New Photo of Rossi and 1MW Plant

I believe this photograph was grabbed from Mats Lewan’s webinar that he presented today at the Energy 2.0 Society webinar. Someone on the Italian has posted it there. I think I remember seeing it briefly, but didn’t think much of it at the time because some photos of the plant have been released, but on closer examination it’s a picture we haven’t seen before.

Behind Rossi on the left In the distance in the center look like the four large 250 kW reactors that have been powering the plant for most of the test, while the units behind Rossi on the right and left appear to be the smaller backup units that Rossi has mentioned are there standing by in case the main reactors go down.

Rossi has mentioned that there has been a loss of efficiency in the plant lately, and when asked if the smaller reactors could still be used to help power the plant through the test he responded:

Andrea Rossi

Greg Leonard:
Correct: that is another safety boat. In a military term: it is our “reserve” division.
Warm Regards,

Here’s the photo:



  • Jonnyb

    Looks remarkably clean and tidy, if this is what they look like after several months of successful heat output then we are in for a treat. Expecting modifications and dodges everywhere so promising.

  • I’ll bet on that chain is a sign “strictly no admittance”.

    • Omega Z

      I’ll bet on that chain is a sign “Caution- Very Hot”

      • Ivan Idso

        I actually think it illustrates opening the plant for visiters in March.

        • Omega Z

          Actually, I think it’s a good indicator that there are non technical’s that visit on occasion & this is meant to keep them from wandering into the container without escort of an authorized tech.

          It does look as tho a sign may be attached and likely says authorized personnel only…

    • Burlington

      The chain is a metaphor for his passion, persistence, or perhaps obsession with his invention.

  • Is it just me, or is Rossi looking very sick and tired? Emaciated and unhealthy?

    • Omega Z

      Well, He is 65 years old. And people also tend to let themselves get run down when they get engrossed in projects not eating properly of getting enough rest.

    • Anon2012_2014

      That’s just has he looks. He has the physique of a marathon runner as he was … a runner, i.e. skinny. I believe he works out frequently. I think he looks good for a 65 year old who is working near full time.

      • LilyLover

        Make that – double full-time for reference, for the benefit of new readers.

    • LarryJ

      Does anyone know the significance of the future date March 2016?

      • ecatworld

        Mats said today that he thought that would be when we might get the results of the 1 MW plant test.

  • georgehants

    If Mr. Rossi where really kind, he would time the released test report to coincide exactly with Admins countdown clock on the side of the page.

    • Mats002

      Not only kind, that would actually make him emotionally and honest intellectually in synchronization with a lot of people (thousands, maybe ten thousands) around the globe and that in turn will give him high credability. It would be a politically smart move, I hope IH/Rossi see it too George!

      • LarryJ

        Disbelievers will not believe this report any more than they believed Lugano. Products are the only thing they might believe. I also think it is safe to say that Rossi marches to the beat of a different drummer and being in sync with a lot of people for credibility’s sake is about as far as you can get from who he is. It’s because he is not in sync that we even have the ecat.

    • Omega Z

      It is not up to Darden or Rossi.
      It is the Independent Certification entity that will release the report.
      Likely, they will want several months to analyze the data before issuing an opinion.

      From Rossi’s statements, the referee’s data fits closely to there’s so we should keep a close eye out for any activity taking place after the test concludes. We likely wont hear anything official until the referee speaks, but if Leonardo corp is confident in the results, they will start taking actions before it’s official. They will not want to waste time.

      • LarryJ

        I think it is highly unlikely that the referee would release the report. It is my understanding that their task is to determine if IH met the terms of the contract between the customer and IH. They would also be under NDA and would only release the report if so requested by the contracting parties. That is also an unlikely event since it would serve no useful purpose. Until Leonardo has a product there is nothing to announce.

        I think you are correct about them taking action. A successful test conclusion will mark the start of the production phase.

        • Omega Z

          I think the Referee is also doing a safety analysis among other things. Or in short, the whole ball of wax.

    • LarryJ

      Don’t get your hopes too high for a released report. Why would he do that. He has nothing to prove. The proof will be in the pudding.

      • mike wolf

        Yea, Rossi already set up kicking the can down the road by stating diminishing returns in the ecat devices. Although he did say they resolved that problem, so we’ll see.

        • LarryJ

          He has been very open about the test from day 1. To imply that he is setting the stage for some delay is perhaps a tad unfair. He is simply keeping us informed and so far has always tesolved the issue and then let us know.

  • Let me make clear that I have not visited the plant.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Hi Mats, thanks for being clear on this.

      However, perhaps you ASK Rossi for a visit/tour of the plant before your conference?

      Rossi might bite given your past track record. And the additional notes, quotes and pictures from such a visit would REALLY be a coup for your up-coming conference.

      Anyway, quick question:

      Do you have any more info on the “source” of the quoted 20-80 COP?

      I know that the COP rumor floated around at the last CCF conference, and as a result you were “comfortable” confirming that you also heard the same high COP claim of 20-80. You clearly were upholding the confidence of your source

      Are you able to revel the “source” of this claimed high COP?

      And if you not able to revel the source of the claim, do you think the claim of 20-80 is credible?

      A COP of say 6 might be nice or cool.

      However a COP of 20-80 is AMAZING and a revolution beyond imagination.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Albert, Rossi has been very clear – as a journalist they will not let me visit the plant while the test is ongoing. After that we will see.
        Yes, I trust the sources, though cannot give more information about them. However, I don’t think they were served conclusive proof for the high COP. That said, personally I think that the claim is possible. As Jed Rothwell often states – once you can control the reaction, COP should be irrelevant as it would be infinite, being a highly exothermal nuclear reaction.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Most fair. I thought perhaps that a “crack” or “some” opening in regards to a visit may be possible due to the test being over.

          And the COP – I quite hoping the COP is high!

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Omega Z

            We don’t know the conversion ratio nor has Rossi given exact info. Highly improbable the 20KW will be all electric.

            Presume it’s DC and a converter plus voltage will need conditioning to be usable.

          • jousterusa

            Dr. Rossi looks haggard, sleepless and hungry. I think he has lost a lot of weight I hope he will guard his health, get some rest and try for 8 hours of sleep so that his mind and body are refreshed.

        • Omega Z

          Mats, you post-

          “Rossi has been very clear – as a journalist they will not let me visit the plant while the test is ongoing. After that we will see.”

          Indicates that you have asked. Is that right?

          By the way, I think your a person that should you give your word not to report anything until after the results are given, You would keep your word.

          With said knowledge, I would imagine it would be really be hard to keep quite given some of the people(Skeptics) you have to deal with.

  • The photo is cut out from the slide here below from the webinar I held last Saturday, organised by the Energy 2.0 Society. I made a parallel between the motorised flight demo by Wilbur Wright in 1908 and a potentially convincing result from the ongoing one-year 1MW test, possibly presented in March 2016. Wright’s flight became the start of a prospering aircraft industry, and a conclusive result of the one-year test could mean the same.

    • ecatworld

      Regarding the COP — I have no inside information, but I would expect the COP to vary a lot depending on whether the plant is in self sustain mode or not. I AR has said that when in ssm the COP the plant requires between 7 and 8 kW, while producing 1MW — which would give a COP of 125-143, but he has also said the plant is not always in ssm.

      He won’t say how much power the plant consumes when not in COP, nor the length of ssm periods.

      The important number is the overall COP number, taking into account the overall power in/power out for the extent of the test.

      • Yes, but the point is, once you manage to control the reaction well, it should be possible to remain steadily in ssm, and eventually also provide needed input energy from the output. Thus infinite COP. Of course I refer to a maturing technology, after a great deal of R&D.

        • ecatworld

          Technically, if the high ssm he reports is correct I would think so, yes. But Rossi has said that it will always need an external power source, for safety and regulatory reasons. But he did make an interesting reply to this question recently:

          January 17th, 2016 at 2:19 PM
          Dear Andrea,

          If there were no regulations issues, do you personally believe that a domestic e-cat could be run off-the-grid in a safe manner?

          Many thanks

          Andrea Rossi
          January 17th, 2016 at 2:20 PM
          Warm Regards,

          • timycelyn

            I’ve often wondered if a second e-cat could be regarded as an external power source for regulatory purposes. You could then have e-cat twins – or Siamese twins, I suppose – providing feeds to each other. The twins, if viewed as a single unit would then have infinite COP…

    • Brokeeper

      Mats, had I mentioned my childhood neighbor, Ivonette Wright
      Miller, was the first American child to fly with her uncle Orville over those
      cars? (now where did I leave my teeth?)

  • GreenWin

    Here are some more facts about Langley as posted previously.

    While the Wright’s were designing their first manned aircraft, Professor
    Samuel Pierpont Langley, astrophysicist, professor U.S. Naval Academy /
    University Pittsburgh, Secretary Smithsonian Institution, Director Allegheny Observatory, President American Assoc. Advancement of Science,etc. – was doing the same.

    But Langley had been given tax payer funding by both the War Department and the Smithsonian Inst. equaling $83.5 million in today’s dollars. The Wright Brothers self-financed their aircraft with profits from their bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. As this link points out, Langley flew his manned “Aerodrome” on December 9, 1903 from a catapult on the Potomac River.

    The aircraft crashed on launch nearly drowning the Professor in the icy Potomac. Eight days later the Wrights flew at Kitty Hawk. Today, the irony is one of LENR’s early proponents Dr. Dennis Bushnell is Chief Scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center – named after Samuel P.

    CORRECTION: The last sentence in this article should read:

    “In spite of 18 years of well-funded and concerted effort by [Prof] Langley
    to achieve immortality, his singular contribution to the invention of the airplane was the pair of 30-mph aerodromes that flew in 1896. He died in 1906 after a series of strokes, a broken and disappointed man.”

    • fact police

      Indeed… emphasizing that the mainstream did not consider aviation impossible.

      • Like all revolutionary new ideas, the subject has had to pass through three stages, which may be summed up by these reactions: (1) ‘It’s crazy – don’t waste my time.’ (2) ‘It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.’ (3) ‘I always said it was a good idea.’
        Arthur C. Clarke

        That said, obviously it was easier for a general public to imagine powered flight than it is to have ideas about LENR, since people can see birds fly but there’s no place to see something making you think of nuclear reactions at low temperatures with no radiation. And in that way it was probably easier to rewrite history regarding powered flight according to what Kuhn and Taleb have observed, as Alain points out.

        • fact police

          Like all revolutionary new ideas, the subject has had to pass through three stages, which may be summed up by these reactions: (1) ‘It’s crazy – don’t waste my time.’ (2) ‘It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.’ (3) ‘I always said it was a good idea.’

          Arthur C. Clarke

          Regardless of the universality of that statement (and I would argue it is not universal), it certainly does not mean that an idea that encounters the first reaction (“it’s crazy — don’t waste my time”) will necessarily meet the next two reactions.

    • Slad

      Rog me ole beaut’. It seems that some imposter is impersonating you over at Gluckie’s. I personally think this is a terrible turn of events… Choady appears most upset, and seems to be in the midst of some kind of meltdown. I wonder where it will all end?

  • In 1905 SciAm position was nor far from yours on LENR, despite the public show.

    What is amazing, and well explained by thomas Kuhn and nassim Nicholas Taleb (Read AntiFragile “History being written by the losers”) is how the history is rewritten, bent, to hide the initial harsh oppositions by academic, if not to make them creation of the academic system.
    “Scientific American
    Vol. XCIV
    No. 2
    January 13, 1905
    Page 40

    [Article verbatim and in full]

    The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance

    A Parisian automobile paper recently published a letter from the Wright brothers to Capt. Ferber of the French army, in which statements are made that certainly need some public substantiation from the Wright brothers. In the letter in question it is alleged that on September 26, the Wright motor-driven aeroplane covered a distance of 17.961 kilometers in 18 minutes and 9 seconds, and that its further progress was stopped by lack of gasoline. On September 29 a distance of 19.57 kilometers was covered in 19 minutes and 55 seconds, the gasoline supply again having been exhausted. On September 30 the machine traveled 16 kilometers in 17 minutes and 15 seconds; this time a hot bearing prevented further remarkable progress. Then came some eye-opening records. Here they are:

    October 3: 24.535 kilometers in 25 minutes and 5 seconds. (Cause of Stoppage, hot bearing.)

    October 4: 33.456 kilometers in 33 minutes and 17 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, hot bearing.)

    October 5: 38.956 kilometers in 33 minutes and 3 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, exhaustion of gasoline supply.)

    It seems that these alleged experiments were made at Dayton, Ohio, a fairly large town, and that the newspapers of the United States, alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice. When it is considered that Langley never even successfully launched his man-carrying machine, that Langley’s experimental model never flew more than a mile, and that Wright’s mysterious aeroplane covered a reputed distance of 38 kilometers at the rate of one kilometer a minute, we have the right to exact further information before we place reliance on these French reports. Unfortunately, the Wright brothers are hardly disposed to publish any substantiation or to make public experiments, for reasons best known to themselves.[emphasis added] If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face–even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so– would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago? Why particularly, as it is further alleged, should the Wrights desire to sell their invention to the French government for a “million” francs. Surely their own is the first to which they would be likely to apply.

    We certainly want more light on the subject.”

    I have the same debate on Quasicrystal inventor… that were quickly accepted…

    after being ashamed, insulted in public, and fired. LOL
    (funny when you know how rebel was Pauling)

    I have the same debate on HTSC, thate were quickly accepted too after 10 years of footnotes

    Same with Barry Marshall…

    Wikipedia is full or rewritten history of that kind, refuted by historical documents which are minimized.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Jeffry January 19th, 2016 at 7:19 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    You wrote here that you have pending and in preparation about 200 patents after the US patent that has been allowed to you. How is the situation of these patents?
    Thank you,

    Andrea Rossi January 19th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    Yes, we have now 220 patents between pending and in preparation; I am optimistic and think about 140 will be allowed, while 80 will be rejected; nevertheless, we’ll go on with the ones we do not think will be allowed, because in any case they are useful to make experience.
    Warm Regards,

  • PhotoShopper