

    After your comment, I now edited it to be:

    France: mostly harmless.

    (Just finished listening the Hitchhiker trilogy as a radio play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mostly_Harmless 🙂

  • Gerard McEk

    It seems to me difficult to guarantee that something is safe when you do not fully know how it works. Maybe if you can show proper data it is easier, but would that be sufficient? Introducing it in countries that are more relaxed with regulations may be the simplest route. I agree with Ian Walker below, that also the countries that see their income dramatically change due to LENR would slow down the regulatory procedures. On the other hand, countries that want to profit of the economic advancement and omit oil and gas may take their opportunity. I would suggest that China, India, Japan and Italy (just to mention a few) wou

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Is the “Gerard McEk” who writes on JONP you? (Just curious. The writing style feels a bit different.)

      • Gerard McEk

        I guess ther

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Thanks for the answer. Maybe the missing photo makes the writing style look different (to me, probably not to anyone else) on JONP:-)

  • jousterusa

    I’m skeptical of these claims of “strong progress.” What I need to hear from Rossi is that Underwriters Laboratory is studying the E-Cat’s capacity to produce heat and electricity safely for domestic (home) use. At a minimum, knowing that no “disclosure” issues are involved, I would like to know what U.S. federal and state agencies are making these determinations.

    • Omega Z

      If I were UL or another entity looking at the safety of this device for consumer use, I could have any number of very legitimate objections that involve zero politics or agenda’s..

      There is no prior technology of this nature by which to judge & it’s nearest related realm indicates there should be some serious danger to it. You need to prove to me that this is not the case for LENR. 7 Billion lives could be put at risk.

      Also note that If I’m doing my job as a certifier, I understand Nothing is risk free.
      However, I do need some data to work with. Should things go catastrophically wrong, what will be the results. Note: Telling me there is no risk is a red flag.

      Certification is risk assessment. Example:
      It is known that as many as 11 out of every 100,000 tires will blow out at high speeds. This has been deemed acceptable. If it were 20 out of every 100,000, then probably, you need to reformulate you tire design.

  • builditnow

    AlainCo, I’ve experienced this industry bias in regulations in the medical field. I was at an intellectual property talk when I suggested a very cheap solution for flu’s. Unknowingly, I was talking to a couple of people from big phama based in Silly Con Valley, (they had the flu by the way) they acknowledged it worked great, then immediately started discussing among themselves what they could possibly find what might be wrong with this solution and ban it. I was shocked at how callous they were, a solution that prevents deaths, and damage to health in the 100’s of millions per year, that is cheap, and these guys were all about stopping it.
    Even worse, I found the same with cancer, a solution very very very slowly working it way through the NIH and the NCI http://www.cancer.gov. Your hair does not fall out and you feel better during the treatment, but, you won’t see this for years, perhaps, never.

    It’s not the regulations so much, rather the bias of large industries or large government can build in.

    I’m thinking that anything large or anything monopolistic (corporations, industrial groups, government) nearly always makes the bias worse in these manipulated regulations / laws etc.

    The other factor is the recent discovery that about 3% of the population has a now easily identified psychopathic brain structure. Most of these people behave quite sensibly and are relatively harmless, however, we have created psychopathic organizations, companies, government, where those psychopathic brained people find it easy, fun and exciting and become the leaders. In most cases they are our politicians and CEO’s.

    It seems like a really bad idea to have all our leaders be those with psychopathic brains that act it out in a sociopathic fashion.
    There is a real possibility of significantly improving our human condition if there is some way to address these issues in a better way.
    (I dare say that the Mary Yugo blogging group all have psychopathic brains and are sociopaths).

    • Alain Samoun

      Yes! Medical field is certainly a place where it’s very difficult to enter with new products if you start from scratch economically. For big pharma,the thing is that if you find a molecule that will cure something,like flu with you,there are no incentives to sell it Why kill your market for products that offer curing the effects,not the cause?
      Have you heard the company name Theranos these days? A good illustration of what we are talking about:
      The story of a young women, Elizabeth Holmes, shaking the big medical labs and their campaign against her and her company.

    • Agaricus

      Can you provide links to information on the flu and cancer remedies (bicarbonate/sugar? Budwig?) you refer to please. I run a natural health website and would be interested to know more.

      • georgehants

        Morning Peter, you have kept your Website very quiet.
        Link please.

        • Morning George. I’m not sure advertising is permitted here – but since you ask, it’s http://www.health-answers.co.uk. Long overdue a revamp and update I’m afraid – I’ll get around to it soon (as I’ve been saying for the last year or so).

          • georgehants

            Thank you Peter, I am sure Admin will not mind.
            Wonderful to know that you try to help others in a very important area, pointed out clearly by builditnow above that is corrupt to it’s core.

    • georgehants

      All simply corrected, like most corruption by removing capitalism and replacing it with a caring and sharing system that only rewards those aiding society.
      21st century and we have learnt nothing to improve society beyond the greed for power and control that has cost many millions of lives for millennium.

  • Bob

    I am fairly certain (in the US anyway, in my state and in my city) that there is no US federal law regulating a home furnace or heater..

    There ARE local laws that state that when building and remodeling is performed, that the appliances have to meet certain certifications. The certifications (often UL but can be others) are not US Government controlled. UL is not a government entity, it is a public company. These certifications are industry specific and are normally made from industry related groups, such as ASTM, ISO or others.
    UL (or any other certification company) would NOT have any interest or gain to preventing LENR devices from being certified. One would have to accept conspiracy theories where governments were controlling these private companies and organizations.
    This is the way UL works… Rossi would go to UL and say I want to test my Home eCat to ASTME certification “XYZ” or whatever certification that MOST city or county building codes require. (The US Government does not issue local building codes). UL would say something like this : “To obtain certification, we will need X number of units shipped to our testing facility. They will be subjected to the testing requirements of the requested standard. It will take X number of weeks to complete. This certification also requires that you show manufacturing process capability, so that all units produced will be the same as the test units. We will send inspectors to your manufacturing facility for internal audits, unless you have ISO or similar certifications”. The quoted cost will be $25,000. (made up value, but within reason) That is all there is. No government intervention. No conspiracy theories. Plain business.
    The issue is that Rossi does not have or will not send X number of units to UL that can be tested by their technicians. Believe me, they are NOT certifying anything that their technicians cannot test for themselves. If a Home eCat is being certified for home use, UL is not going to accept that “Rossi has to be present and control the unit for their tests” . It is a device that is supposed to be ran unattended in a private house! That is simply how it happens. So there is no conspiracy. Fabianni even stated that Rossi still does not let anyone handle the fuel, much less UL unattended! I imagine the issue is that he does not have or will not send Home units for testing unattended.
    So to recap… a certification is not done by the government. They cannot “change the rules” as they proceed in testing. They are a non-governmental company that charges for their services to conduct a series of test to an established standard. UL has no incentive to deny Rossi a certification. They will NOT test an eCat unless he provides the units for them to test and specifies which standard he wants them tested to. They will not allow him to “be the operator so to speak either”
    In the locale that I work, one could purchase an eCat (if Rossi would sell) today and legally install it. Our county does not have a building code governing industrial heating furnaces. They do have building codes for electrical wiring and gas piping, but not for the actual furnace itself. I can put a 50 gallon steel drum with a hole cut in it and burn wood if we wanted too! (OSHA, which IS a government entity, may not like that however due to the smoke)
    Rossi could legally sell us an eCat today. We could legally use one today if it was available.
    The problem is it is not available.
    So we can put to rest the conspiracy theories on certifications.
    We can all continue to wait for meaningful news….

    • Bob

      One other note… there are no surprises on UL certifications. BEFORE starting the actual tests and payments are made UL provides a quote that includes :
      1) The price and terms of payment
      2) Exactly what the standards require BEFORE testing starts.
      3) Exactly what tests will be conducted on the requested device.
      4) Exactly what manufacturing process must show for process capability.
      5) What constitutes a passing grade to achieve the certification.
      6) Exactly what must be supplied for testing.
      7) The date the process will be completed on after receipt of all materials.
      I have been through a number of UL certifications. They all were conducted in the same manner. Some standards are quite simple and require very little. Other standards are very detailed and require a lot of up front work. But there should be no surprises, the rules do not change.
      Waiting for the next big thing…

      • Omega Z

        7) The date the process will be completed on
        Is Approximately 1 month 20 days.

    • Warthog

      “The issue is that Rossi does not have or will not send X number of units to UL that can be tested by their technicians.”

      You know no more about what Rossi has or does not have, will send or won’t send than anybody else on this or any other forum. Pure FUD. Like most of your other posts. You must be a former Microsoft employee, you do it so well.

      • HS61AF91

        I get knocked knocked knocked down but I get up again, you’re never going to keep me down!!!


      • Bob

        Sorry Omega Z and Warthog, I do not try to post FUD. I do not try to post anything that I have not had at least some actual experience in. True, it is not always the rose colored glasses view, but it will be logical and not mean spirited. I try to post only what I see.
        It is true, I do not know for sure what the exact situation with Rossi is. Neither do you. My logic is based upon facts (what UL actually does) and what one can draw from the evidence presented. I do know about certifications. They are to standards, not “safety”. The rules do not change, unless the standard is changed. It is known before hand exactly what the standard requires. This is correct.
        For instance, “UL can be legally held liable…” is incorrect. They certify to a recognised standard, of which most are drawn up by other bodies such as NIST or ASTM etc. Not UL. They certify that a device meets the standard. It has nothing to do with “safety” , it has only to do with the standard. The standard MAY be a fire hazard standard, which is related to safety, but they do not simply make this broad statement… “We tested this product and it is SAFE!”. No, they simply state we tested this product to standard XYZ and it did or did not meet the standard. And the standard clearly states what testing must be done for certification. It is not guess work.

        For UL to be sued or held liable, one would have to show that they did not test or falsified testing data to the STANDARD that was certified to. I have personal experience in this and this is correct.
        Insurance can only void your policy if you do something that is specifically prohibited by the policy. If the policy states you cannot use any non-UL listed appliances, then you cannot. My home insurance policy does not state anything about that (I just checked). If I use a non-UL toaster and my house burns down, the insurance company cannot void the policy. It HAS to be in the policy to begin with. On this subject, they can prohibit UL certified appliances as well. My insurance policy strictly prohibits non-vented Kerosene heaters. It mentions nothing about them being certified, which they can be. They prohibit them even if they are certified.
        While one often has to wait for testing to be done,
        I continue to wait for meaningful facts.
        (End of day draws near 🙂

        • GreenWin

          As has been pointed out repeatedly to apparent deaf ears Bob, we have absolutely no evidence Dr. Rossi is seeking certification from any specific entity. So, the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth is rather more FUD than helpful. Try to internalize this fact: regardless your skepticism, tinted glasses, demand for behavior — Rossi/IH/Darden do not know you nor care what you think or say.

          Like many of us here you are simply whistling in the wind. Warm Regards!

        • Warthog

          “I do not try to post FUD.”

          That which you “try” and that which you “do” are at odds. You made the point that you are suspicious of Rossi the first hundred times you posted. We heard you. No need for further constant repetition.

        • Omega Z

          ->”UL can be legally held liable…” is incorrect.<-

          Yes, Certifiers(including UL) can be held liable, Have been, And lost resulting in financial settlements. They can not be held liable just because a product fails as nothing is perfect, but they can be held liable for not doing their due diligence in determining the general safety of a product used as prescribed.

          You throw around the word "Standard", they test according to the Standard.
          Don't you think those standards are set according to safety factors.
          You make it sound like the wild west. I worked HVAC. Never saw a furnace that wasn't just certified, but certified for specific use. Up flow, Down flow, Horizontal or multipostional. Had I installed an uncertified or miss used a certified furnace, I would not be insured.

          Not being excluded on an insurance policy does not mean something is covered. If you have a built in fireplace when you obtain a policy, Your insurer will likely be aware. It is a question they ask or visibly see when they inspect the home before issuing the policy.

          If you add a fireplace or install a wood burner, you are obligated to inform them. If you add a swimming pool, you are obligated to inform them. Premiums will increase accordingly or they will tell you they are not covered & you'll need to find an insurance company that does cover them.

          If I'm having a product certified, I have the right to be present. To witness that they are actually certifying it for the purposes I propose. It also doesn't need to be done on their premises.

          As to regulations, codes etc. That you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist. It may mean you don't know where to look. You may even be surprised at the entities who have cross jurisdiction in many situations. That's when it gets fun bringing in lawyers to sort out who has priority. If your business crosses State lines, the Fed usually has precedence. And State regulations can trump city codes. And sometimes, Federal, State, & Local entities.

    • Omega Z

      UL can be legally held liable should they certify a product that turns out not to be safe.

      Insurance can void your coverage if the product you use is not certified, And you can be held both criminally & financially liable for anyone you harm our damage you cause.

      And as you mention the wood burner, Many Insurance companies will not pay up and those that do charge a premium. And yeah, what Warthog below says…

    • Mike

      To sell a product in Europe (EU) of this kind you need an approval similar to the US approval. Tests are made by an independent organisation to check if the requirements in various EN standards are met. I have personally made tests for CE marks on gas appliances (EU Gas Appliance Directive) such as fuel cells, boilers, stoves. The CE mark/label also contain a number to indicate the organisation issuing the approval, for example DVGW in Germany. Rossi cannot make anything else than hand over an e-cat and pay for the work, and then accept the result.

  • Ian and Alain—you’re both making good points and there’s no doubt there are powerful entities and organisations that are willing to do most anything to stop something that changes the status quo. However, the world is about to change with the power of internet and there’s good hope this change will prevail.
    The music industry fought desperately to stop file sharing, but internet’s penetrating and pervasive power makes such innovations un-stopable. When the dust settled, a hundred years old business model was dead (registering sound on a physical medium, distributing and selling it) and a new was born—streaming music via internet, at a fixed monthly cost or paid by ads. We see this kind of disruption happen in industry after industry, and there’s nothing the incumbents can do in the long run. Fighting to stop what technology makes possible is incredibly difficult today, because there’s a world of people who can see the benefits. Therefore, the most important battle of all is to fight for keeping internet open, transparent and equally accessible for everyone.

    • Optimist

      Mats, if I recall correctly from your book, there was an incedent were fast neutrons were detected in one of Rossi tests?
      I’m struggling to get it to make sence how one can get a safety certification for a domestic device, running an unknown nuclear process that has proven to radiate in some state? Am I missing something here?

      • Optimist, I would need to check my notes, but I think Rossi told me about the neutron episode. Even if it cannot be proved it’s a sign of what could potentially happen if you for example have contaminated materials and som unknown side process occurs. And I agree with you– it must be important to have a clear picture of the physics behind the reaction in order to make a well founded certification. Running the process for months, proving that there’s no radiation is good, but in the end, a detailed understanding will be important.

    • I believe to file sharing analogy to be extremely important for the “revolution” to occur. Of course Rossi cannot support this at the moment, and I dont believe he should. But in time, the technology will be massively replicated in every village workshop and thereby as impossible to control by the old institutions as PGP, the Tor network and bit torrent file sharing.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Right, and that is why we find Rossi creating his own JONP and his posts to that site.

  • Omega Z

    If a grid is needed, I will provide one. You will pay me to use it. I will not buy your surplus. It is up to “you” to find a customer & arrange payment. No Problem…

    The Problem is people wanting to make money doing nothing or at someone else’s expense.

    If your a farmer, you pay a trucker to transport your goods. To a customer you find and deal with. You don’t expect that trucker to buy your goods & find the customer. A grid is merely a transporter. If you try to force this on them they will dismantle their system. They are not there to provide you a living. They are there to provide a service for a fee.

  • Tadej

    “Reason is powerless in the expression of Love.”

    – Rumi

  • Carl Wilson

    “I lose, but I learn. I return to you…and this cycle is repeated if necessary one thousand times, because I do not give up”
    Because Rossi is not a native English speaker he may be unfamiliar with a term that fits him well:

    h3.cjk { font-family: “Droid Sans Fallback”; }h3.ctl { font-family: “FreeSans”; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }

    Indefatigable – always determined and energetic
    in trying to achieve something and never willing to admit defeat

    • clovis ray

      yep’ also while swimming in a river doubt.

  • Owen Geiger

    Actually, he’s in a nearby shipping container with the control equipment. The E-Cats are in a separate container.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Could the E-Cat reduce premiums? Unlike a conventional
    furnace it could never make any carbon monoxide.

    • Stefenski

      Yes definitely. I will be happy to see the end of those filthy ,dangerous contraptions ; I was meaning in the beginning, as it’s a bit of an unknown factor for the insurance industry , & they don’t need much of an excuse to hike the prices.

      • Slad

        I think OSHA might disagree with you.

        • bachcole

          Slad, I believe that the handle “HAL9000” is an integral part of the joke. HAL9000 is the lethal computer in the movie 2001 by Stanley Kubrick et. al. that tries to kill the human protagonist.

          • GreenWin

            Homicidal machines/bots abound in “I Robot” Isaac Asimov’s story made into film by Will Smith. These bots do not pass OSHA regs.

          • Slad

            OSHA was disbanded after Trump got in.

          • Hi all

            Isaac Asimov’s story “I Robot” was about the Three Laws of Robotics which Asimov invented. The stories of murder mysteries in the books were about how deaths could occur even when the three laws were applied. I Robot was about a particular robot who took the three laws to the extreme and spent millennia saving humanity from itself.

            The Will Smith film was Hollywood effects and adventure film, which touched on the three laws in a cursory way.

            A far better representation of Asimov’s Robot series was the Robin Williams film Bicentennial Man.

            If you have not read Asimov then you should. 😉

            Kind Regards walker

          • Slad


    • GreenWin

      A sales incentive/benefit might be a home owners insurance rider included in purchase and installation of certified E-Cat home products.

  • Andre Blum

    Frank will confirm most of the e-catworld readers are men from the last century, too.
    Thanks for your insights, john, and let us know when you need energy for generating hydrogen.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Not only possible, but Rossi said exactly this earlier, many times.

    • Indeed. In fact a number of us go back more than halfway to the previous one!

  • Andre Blum

    I see a lot of reference to UL in the comments below this post and want to point out that Rossi does not specifically refer to certification in the USA. As often said by others, it may be easier to start selling domestic units in a country like China.

    • Bob

      You are indeed correct. As with most of Rossi’s posts, they are very vague and do not really reveal much at all. He does not even state what type of certification is being worked on!
      It could be NAFTA certification for all we know!
      This is what I feel about Rossi’s posts after following them for several years..
      1) English is not his native language. Sometimes his wording may not accurately communicate his intention. I must say, that I think he speaks English rather well, however. I cannot speak any foreign language, so I admire him in this!
      2) That the posts are almost always very vague in actual content, but can be easily misinterpreted by others to have much more meaning that they do. Thus all the excitement sometimes they bring. The recent New Year’s eve announcement was a prime example.
      Some expected a meaningful post on how the eCat worked, or other news that would be ground breaking. It turned out to be nothing but dreams. Rossi was truthful in is first announcement. He did make a post on News Years and it was about the eCat. It basically met the description of his first announcement. Some on this list let speculation give rise to the thought that the announcement would be truly significant. It was not. It was not really Rossi’s fault. It was the speculation of others. That is why I temper my expectations to be the very minimum concerning Rossi.
      3) As Fabianni put it, Rossi sometimes dreams things that are not practical. Perhaps he believes them, but he posts before knowing what really is required. I remember that in springtime of 2012(?) Rossi was talking about have Home Depot sell his eCats in the fall. He had no clue as to what this would really entail. His posts were totally unfounded in data or fact. Just like his News Years post and the recent post on ROI on the “lamp post idea”. It is not founded on fact or even feasibility. He simply pulled numbers from the air accordingly to how he saw them. This idea was not thought out, but some take it as, “Rossi posted it, it must be absolutely true”. No, sometimes Rossi makes posts that make no sense and it is not due to language. This is what I referred to when I say Rossi makes himself look bad at times.
      Anyway, since 2010 I have been following this story. I have read many, many posts from Rossi. Home Depot sales soon, secret customers, Seimens involvement, National Instruments involvement, 13 plants sold, customer test data to be released, Hot Cats running like sports cars, independent testers, certifications and so forth. A few have came to reality, most we continue to wait for. So I have learned not to expect more than the most basic possible results from his posts. Nothing more.
      As always… I continue to wait for some significant facts not conjecture….

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Bob, sometimes you sound like maryyugo, it is not Rossi’s job to please you, One of Rossi’s prime objectives is to keep his IP close to his chest so that “others” cannot steal it and profit from it. In my opinion, he wants a true free market LENR, not an LENR to be used by Crony Capitalists.

        • Bob

          Bernie, you are quite correct that Rossi does not need to please me. I am pretty sure he does not even know who I am!. (And I certainly am not maryyugo!)
          At the same point, this website is not the Church of Rossi where all who might have logical and valid questions are excommunicated!
          I find it interesting that if I make a post, based upon logic and facts, that some seem to take personal offense to it! I am not defamatory to Rossi, nor do I want to be. I truly hope he has what he states he has!. I also try to compliment or post a positive about him when I see a factual, positive point.
          (A small example is complimenting him on his English)
          On the other hand, I have no problem pointing out something about a post that makes little to no sense. Especially if I have significant experience and qualifications in the area myself..
          It is interesting, that if someone makes a post about BLP…. about how they never deliver, they change products… they miss dates… they etc. etc., no one is singled out and gets their wrist slapped. Yet if the same scrutiny is given Rossi, there are a few that raise their voice in disapproval. Quite interesting.
          I agree 100% that this site should not be vulgar, defamatory, personally offsetting nor accusatory without facts. However, this site is open to discussion, both through the rose colored glasses of some and the stark reality of others.
          I suggest this… if some do not think my posts are fair or well founded, please do respond with the factual data of why the posts are not correct or illogical. Believe me, if the facts correct my point of view, I will freely admit it. But they need to be facts, not hearsay or simply rely upon Rossi’s posts. Some of my posts are opinion, based upon logic. Others are what I would call “factual”, based upon actual experience and knowledge. Such as the UL certification process.
          Again, I am not against Rossi in any way. I just do not agree with some of his posts.
          I continue to wait for factual announcements of significance….

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Hi Bob: Sorry if I seemed a little too caustic I too have been following Rossi since 2010 and as we both know he has answered maybe thousands of questions for our benefit and his. You seem to pick out those answers which you think are negative and add “soon”, “secret”, “involvement” to what you say Rossi has said, this is your quote “Home Depot sales soon, secret customers, Seimens involvement, National Instruments involvement, 13 plants sold, customer test data to be released, Hot Cats running like sports cars, independent testers, certifications and so forth.”.

            The vast majority of Rossi’s answers have been very to the point and very intelligent both scientifically and socially. I would hate to have a few of my posts, out of thousands, singled out to prove someones theory about me.

          • Bob

            Thank you for the reply. You do have good points.

            Actually my specific post above is only opinion for the most part.
            I did start it with “This is what I feel about Rossi’s posts after following them for several years..” While I did state “what I feel” about his posts, this may not be understood by others. I would do well to more clearly distinguish when I am stating something more general than when factual. My posts on UL for example, I tried to be very factual.
            Then I did generalize the statements with the words you highlighted. However, those are the words or statements that Rossi used. The customer has been called “secret” by everyone on this list and it is secret. Rossi did make posts during the spring of the plan for Home Depot to sell the Home eCat in the fall. Rossi has touted involvement of Seimens or National Instruments, but then they fade away and nothing is heard. (Thus my concerns about IH being in the same scenario). So it is true that I did clearly differentiate my above wording as generalizations and that they were not actual quotes.. I do need to do better at this and I appreciate your feedback.
            I will have to disagree with you on that the majority of Rossi’s posts are scientifically accurate and to the point. I do not believe he posts much of anything that is really scientific, as he states he cannot divulge significant information due to the patents pending. To the point? I have to use the New Years scenario as a prime example. Go back and read the posts that most people made. The I believe the general consensus was that some truly remarkable information was to be released. When in fact, nothing of significance was released at all. I think most of his posts are that way, but again in my opinion.
            For example, there is nothing but Rossi’s posts to backup these things:
            Navy purchased a reactor
            First secret customer conducted the first 1MW plant test.
            That a second secret customer is running a plant
            That there is a neutral referee on this test
            That a certification company is making him jump through many interations.
            Any performance data of any eCat . (Warm, Hot, Gas, eCatX) The Lugano test has been clearly shown to be faulty. Interesting but certainly not conclusive. See Bob Greenyer’s posts on this.
            Electrical production
            I do say that the above may indeed be true and correct! I am just saying that we have no information about these other than Rossi’s posts. Much is extrapolations from other people’s posts that evolve and become “facts”. An example is Omega Z statement above that Rossi is working with SGS SA. We have no information if this is correct or not. Rossi got a voluntary certification from SGS SA 1-1/2 years ago. Nothing has been posted or provide that they are the current certification company. This may be correct, but we have no evidence that I know of to make that claim.
            So any way, I am not upset and I hope not to upset others. However, I have long been from this school of thought “Believe it when you see it…Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me… claims are meaningless unless backed by proof…if something smells like a fish it usually is a fish!” (Not saying Rossi is a fake here. I am saying that is a post does not make sense or lacks fact, then it does not make sense or lacks fact!)
            So far, there has been very little of the eCat saga that I can “take to the bank”. Darden’s involvement is probably the biggest positive. The Lugano tests were helpful, but certainly of very low confidence. People like Matts Lewan add a lot to the plus side. But in reality, so far Rossi is not too far from BLP. Both make claims, both have 3rd party support, 3rd party tests and certifications, both have been in the “business” for several years…….. Neither has provided a single product or proof of anything.
            On this site BLP “distractors” are supported while Rossi sometimes gets a “Free ride” so to speak. (It is eCat World after all!) However, I try to treat both with the same set of standards.
            The day is ending and I continue to wait….

          • TomR

            No matter what you say, all of your posts have a negative slant toward Rossi. Discouragement is the last thing Rossi needs when trying to bring the Domestic E-Cat to all of us, as quickly as he can. If I was sure your sniping wouldn’t bother Rossi, it wouldn’t bother me so much.

          • Mats002

            Bob, I read your posts with great interest, IMO you have a balanced view of what is going on. If ECW turns into a place where critiscism is banned I would be out of here. Looking for the truth is what science is about and that include asking some hard (though polite) questions about the object in focus.

            The problem for LENR is that some people say “don’t bather to look, because it must be fraud or dilutional” and some of those people spam and by intention destroy the forum with their “go away”-messages. ECW is free from those posts which makes it a pleassure to be here.

            Me too wait to know the truth about high power LENR…

      • Omega Z

        I agree that many people read way to much into Rossi’s posts.

        Rossi did sell a 1MW plant to NRL and I believe there probably was the option to obtain more, however, that would have ended the moment Rossi announced the Hot-cat breakthrough just 2 months later.

        The DOD (all branches) buy into many energy concepts. It’s their job. It doesn’t make these things a viable product, but means it has interesting prospects. Somewhere you will find DOD reports on these projects. Some may say- has no merit, Or we should keep a watch on this technology as it has potential to be ready in X years.

        I’ve read of dozens of such purchases. What not to expect from these deals is a public notice in the news. I see a benefit from such R&D monitoring even if most prove negative. However, the mainstream public may not see it that way & demand an end to it. Thus it is not published or acknowledged.

        Siemens and National Instruments. Rossi has consulted with both (N.I. confirmed this), but Rossi has never said they were business partners.

      • Roland

        The interesting posting was on the 26th, not the 1st, when significant new attributes of the E-catX were revealed the day after they were discovered.

        You, of course, are free to note that there is no proof that these discoveries occurred just as you are free to conclude that nothing other than Rossi’s word substantiates that there is an advanced form of the Lugano reactor called the E-cat X that directly produces electricity.

        If you’ve been following this for 5 years, I guess we’ll just have to take your word on this, Rossi has made a great deal of progress over that interval. If you’ve ever discovered something ground breaking, and made a concerted attempt to turn profound insight into a product, you’d have a great deal more sympathy for how often the road in front of you twists and turns on the way to eventual success, and how often you have to rethink all your plans for getting there as circumstances shift and initiatives die on the vine.

        If you find some here critical of your posts that may be due to your focus on what hasn’t happened at the expense of what has as most of of us have concluded that Rossi, while he may occasionally get ahead of himself, means well and works hard at turning his ideas into reality with a great deal more success that the vast, vast majority of humanity; even if it all stopped with Lugano.

        Your points about Rossi’s communication skills are valid, but they too are improving if you reflect back, as he tends to dash things off in an emotive fashion that someone who writes as laboriously as I struggles to understand. Then again he’s a lot busier than I or, I suspect, you and he has secrets to keep.

        I suspect that the only reason we hear anything from him at all is that occasionally someone’s posts spark fresh ideas in him.

        If you’re impatient with this lengthly process take a vacation from LENR and Rossi for a few years and check back, by then there should be answers to more of your questions…

    • clovis ray

      Hi, Andre.
      It’s not so much as he has too, but he wants too, he once said he would not sale anything that was not safe to the public. this certification is already complete in Europe, as i have it. frank probably has it some where he states how that certification was structured. and i think it was U/L.

    • Omega Z

      Andrea is working with SGS S.A.

      Also, Rossi has said manufacturing will begin in the U.S., followed by Europe and additional locals after that.

      • nkonyaman

        The wikipedia link requires a trailing period in the link
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGS_S.A. but disqus seems to treat a period at the end of a URL as sentence punctuation and removes it from the link.

  • Agaricus

    It’s probably this history in Australia that prompted the UK govt. to remove subsidies for PV (and most other ‘renewables’) at the same time as closing down coal-fired generation. They wouldn’t want the UK’s nuclear power stations, including the new ones they are so desperate to build, to become stranded assets.

  • Javascript – yes, ‘Ajax’ is short for ‘short for asynchronous JavaScript and XML’.

    • US_Citizen71

      I guess it is a hosting issue, single server in US maybe. I just tried it on an original Google Nexus 7 tablet (2012) and it worked fine no problems scrolling, but yeah not really mobile optimized.

      • That’s probably it. It would explain why Pekka and I (both in Europe) seem to have problems with screen updating.

    • Omega Z

      3.6ghz quad core, 4g memory, 12mb download, with the same results you post.
      If I need to upgrade to a mainframe system, then maybe I don’t need to see their website.

  • GreenWin

    Once this capacitance is reduced to lunch box size – it’ll be MORE fun!


  • Pekka Janhunen

    Under http://ecat.com/about, in the list of milestones there is something which is new (to me at least) and which looks interesting:

    July 7, 2013 – Safety Certificate of E-CAT -HT by Bureau Veritas;

    I assume that “E-CAT -HT” means the HotCat. So Rossi already has had for 2.5 years some kind of safety certification for an individual HotCat module.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I’m wondering if he’s the same Todd Rider who made a PhD thesis (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/11412 ) on aneutronic hot fusion in the 1990’s and showed it to be unfeasible.

  • http://cleantechnica.com/2015/11/25/autowende-ways-one-revolutionary-ev-battery-begins-production/

    Yet another new battery technology, this one from Oak Ridge. Better batteries and/or supercapacitors are an essential ingredient for LENR success in transportation and in off-grid home electricity.

    • Stephen Taylor

      Good article, very encouraging.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Are they getting out of the Oil business?

    “Saudi Arabia Mulling IPO Of State-Owned Saudi Aramco…”

    • Roland

      Given that this strategy, offering an IPO near the bottom of a commodity cycle when they still have substantial cash reserves, so contravenes common-sense business practices one could conclude that the Saudis don’t think there will be a recovery in oil prices and that an IPO is the only way left to monetize in-ground reserves before they become worthless.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        No sh,,,T, They see no figure in oil.