Q & A with Andrea Rossi on E-Cat X Stress Testing (Update: "Tremendous Step Forward for Massive Production" Made Today)

UPDATE: (February 9, 2016)

Here’s a comment from Andrea Rossi today regarding the E-Cat X:

Andrea Rossi
February 9, 2016 at 4:31 PM
Italo R.:
very premature, but I want to add that today the E-Cat X made a tremendous step forward a massive production. Today I am very happy.
Warmest Regards

As usual we get no details, but Rossi seems to be looking beyond the current test these days and is looking towards the industrialization phase of his E-Cat project which he has said will begin once the current test is completed.

Some more quotes on the topic from AR:

Today we got a ‘loophole’.
Much work remains to be done but in less time than expected, I hope.

Today we had a very good step forward that makes me hope to give soon not just more data, but information about the massive production of the Ecat X.
What I have seen today with my eyes was not expected so soon. We got some exponential.


Jan 25, 2016

I thought it would be important to include this short Q&A between Joseph Fine and Andrea Rossi regarding the E-Cat X, which Rossi has said he has been putting through some stress testing:

Joseph Fine

Andrea Rossi,

1. What is the most recent status of the 1 MW E-Cat System and the E-Cat X (following the recent test)? AR: good standing

2. How long did the recent E-Cat X “Stress test” last? AR: a month

3. Did you try the E-Cat X “Stress test” more than once? AR: we will

4. Can you comment on the (approximate) maximum temperature achieved by the E-Cat X? AR:  not yet

5. What is the average duration of Self-Sustained- Mode (SSM) operation? AR: hours

“Curiouser and curiouser” Regards,

Joseph Fine

Andrea Rossi also said that recently they have carrying out destructive testing on the E-Cat X, and just reported that “E-Cat X resisting to the destructive attempt, good sign.” I take this to mean they were not able to destroy it. Giuliano Bettini asked Rossi if they used too much heat, or too much electricity in their attempt to destroy it, and Rossi responded: “too much heat.”

I guess the part that was the most interesting to me above is that the E-Cat X has been able to run in self-sustain mode for hours — presumably while also producing electricity as well as heat, based on Rossi’s recent reports. As usual, however, we get only minimal details, so a lot is left to our imagination. Hopefully more information will be forthcoming.

  • Billy Jackson

    Keeping in Spirit of Mr. Rossi’s short but poignant update!
    My response is: More Please!
    (i swear one of these days i am going to mail that man a thesaurus!)

  • Brokeeper

    Didn’t AR mention the E-Cat X had a quick startup time? With an SSM mode sustained for hours I would think it would take little time and power to bring it back to optimum state. If so, this implies to me the E-Cat X COP is well above 100.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Umbi January 25th, 2016 at 2:19 PM

    Have a NEWS for domestic E-CAT ?
    1) Timing for Marketing?
    AR: Depends on F9
    2) COP?
    AR: >6, F9
    3) Duration charge ?
    AR: 6-12 months
    4) Will be X-CAT or E-CAT?
    AR: both

    Thank you”

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I have actually no idea what “How long did the recent E-Cat X “Stress test” last? AR: a month” refers to. I thought it has been running for 2+ months continuously, without a particular stress test other than being on, and since about new year also electricity being captured, before that only heat.

    • I missed that, too. Normally I just put such things down to advancing senility.

      • Owen Geiger

        I thought he said he’s running several E-Cat Xs. Apparently one was put through a separate stress test.

        • Omega Z

          Yes, He is running 3 E-cat X reactors simultaneously. About 2 months now.

          One is being run through a stress test.

          The other 2 are for obtaining other information..

          • mike wolf

            Yea, that is the way I remember it.

    • Reads fine to me that it was b+c.

  • Omega Z

    Due to knowledge obtained throughout the 1 year test, there will be modifications to the 1MW. This should surprise nobody as this is the 1st long term test under load. Issues were expected to be found and need modifications.

    As to Rossi’s “good standing”,

    Note that the question encompasses both the 1MW and the E-cat X. So I agree, it may be confusing.

    Rossi has often stated the the E-cat X is in good standing meaning all is well at this time. I’ll assume he means all is well with both the 1MW plant & the E-cat X at this time.

  • Andrea Rossi

    February 9, 2016 at 6:00 PM

    Italo R.:

    Today we got a ‘loophole’.

    Much work remains to be done but in less time than expected, I hope.

    Warm Regards


    Andrea Rossi

    February 9, 2016 at 5:52 PM


    Today we had a very good step forward that makes me hope to give soon not just more data, but information about the massive production of the Ecat X.

    What I have seen today with my eyes was not expected so soon. We got some exponential.

    Warm Regards


    “Massive production” – Meaning industrialization or production of energy?

    “Exponential” – Meaning a significant increase in electricity production?

    • LarryJ

      Today when asked by Janne whether the advancement was technological or regulatory Rossi responded:

      Warm Regards,

      When asked by ItaloR about progress on certifications Rossi responded:

      Italo R.:
      Today we got a ‘loophole’.
      Much work remains to be done but in less time than expected, I hope.
      Warm Regards

      Combined this sounds to me like Rossi has made a technological advance that has removed a barrier to certification and will result in an assist to the implementation of a massive production. He had earlier commented that the ecatX was proving difficult to destroy which might also affect safety issues around certification.

  • Buck

    The following is an example of drawing too many conclusions from a series of coincidences.

    I think it very interesting that concurrent with the US Supreme Court setting aside today of Pres. Obama’s executive order for accelerating CO2 emission reductions from power plants, Rossi describes a “loophole” that will hopefully allow a rapid “massive production” and distribution of the E-Cat X.

    And for me, it is sending off today an email to my US Congresswoman who asked for information about LENR after I approached her at a very recent “Town Hall” meeting. It was a nice Town Hall meeting where my US Senator and US Congresswoman held a joint meeting. I shared links about ITPR1 & ITPR2, including those from Forbes, Fortune, ExtremeTech, Elforsk, Mats Lewan’s hometurf of NyTekNik, and of course ECatWorld.

    I also approached my Senator with the exact same intent. His response was interesting . . . you would have had to have been there to see that his words did not match his body language. He was polite in directing me to ARPA-E and Gate’s Energy Innovations about LENR, but he locked up when I in direct response quickly referenced Gates being caught on the YouTube video of being introduced to LENR in Italy. His words said one thing, disinterest, however his locked up body language to me suggested knowledge and interest. Maybe that interest is tied to his very recent establishment and announcement of a public policy position for leaving 80% of Fossil Fuels in the ground . . . a no lose position when LENR comes to town.

    • TomR

      Thanks for the information, Buck. I think your assessment of this is right on target. I think Obama is going to do an end run on this.

    • The first instinct of most politicians is to lie, even when lies serve no purpose. If you’d told him you had proof positive that the sun would rise again tomorrow he would probably have decided that this was probably a National Security issue, and tried to cover it up.

      • Buck


        I believe your answer mixes together the good and bad of politics to the point of confusion.

        Would you say the same thing of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo who sponsored the demonstration of LENR technology for Congress this last November? I think it very reasonable to conclude that this demonstration caused curiosity and further research by those in Congress. Which members, I can only guess.

        But for me, my Senator’s response was telling.

  • Well, the world sure needs some good news right now. I just hope Mr. Rossi starts talking to the media so that his progress can affect national and world energy policy. A big flashy news conference could help a lot. When the hysterical fear of CO2 meets the prospect of low cost, reliable, carbon free E-Cat technology, it could be explosive in a good way.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Maybe they made one or more E-cat X units by an automated process and it worked. Or perhaps they made (still by hand) a version of E-cat X which they know will be possible to manufacture more easily.

    • giovanniontheweb

      I think more on certificates

      • Gerald

        from jonp:


        February 9, 2016 at 6:50 PM

        Dear Andrea,

        When you say “the E-Cat X made a tremendous step forward a massive production”, do you mean:

        a) progress in the regulatory/legal area?

        b) progress with the E-cat X itself, in the production of electricity (such as better COP)?

        c) progress in the mass production of the E-cat X itself?

        Andrea Rossi

        February 9, 2016 at 9:40 PM


        b + c

        Warm Regards,


        • giovanniontheweb

          well, better than expected

  • Gerard McEk

    So AR is preparing for mass production. I hope he contacted Elon Musk to put some of these Ecats in a Tesla and drive with it around the world. That would be a huge promotion for both the Ecat and Tesla.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Musk might not be so keen on the idea. It would gut the economy of batteries. Battery cost is somewhere around ten cents per mile for an EV. The electricity only costs about four cents.
      The batteries are the fuel for EVs more so than the electricity.

      • SD

        I think Musk sees further ahead than his current profits on batteries.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I bet he does not see this one coming.

          Musk is betting 5 Billion on the profitability of the battery. That is the cost of the factory to make the batteries.

          When the vehicle only requires 1 battery instead of 74, if you scaled that 5 billlion down also, the factory might only be worth a 67 Million investment. That is a lot of altruism. I would not presume upon anyone’s altruism to that degree.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Tesla is taking a loss on the vehicles, the battery business is the profit center.
            Without selling 74 cells per car, Tesla is doomed. Musk is worth 13 Billion. The E-Cat could hurt him badly.


            Tesla Earnings: Loss Per Car, Net Margin Hit Frightening Levels
            Loss per car sold at near-record high: $18,331.

          • EEStorFanFibb

            The loss per car metric is simply misleading. every bit of revenue is going back into the business to massively expand production. Tesla is fine, and not being “profitable” at this time is expected and completely warranted.

          • wondering

            Perhaps you are right but at least intuitively I wouldn’t think so. I thought batteries were the most expensive part of an EV, everything else being simpler in EVs than in ICE vehicles. With an energy source like the ECat-X (if real) then I guess you wouldn’t even bother with regenerative braking either, energy savings are not worth it.
            Of course the Tesla can be said to needlessly expensive in that is is such a high tech car. On the other hand for the mass market you need to mass volume for costs to come down, so you’d be stuck in a catch 22. So it made sense for them to aim for the high end at first, then move towards a car for the mass market.

          • Steve Savage

            It might be possible that Musk’s battery factory ends up producing the E-cat !

          • ecatworld

            Interesting news about Tesla Motors today. The Model 3 Electric Car will launch in March at a price of $35,000 — in the US that’s before Federal and State tax credits. With those in place you could pay as little as $18,000 for the car. I reckon this will get many more EVs on the roads.


          • jousterusa

            I just hope our “imagination” has not led us into yjr frpths of a confidence game of massive proportions. We can only go so long awaiting test results.

        • giovanniontheweb

          batteries do not produce energy, e-cat does

      • Gerard McEk

        Musk can sell it as life-time fuel! 😉

    • bkrharold

      ecat-x would be perfect for automobiles. The electricity component would charge a small economical battery range 50-80 miles, the heat would provide direct power to the wheels with a steam engine. Nothing would be wasted.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Jed February 10, 2016 at 8:37 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,
    Congratulations for your US Patent.
    49% chance that the E-Cat will be industrialized by 2016: is it too high a figure?

    Andrea Rossi February 10, 2016 at 9:32 AM
    No, it is not too high a figure.
    Warm Regards,

  • Gerard McEk

    I indeed think so too. His battery store system must compensate for the battery under demand of his cars, all with the aim to bring the battery price of his cars (and the car price-) down.

  • mcloki

    The battery business will be huge. Each e-cat could utilize a battery storage device to even out usage.

    • Ophelia Rump

      No one is going to pay for a superfluous battery. They will only be used where there is a need and in proportion to the need. Redundant Cats will be less expensive than the batteries and lighter.

      • bkrharold

        I was suggesting the waste heat could be put to good use, creating a hybrid.

  • Roland

    Given the ambiguous nature of Rossi’s communications it is possible to read this latest missive as a reference to an exponential increase in the output of the E-cat X, hence more hopefulness for its production potential.

    Like many others I’d welcome more hard info in the not to distant future; which is also implied.