The Impact of the E-Cat on the LENR Field

Where would the LENR field be without Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat? It’s a question I’ve been pondering lately as the LENR world has been rather turned on its head with the recent news of the court case filed by Andrea Rossi against Industrial Heat. For me the interest in the E-Cat as a technology has always been more important than the people and companies involved. If real, this is an incredibly significant discovery/invention.

I had known about cold fusion for a long time, but hadn’t paid much attention to it since the Pons and Fleischmann affair, and until Rossi and Focardi came on the scene in 2011 I didn’t really think of CF/LENR as being a potentially commercially viable technology. While interesting results had been claimed by various researchers, it seemed to be rather an obscure field confined to laboratory experiments, with only modest levels of excess energy claimed.

The E-Cat changed that for me. Because of the early experiments in 2011 showing kilowatts of excess energy being produced I began to consider LENR as technology with the potential to have a profound impact on the world, and this has kept my interest ever since. E-Cat World has been published for over five years now. I did not think when the site was launched that after five years we would still be waiting for E-Cats to be distributed into the marketplace — but here we are.

However, although it’s been a long wait, speaking for myself, I still think there is very good reason to expect good things from the E-Cat in the future. But even without the E-Cat itself on the market yet, there has been a definite resurgence in interest in the LENR field because of Andrea Rossi’s work. There are groups and individuals working in the commercial sector, and in the open source arena who have been motivated to try and replicate the E-Cat, or something similar. I don’t doubt that there are others working in secret as well.

It’s interesting to me that all this activity is taking place despite the world of government, science, industry and media largely ignoring it (publicly), or dismissing it as foolishness. LENR is still very much in the underground of the internet. If E-Cats start to go on sale, and especially if the E-Cat QuarkX can be shown clearly to produce significant amounts of heat, light and electricity without energy input, I think the level of interest in LENR would increase dramatically, and even greater efforts will go into replicating the Rossi Effect — or trying something similar, perhaps even better.

Without the E-Cat coming along, I think that the field of LENR would still be a rather quiet place, with much less activity and interest than there is now, and with barely any commercial prospects. We don’t know what the outcome of the Rossi/IH court case will be, but I think the E-Cat will be shown to be a viable technology regardless of legal rulings. As things stand now, I think we could well be on the threshold of a revolution in energy technology because of the E-Cat.

  • Warthog

    If not the E-cat, one of the other excellent efforts. The key thing the E-Cat has done is make a generation of new minds aware of LENR at just about the time that most of the old generation of opponents has begun to die off.

    • psi2u2

      Very well summarized.

      • georgehants

        psi2u2, unless things have changed I am led to believe that still 95% of scientists disbelieve that Cold Fusion is genuine and even more that Mr. Rossi is a fraud.
        That does not seem much of an improvement after five + years.
        Not exactly changing the World at present, maybe in June, maybe not.

        • kdk

          Things have indeed changed when Airbus and other companies start running symposiums on LENR and bring LENR into their symposiums on for example potential future technology, or when it gets included into DARPA, as have all happened with LENR.

          Mainstream, academic, science for the most part won’t give much of a thought to the potential of LENR, let alone how to run a test, until after it’s perfectly obvious to everybody that LENR is real. To do so would be to jeopardize their careers.

          If people start experimenting with LENR and it turns out that machines are already patented, how long do you think a commercial movement will last? I know you’re smarter than to trust all the people who would normally be holding these patents.

          Unless you have revolutions planned, open science is most certainly not going to solve our energy issues. All of the same people who got millions killed over lies basically for oil are still around doing their thing… they haven’t gotten any nicer, either. Open science will help us all understand better what’s going on, but it does nothing to deal with all the same people who have been standing in the way of progress for decades already when they know very well the sort of things that are possible.

          • georgehants

            kdk, many thanks for a good reply, you must remember I live in a perfectly acceptable to me illusion that a better World is obtainable.
            Therefore the problems that you correctly point out only means to me, how do we solve each of those problems.
            In a sane World that would seem perfectly logical, but as things are, many people point out a problem and never think to take that next stop of solving it for the benefit of all.
            Would open, honest, competent science be better for everybody, I think so, no need for patents etc. as only the scientists who work for society and make discoveries deserve rewarding sensibly by society, then only the workers who produce etc. products as needed.
            No need for investors, no need for share holders, no need for hangers on etc. administrators are just pen pushers and should have no decisions which must all be made by a group of people proven to have only the welfare of everything as their priority.
            As I said I live in a crazy illusion.

          • kdk

            Until these people are dealt with, honestly, it is mostly a crazy illusion.

            In our wonderful world, we must be extremely careful about who gets the patents to these technologies or they will be squandered and hidden away never to see the light of day again. Rossi seems to be one of the very few people who understand that.

          • georgehants

            Well, without trying to make things better for our children, I suppose things will not be better for our and all the children suffering in the World.
            Our choice.

          • kdk

            I do what I can, and try to think of how to do more. I certainly get more than my share of the grief from the endeavor. Pretty much an hourly barrage by the goons.

          • TomR

            Thank you KDK for your excellent description of Rossi and where the world is, at this point in time.

          • Bruce__H

            People should consider this … the bigger they are the harder they fall.

            The whole field is now at risk precisely because Rossi has puffed himself up so much. The very enormity of his claims, if found to be untrue, will once again cast the whole field into a deep pit for decades. It will be Pons and Fleishman all over again. The LENR field needs consistent, careful research, not the boom and bust cycles we now see.

            In my opinion Rossi is a con man who has realized that he can make money from people’s hopes for a better world. Everyone here should think about the height of the pedestal they are placing him on and what the consequences of that might be.

          • Billy Jackson

            well we have to put him on a pedestal because you are to busy burying your head in the sand trying to put him in a pit. To still stick with the “con man” bull$hit is you in denial of every evidence in his favor. no one here says Rossi is infallible. but at least we are willing to entertain open ideas encouraged by others who are willing to put in the lab and research time… rather than just spout nonsense about his past problems by twisting his history.

          • Brokeeper

            To be a successful conman at this point he would have needed Watson at his disposal plus the luck of multiple Mega lotto winners back-to-back to payoff bribery.

          • Bruce__H

            I think you are naive about the nature of con men and the cons they run.

            Take a look at other fields such as zero-point energy scams, or cars that are supposed to run on water, or homeopathy. It is actually pretty easy to run very profitable cons if you are audacious enough and are able to control what people see. In fact take a look at any stage magician, some of their effects are extremely convincing.

          • psi2u2

            Wake up and smell the coffee. Your post doesn’t pass the smell test here. LENR is definitely not “pseudo-science” and anyone who has looked into it with an open mind by now knows that for a fact.

          • Brokeeper

            You can’t con surrounded by experts in the nuclear fields observing the E-Cat directly for weeks at a time and many who have worked side by side with him. Slip-ups would have surely been noticed by now. We will know for sure by the end of the year.

          • Michael W Wolf

            He did say in his opinion. If he payed little attention to the enormous amount information to this point, it stands to reason he would think it’s a scam. At least he is not a know it all and does realize it is his opinion. I can accept that.

          • Bruce__H

            I’ve paid a lot of attention to the enormous amount of information to this point. It is mostly unsupported anecdote. The few groups who are proceeding carefully and openly are having limited success. I wish it were otherwise but that is the picture right now and it is unwise to deny it.

          • Omega Z

            People should consider David and Goliath… the bigger they are the harder they fall.

            Rossi is building his sling-cat.

            As to “Pedestal’s”, It is the Big Science “Hierarchy” that has put “ITSELF” on a pedestal claiming to be the only purveyor of all knowledge. God is Dead- Long Live the God!

          • Bruce__H

            No … really you should think for a moment because it is this sort of thinking that puts LENR on a level with aliens building the pyramids. Is that what you want? That’s not what I want. I want to find out if LENR is real.

            As soon as you get into conspiracy theories the fraudsters appear. They use David and Goliath stories to squeeze money out of the rubes. Look, for instance, at Kevin Trudeau’s career.

          • psi2u2

            “I want to find out if LENR is real.”

            You haven’t figured this out yet? You don’t need to wait for Rossi to know that it is.

          • Omega Z

            Aliens building the pyramids- It has been suggested by the hierarchy of Big Physics that due to the scale, impracticality and/or impossibility of testing future theories, Those theories should be judged on how creative and elegantly they are written as to their validity. Pseudoscience anyone…

    • Gerard McEk

      Normally I would reply that when the older generation of opponents die, the new Fire would lit up and catch momentum. But those opponents did their work well and made their Cold Fusion denial like a religion, a believe which is very hard to break. Rossi did do a good job to build the new generation of Cold Fusionists, but did not convincingly prove that his E-cat works yet. So now we have to believe that the E-cat works. Two religions, two groups and the two believe the opposite. I surely hope we can buy the QuarkX soon, so we can check for ourselves and send those not-believers the message: ‘It works, I checked myself and come and check if you do not believe me’.

      • Warthog

        We shall see….this kind of generational shift has been needed for most of the paradigm-breaking changes (plate tectonics, big bang, “phlogiston theory”, and on and on). But those DID happen.

  • pg

    “Where would the LENR field be without Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat?”

    The same place movies would be without cameras.

  • Montague Withnail

    I have taken a big interest in LENR for the past several years, while at the same time being highly sceptical about Rossi and not remotely impressed with anything tangible that I have actually seen from him so far.

    For me the big moment of change was watching the You-tube videos of Peter Hagelstein’s MIT course (co-run with Mitchell Swatz). What has kept me interested has been MFMP’s on-line experiments. I also really enjoy seeing/reading anything from Mike McKubre and Ed Storms, and several researchers from Japan.

  • I agree Frank. Whatever the outcome of the E-Cat, it definitely has raised awareness and interest in the LENR field, both from observers and from active inventors/researchers/replicators. Both those groups have fundamental importance for pushing the field ahead.

    • Rossi Fan

      Maybe that was Rossi’s goal all along. To bring attention to the field. If that is the case then the strategy should be condemned. It would be a modern day hi-tech version of “crying wolf”. This would make it twice as difficult for the next guy that comes along and has something to display or show related to cold fusion to be believed or taken seriously. The title of most important invention of the 21st century goes to Rossi. There are runners up and second place winners that look at Rossi and congratulate him on the win. LENR is not the only game in town. Energy independence has the Trump Ace card. If nobody claims it the King Queen, or Jack cards advance to the top.

  • adriano

    As far as I understood anomalous heat production, probably referable to LENR reaction, as been observed and measured multiple times in differert place around the world but nobody has never been able to replicate it. Is it correct?

    • LarryJ

      There have been many replications of anomylous heat. Parkhomov was a recent publication

    • Warthog

      Book “Excess Heat” by Charles Beaudette. Now dated (only up to around 2005), but lays out experiments AND REPLICATIONS up to that point in time.

      What you have from the skeptics is an infinite chain….ANY positive result is labelled “has to be replicated” despite that fact that the work itself “is” a replication of prior work. Hence, according to them, LENR is as mysterious as ever and “not replicated” no matter how many actual replications are done.

      And then there is the “moving of goal posts” from “must be statistically discernable from noise”, to “must give heat in more than 50% of experiments”, to “must give excess heat every time” (which even a fully commercialized product cannot fulfill).

      • adriano

        Ok thanks for the reply. I lack in knowledge concerning the argoument. My idea was that there are several phnomenons that are still unexplained even if already observed multiple times. So I was wondering if this was the case of LENR. To give you an example on wikipedia is still labeled as “hypotetical reaction”. Im pretty sure every scientist in the world would be exited to work on such a discovery. I mean, if the informations to make your own experiments are already aviable there should be plenty of university or private researchers that works on the argoument. But this seems to not be the case. Or at least for what public opinion knows

        • Warthog

          Indeed, the THEORY of the phenomenon(a) is still lacking. But in real science, theory is NOT NECESSARY for a conclusive scientific validation. The sole criterion is replicated experiments by at least one other researcher.

          The claim by physicists that “you have to have a theory to have a valid result” is, in fact, totally ANTI-science.

          The vast majority of experimental work in LENR has been done by private researchers, or (usually retired) university professors who have access to equipment and a small amount of funding. “Active” funding from the usual sources has been denied by the dirtiest sort of “politics of science”, which started almost immediately after Pons and Fleischmann announced their results.

          DO read Beaudette. He gives enough background to understand both the science basis as well as the sociology/politics of the LENR opposition. His book is the absolute best starting point/introduction to the topic.

          At that point, if you want more science, Ed Storms’ book(s) have both more and newer information than Beaudette.

  • adriano

    For what concerns Rossi, I dont think is about LENR. Is about Rossi himself. If it will turns out that in the next 5 years there will be nothing but mistery, a lot of people will still belive him. They will keep saying that “someone” have worked to make sure that his invention would never be reveald to the world because of money and lobbys or “hidden powers”. And this is not good. Is already happening here with the lawsuit. So many people already turned their back on IH because, according to Rossi, they cheat on him. Is a sad statement and it doesnt too much to keep moral up. I dont say this to demoralize anyone, but being one of those who is following this story since 2011 this is what I think. Nobody in the world knows what Rossi device is about, still on this very website not too long then a few days ago people where talking how to modify a crank shaft in order to have an illimited range car thanks to the E-cat. I dont see this behaviour as a good thing.

  • Gerard McEk

    Yes, without Rossi only a few would have heard of it, we owe him that. I do hope we can test the QuarkX ourselves soon. According many that’s the only way to convince. Maybe we should make a fund to buy (the smallest) for testing?

    • Gerard McEk

      BTW: It seems AR and Cook are going to check their theory:

      May 8, 2016 at 6:16 PM
      Dear Andrea Rossi,
      Any news about your theoretical work with Prof. Norman Cook ?
      Answer: “Not yet, but I am preparing an important experiment with him”.

  • Well said Frank. I appreciate you giving us ecat watchers a place to congregate. May 2016 be a banner year for ECW!!

  • Brokeeper

    If nothing else, Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat have rebooted inquisitive
    young minds to revisit long accepted ‘old guard’, locked-in scientific concepts, the stubborn paradigms that have prevented correct scientific enquire, social advancements and possibly billions of lives that could have been saved.

    • georgehants

      Brokeeper, I Think that at least as much credit should go to Rebels such as a certain Frank Acland of ECW et al, without whom Mr. Rossi would probably still never have been heard of.
      Now MFMP et al are certainly doing more that Mr. Rossi in positive open Research on the subject.
      We I think, all hold out Hope that Mr. Rossi is soon going to come across with the goods, which is important, but the chances of him passing on his “secrets” is close to zero.

      • Brokeeper

        Spot on George. Frank will be included within the history books for sure. Thanks for the addition.

      • TomR

        After what we have seen happen to IH/Cherokee when the BIG money players got involved, I hope he doesn’t sell his secrets and new IP.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Hotz May 8, 2016 at 6:56 PM
    What is youe target of price per kW of power for the QuarkX ?
    Thanks, Hotz

    Andrea Rossi May 9, 2016 at 9:54 AM
    Ballpark: between 20 and 100 $/kW.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Steve Savage

      I am confused

      The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Context: A typical U.S. household uses about 908 kWh a month of electricity.) Label.Oct 28, 2011

      • artefact

        Its the hardware cost. Then you have a device delivering 1 KW (for example) for one year (probably) without recharge.

        • Steve Savage

          Thanks, Of course it is the hardware cost… I was thinking charges for the electricity itself … not sure if I am completely awake..

          • TomR

            Don’t feel bad Steve, a lot of people read it that way also. That price will be right in the ball park for Mr. Average to be able to buy whatever size he needs.

      • artefact

        Your 908 KWh is annual average!

      • Leonard Weinstein

        Steve, I am not sure why you are confused. A 1 KW (or 1 KWh/h which is the same) generator would likely generate this level of power for several years (say 10), with fuel changes about once or twice a year. This means the generator would make a total of about 24X365X10=87,600 KWh total for $100 plus fuel change prices. The system to use and distribute the power and dispose of waste heat would add to the cost, but the cost per KWh just based on the $100 capitol cost would be less than 0.12 cents per KWh. Total system cost plus reful costs would be likely be several times this, but that is still less than 1 cent per KWh. I think you are confusing KW with KWh (Killowatt-hour). With a final cost of 1 cent per KWh, the 908 hour per month use would be $9.08 (or less) vs $108.96 for present use.

        • Charles

          Leonard wrote: “A 1 KW (or 1 KWh/h which is the same)”

          No Leonard. 1KW is a rate. 1 KWH is energy (power). They are entirely different things. You pay for power (KWH).

          • Mark Underwood

            Leonard did not say 1 kW is the same as 1 kWh. He said that 1 kW is the same as 1 kWh/h, which it is.

          • Skip

            Energy is Power over time.
            Kilowatts is Power measured at one point in time.
            Energy is (in this case) Kilowatts accumulated and measured over one hour

          • georgehants

            Regarding the topic of this page, June is nearly here, once again we wait for a conformation from Mr. Rossi on the e-cat.
            I believe that on this fair Website there is not a single person who does not Hope that he comes across with said Evidence, that will set the World on fire with many thousands of other clever people bringing Cold Fusion to those that need it most.
            We have open-mindedly followed and tried to protect Mr. Rossi from closed-minded and agenda driven attacks as it should be in all of science, but from many comments on page, I think many believe it is time to end this farce and for Mr. Rossi to release and allow information that would convince any reasonable person that the e-cat is a genuine tiger to help put right the multitude of problems in this World.

          • literate-R

            Yes, Rossi should start to behave more professional. I do not want to read any new comments from him, like he wrote at the end of last year. Effective we can say, that, until now, he has proven only 4 things: 1) Having enough time to answer a lot of mails. 2) Sitting in a container, which is filled with electronical stuff. 3) Lugano Report. 4) Posting his “so mindblowing” visions, which he might have had. That is not really helping him. We want a public statement, a result, no matter, what it might be, just a conclusion.

          • georgehants

            literate-R, all good but I disagree with your use of the word
            “professional” as if that means competent etc.
            Professional science has shown itself to be nothing but a joke in it’s handling of Cold Fusion and many other subjects.
            We then have “professional” bankers, politicians, media etc.etc. etc. that can be shown to bring the word professional to have an additional meaning of corrupt, incompetent, greedy, untruthful etc.

          • literate-R

            Ok, let me define professionality in this case. Yes, I want to say, that he has to be a lot more scientific, a lot more transparent and a lot more cautious. I did not want to mix up other scientific behaviour of other scientists regarding lenr with general scientific approaches. It is always the same: Theory has to be proven or not. If some arbitrary experiment reveales a not expected reaction, then the theorists have to dig deeper and explain, why. This seems to be the case with this lenr stuff. But if those theorists should be able to analyse the process, they need all information about the experiment’s setup,the device, and so on. And the willingness AND interest of such theorists will vanish over the time, when everything, they see, are posts of visions, what ecat might be, change, do. Therefore I wrote preofessional.

          • DrD

            BUT it’s only a private demo in June.

          • Charles

            You too are wrong Mark. Did you not see the quote marks? where I quoted him directly?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Actually, it is not quite the same since energy is power integrated over time, not simply power*time. You can get one kWh/h by applying 1 kW continuously for one hour, but if you have more than 1 kW at your disposal there are infinite possibilities. It depends on the definition of the units, though. In engineering it’s sometimes different than in physics. But even if you define 1 kWh/h as “1 kW continuously”, “1 kWh/h” means not exactly the same as “1 kW of power” (but of “continuous power”). Reducing a fraction works only if the definitions of the terms are fully compatible.

      • Observer

        Imagine a $10 100W light bulb, that when you turn it on, provides electrical power, light, and heat to your house for 6 to 12 months (on time).

        How many Watts light, heat, and/or electricity have yet to be disclosed.

      • Roland

        The terminology used in the post is very loose and leads to your confusion; Rossi’s response refers to the capital cost per 1,000 watts of output and not the cost of the power produced when the capital costs, fuel costs and life expectancy of the device are calculated. As you note, the cost of the produced power is quoted in pennies per kWh; early estimates by Rossi suggest the cost per kWh from E-cats will be under $.01 inclusive of capital and fuel costs.

        Large scale commercial power plants have a typical capital cost of $1,000.00/kW, Rossi is suggesting that the eventual capital cost of the Quark may be as low as $20.00/kW and that the upper end of the range (presumably in the early stags of production) is $100.00/kW.

        Another important part of the cost of power produced calculation is the ongoing fuel costs associated with traditional designs (coal, oil, gas); Quarks have the fuel built in so the capital costs of a Quark are inclusive of everything needed to produce power continuously for a least a year.

        Based on the lowest capital cost figure a Quark will produce power at a cost of $.0022/kWh and at the highest capital cost that would increase to $.011/kWh.

        The math looks like this:

        100W x 24hrs= 2.4kWh

        2.4kWh x 365 days= 876kWh

        Capital & fuel costs of $2.00 divided by 876kWh = $.00228/kWh

        The $2.00 device is then recycled.

      • Anon2012_2014


        Rossi (f8/f9) means you could purchase a 10 kW unit for $200 to $1000.

        If you ran that unit for 1 year without refueling and it had a COP of 6 and it directly replaced the heat output with electricity from your wall then it cost only 10/6 = 1.66 kW to run so your operating cost for the year would be 14,5 MWh = $1740 vs. electricity you saved of 87.6 MWh = $10,512. So you heat your house with ECAT for only $1740 and it cost you $200 to $1000 for the unit. Savings of around $8,000 if you only replace once per year.

      • help_lenr

        Andrea rossi is violently opposed not because he is wrong, on the contrary: he is violently opposed because he is right.

        Andrea rossi started the second stage of NEW TRUTH ACCEPTANCE as described by the german philosopher

        All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

        Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)

      • Omega Z

        He is talking about the size of the E-cat output capacity, the Hardware. (between 20 and 100 $/kW)

        A 10KW E-cat would cost between $200 to $1000.
        That would produce 10KWh at about 730 hours a month.(7,300 KWh). That would be about 87,600 KWh over 12 months.
        What your electricty will actually cost depends on many variables. Trying to determine that cost at this time would be totally unrealistic. The E-cat is just 1 of the many variables. Additional hardware will be required as well as installation costs.

        Also, will it be a continious set output or variable as in any range from 100 watts or 10KW according to demand. Will a battery be required etc, etc,,,

  • Rossi Fan

    Is it real is like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop: the world may never know.

    A question I have been pondering is whether or not IH’s statement not to believe anything anybody says about IH includes Rossi’s claim that they paid him $10 smackeroos? Has anybody seen a receipt for this?

  • Billy Jackson

    Rossi does deserve most of the credit. He has made enough noise to get others either checking on his claims or verifying them. His persistence tells me this is something he truely believes in. Due to the lack of counter claims no one has yet to come out with any evidence that his reports are false. Claiming their must be a mistake in the reports is not the same as showing the mistake.

    That being said we are in a delicate phase right now emotionally. A lot of us were hyped for this test and the pending results. we were hoping for nothing less than a Eureka! moment. Instead we have been slapped with a lawsuit and sullen silence.

    The apathy we face now is one of our own making. We got our hopes up. We knew that the fight for LENR and the E-CAT was going to be long and fierce, despite multiple discourse of market forces and speed of adoption. the true fight for LERN was always going to wind up in court.

    Rossi will face both character and career assassination attempts to discredit him in the eyes of serious investors. (where we are now). if this does not work and he manages to win his court case. Then he will be tied up with regulations and politics both at the state and federal level…

    Our hopes and dreams got smacked in the face with greed and reality. We can only hope that something shifts in our favor once more. Our dreams of energy abundance and the potentials of the e-cat are simply going slower than we wish, .the pendulum has swung the other direction for now and our dreams seem a bit dimmer.. but it will inevitably swing our way once more . We are not yet defeated and by no means is LENR and the E-Cat Dead.

    Despite all the gloom and long faces, somewhere in a basement or lab sits a technician recording readings, and taking measurements that will once more re-ignite the passions and dreams that have carried us this far.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Very well put.

      It is human nature to want certainty.
      Certainty = hope.

      We don’t know the reasons for IH’s doubts, and in fact we may well not know what IH’s objections are all about.

      As the main title states, no matter how you slice this, Rossi brought LENR out of the dark, and into view for many. In this way, Rossi is much part of the LENR story and one that has only really just begun.

      As a result, we MUST at least look seriously at Rossi’s claims for the amazing future it can bring to all.

      On the flip side, Rossi been very squiggly, and EASY steps exist to have “better” independent tests of the ecat – this aspect of Rossi is MOST troubling and such actions are not easily
      explained away.

      In the case of IH, either they are outright thwarting LENR, or their doubts about Rossi are real, or the information we have about IH’s position is incorrect at this point in time.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Right, and that lab will probably be in China.

      • Michael W Wolf

        I think you give too much credit to the Chinese. What have they innovated? But even if they did, at least the world will have it.

        • US_Citizen71

          They did invent the E-Cigarette for what its worth.

          • Omega Z

            Actually, the original E-cigarette was invented in the U.S. and patented in the 60’s or there about’s. It is quite hard to determine any difference in it’s design should you study the patents and hardware designs.

          • Omega Z

            The earliest e-cigarette can be traced to American Herbert A. Gilbert. The patent was granted in 1965. A man ahead of his time. Only prototypes were made. it was never commercialized as smoking was still in fashion.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          They do not have to innovate they steal.

        • DrD


        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          They do not have to innovate they steal.

    • Brokeeper

      Personally, considering the complexity of the system from a singular inventor (with some professorship and engineering help) I feel Andrea is achieving, where he is positioned now with the E-Cat QX, at lightening speeds. Even if competitors surface, it will be AR that will be remembered for and given the bulk of credit for the concept of LENR and its progression (not speaking of early cold fusion).

  • pg

    From JONP:
    What is your target of price per kW of power for the QuarkX ?

    Andrea Rossi
    May 9, 2016 at 9:54 AM
    Ballpark: between 20 and 100 $/kW.
    Warm Regards,

    • DrD

      Nobody over here will be buying a quark at that price.
      I currently export at ~ $0.06 /kWhr and can buy at about $0.12/kWhr.
      Gas is available as low as about $.03/kWhr.
      I hope he meant $20/MWhr!!!! OR GWhr

      • pg

        I think you are confusing the cost of the machine with the cost of the electricity.The machine will cost that. After you buy it you will not spend any money for kWhr. So the machine will be repaid in less than 1 year.

        • DrD

          You may well be correct. Certainly the units are wrong for “energy” which is what I took it to mean, he did say “power”. I’m happier with that.

          • DrD

            A very pertinent question is how will he manage the refueling. He recently suggested replacing the entire unit (groups of quarks). Does that mean that after a year we will pay for a full replacement or will we only pay the cost of the fuel plus refurb charges.

  • f sedei

    Take it from me, a relentless critic, the Ecat is real. Don’t worry, be happy!

    • Brokeeper

      I can’t believe it. The very words I was about to type. 🙂

  • Wzup

    In UK the price per kWh (unit) is from (converted to us dollar cents) 0.14 cents and upwards. If you wish to secure a price for more than one year, the price tends to go higher. The bigger companies are happy to do pay a bit extra. They prefer long term stability. About 670- 80 % of that cost is not directly related to the cost of energy, but taxation for new investments, feeding into the grid, line loss capacity of the grid etc etc etc

    • cashmemorz

      Accuracy of calculation is shown by where you put the decimal point with respect to the base of the value used. In stead of cents you must mean dollars. So your 0.14 “cents” should be 0.14 “dollars” or 14 cents per kilowatt-hr.

  • David Dow

    Personally I’m not wholly hanging my hat on what Rossi has accomplished (although I do feel he is ahead of everyone else in this field and will eventually produce a viable product). I would like to see more attention paid to the MFMP effort for verifying the viability of LENR because of the open nature of their experiment(s) and willingness to share results openly. I think there has to be quite a few people out there building experiments off of “the recipe” that was provided with that effort; it’s just too early for most of those results to be showing up yet.

    • Ophelia Rump

      How carefully you had to word that to obfuscate the origin of the recipe.
      It seems more than a little deliberate.

      • Fibber McGourlick

        What do you mean? There’s nothing at all wrong with what he wrote.

        • cashmemorz

          Careful who you support or the stain may also fall on you. Of course you may be blind or missing the point here.

        • Ophelia Rump

          If you did not know what I meant, then you would have taken it as a compliment. I Said you wrote carefully and deliberately.

          Now you are being obtuse.

        • kdk

          MFMP attempts at nickel LENR come because of the successes of Rossi, and are borne out of attempts to replicate his work. In all likelihood, Rossi is the only one who currently has a viable product… Others may eventually produce a viable product is maybe how it should have been written for accuracy. I have no doubt that they will get there.

  • Chris Marshalk

    Zero impact. There is still no product. This is like battery technology, there are always breakthroughs just never a product.

  • Skip

    Summary and opinion

    I could (and have) written much longer versions of this, but let’s look at what we know…

    Thanks to whistle blowers we now know that generally governments are largely corrupt and at the knee of greedy corporations. We know that the status quo is generally preferred to societal upheaval for governments, corporations and, in this case, main stream science. We know that the power=money elite own us little people, and manipulate our daily and future lives through news, taxes and laws.

    Let’s assume for a minute that “someone” heard about this upstart guy who actually seems to have something disruptive; what does “he” do? Maybe tell the upstart to back off and climb in a hole “or else”. The upstart might do the Italian equivalent to raising a middle finger and say “do what you will but I’m protected”. What’s this “someone” going to do now? Maybe go to the upstart’s sponsors and order them to shut him down. The only tool they have is money, so they staunch the flow to save themselves.

    The upstart may have considered this problem in advance. and prepared to use the legal system to receive what he considers is his due. Even if unsuccessful, it will raise awareness to his plight and the science involved.

    The sponsor will no doubt hope for this to all work out to their advantage sometime.

    One 1%er said 15 years…

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yeah, the E-Cat is the vulture that’s tearing the guts out of the academic peacocks.

    In 2009 Robert Duncan was called a charlatan when he came to
    the conclusion that palladium-deuterium cold fusion was real.

    (at 1:15).

  • sam

    Some questions if you care to answer.
    1) Do you know how many have followed
    your blog for all five years.
    2)How many hits on average do you get
    on your blog each day.
    3)How many years has A.R. had his blog.
    4)Any chance you might write a book
    about A.R. and the Ecat.
    5) Do you have someone to run the blog
    if you could not for whatever reason.

    • Frank Acland

      1. It’s hard to say. I can only tell by who comments. Some commenters seem to have been around since the beginning, such as georgehants, OZ, agaricus, Clovis etc. Most readers are silent, though.
      2. I would say the average number of hits (pageviews) is somewhere around 7-8k per day if you average it out over many months.
      3. I think since 2010
      4. No plans at the moment. I think Mats Lewan has done a great job, also Vessy Nikolova.
      5. No I don’t, but I probably should.

      • Is that unique IPs or general pageviews? On sifferkoll those are very different metrics! And do you experience deliberate focused hacking attempts? (not the usual bots …)

        I made som estimates on LENR interest here: If there is 7-8k unique visitors per day, I need to adjust it upwards a bit. 🙂

        I also read through the latest comments by Jed R. on Vortex-L which I found somewhat troublesome. See:

        • Alan Smith

          There are many observers – we are not short of armchair physicists. But there is a distinct reluctance on the part of my commentators to actually roll up their sleeves and do any experimenting. Such is life, I guess, even science is a spectator sport.

          • Bruce__H

            Well science is hard to do. You have to go down a lot of blind alleys. And it can be expensive.

        • Frank Acland

          That is general pageviews. Unique visitors per day has averaged around 4k per day lately. Regarding hacking attempts, no sign of anything out of the ordinary.

      • georgehants

        It will be Wonderful when the topic pages are full of reports of the good work being done by many good people, with the technology that Mr. Rossi has developed against tremendous odds. (if genuine)
        Imagine getting up in the morning and reading about the uses of the discovery helping us all to better things.

        • kdk

          That would be nice.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Then there is Hot fusion, a gravy train for nearly half a century, the ITER is pushed back now to 2035 ‘turn on’ and they have asked for another $5.3 billion.

    • Warthog

      Disgusting, isn’t it. And it is the passengers on that gravy train who have worked so assiduously to stifle LENR.

  • sam

    A interesting comment about inventions from
    ego out blog.
    Felix RendsMay 10, 2016 at 3:08 AM
    The story of LENR and ECAT and Andrea Rossi reminds me on Guglielmo Marconi the ‘inventor’ of long-distance radio transmission.

    I have set ‘inventor’ in brackets, because as every important inventor, Marconi was first studying for example the theoretical and experimental work of Heinrich Hertz and others.

    As the short history of Marconi’s invention at Wikipedia shows, even if it is such an important and disruptive invention like the long-distance radio transmission, the invention itself is worth nothing!

    It needs dozens of other factors, the ability, possibility and freedom of research, a rich family, mental supporters, financial supporters, a good friend, an unexpected helper, a ready market, a catastrophe like the sinking of the Titanic, the personal ability to cope with market rules and so on, and last but not least a lot of luck, to enter the market with a product.

    And even if you have already made a successful demonstration in the case of Marconi a long distance transmission, then there will be of course the ivory tower elite scientific community and the existing industry and all are trying to shoot down your invention by all means.

    But if you really have something and if you have enough support and luck, then your invention will not only become product, but also become cult.

    I wonder how many brilliant and important inventions rotten somewhere in dark drawers, just because the inventor was a poor man.

  • Warthog

    Duncan shows himself to be a rarity in today’s physics world….a real scientist in the true tradition of science.

    I don’t usually “do” videos, ’cause my hearing is lousy, even wearing electronic aids, so I tend to prefer written information…but as best I can tell from the autogenerated “closed captioning”, he is pretty much saying the same thing I am……though he is a bit more polite in his comments about his fellow physicists.

    The “physics community” has not exactly covered itself with glory regarding LENR.

  • literate-R

    What Ross’s E-cat has done is make the PWR and its price guarantee one huge, expensive punt.


    Not now. It will, if the stock-markets change due to this. I also would like to backup LENR a lot more, but I feel a little bit cheated, especially by Rossi. I still cannot believe, how he wants to tell us, that he has the time to work 16 hours a day on the ecat, and yet, being able to respond to thousands, of not, millions, of his supporters. That does not fit. Also, one of the most important points is, that he, as an european, choose to participate with IH/cherokee. He should know better, that, if his invention is really able to put pressure on the big fossil players, the most dangerous lobby-supporters are located in the usa.
    I cannot imagine, that he did not take this into account prior to search for investors/partners.

  • Rossi Fan

    Why wait? The energy problem is already solved. Crescent Dunes changes everything. Whip out your calculator and you’ll find that a 80 mile by 80 mile piece of desert in Arizona can supply all the power for the United States and the same can be said for Sahara/Europe.
    It would cost $1 trillion dollars. The GDP of Italy is $2T. Crescent Dunes = solar + storage all in one. Rossi only promises a more compact solution. He is not the only game in town.

    • cashmemorz

      The same reason that current semi-centralized power production has negative aspects as compared to fully distributed power sources such as LENR then the even more centralized power source such as your Crescent Dunes have their negative aspects even more so a liability. That liability is being an easy target for disruption. This means that security measures would have to be added to the core power producing structure. Extra structure adds costs to the initial, apparent, low cost. The need for security produces negative view of the operation. A fence only keeps out the honest people. A few, or more likely, many drones specially equipped by nefarious agents could make a serious dent in the power production of such a facility. The larger a project grows the extra work entailed in its upkeep grows much faster than in a smaller facility. The individualized possibilities that LENR provides also keeps such associated costs down.

      • Rossi Fan

        Central and 24/7 security beats jerking around on rooftops and worrying about tweakers taking your stuff.

        • psi2u2

          Not really when you consider the dispersed effects of centralized generation brownouts or blackouts. If your home e-cat goes out in a winter storm you can always go to your neighbor’s house, but if both houses are down because of a central supply disruption you are pretty much “up a creek.”

  • Rene

    I would amend your clincher sentence to read: As things stand now, I think we could well be on the threshold of a revolution in energy technology because of the *claims* of the E-Cat.
    Previous to the claims of massive excess thermal power, the research on LENR was mostly barely past breakeven observations. Rossi’s claims of excess heat, his self-run demonstrations, and even the 1MW demos (should some day those reports be made available to the public), all of them spur other researchers to try different methods. So, yes, just the claims alone are the catalyst for an energy tech revolution. Once researchers shed the self-quenching disbelief of a phenomena, they will, intrigued, work at understanding and discovering means and methods. Now I truly wish Rossi produces products soonest that will serve the public and not just benefit the status quo energy delivery corporations (I and many others are on his list for a domestic e-cat). But, others are now very interested to get there first, so practical LENR seems to me to be much closer than ever.

  • giovanniontheweb


    The committee is aware of recent positive developments in devel- oping low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which produce ultra- clean, low-cost renewable energy that have strong national security implications. For example, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), if LENR works it will be a ‘‘disruptive technology that could revolutionize energy production and storage.’’ The com- mittee is also aware of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s (DARPA) findings that other countries including China and India are moving forward with LENR programs of their own and that Japan has actually created its own investment fund to promote such technology. DIA has also assessed that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field and that Russia, China, Israel, and India are now devoting significant resources to LENR development. To better understand the national security implications of these de- velopments, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro- vide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements to the HouseCommittee on Armed Services by September 22, 2016. This briefing should examine the current state of research in the United States, how that compares to work being done internationally, and an assessment of the type of mili- tary applications where this technology could potentially be useful.

  • Rossi Fan

    I just said there is a solution. If there is a will there is a way.

    80 x 80 out where they used to do the nuke testing back in the 50s and problem solved

    • cashmemorz

      I think Anon is using electricity to heat his house. I have gas (no pun intended) which is about one -quarter the cost of electricity in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. So think of the costs and/or associated size of house as one-quarter the size that his calculations lead to.

  • Rossi Fan

    2016-2009 = 7 years
    this text has been around and has not changed in 7 years.
    Rossi was not in on the LENR scene back then.
    Maybe Focardi who actually went to school?

  • Frank Acland

    No, I’m personally as convinced as I ever have been about the validity of the E-Cat.

    • ivanc

      A big leap of faith!!!!

  • sam

    A comment from Jed from EgoOut.

    Jed RothwellMay 10, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    You wrote: “One of our colleagues here who seems to have excellent connection with IH now reveals now says that he knew from them – from months ago- that the !MW plant has never, ever produced a single Watt of excess heat!”

    Again you have distorted the facts. I did not say anything like that. I said that during the test, experts from I.H. and elsewhere told me they were not happy with the calorimetry. I said — repeatedly, very clearly — that I was hoping the problems would be fixed and that I.H. and Rossi would agree on the results. I was hoping for a positive final report. That is why I agreed to take part in Mats Lewan’s symposium, which was predicated on a positive report.

    Unfortunately, as you see in the I.H. March 10 press release, they did not reach agreement:

    Then, in the I.H. response to the lawsuit, I.H. said:

    “Industrial Heat has worked for over three years to substantiate the results claimed by Mr. Rossi from the E-Cat technology – all without success.”

    They told that means the 1 MW reactor does not produce excess heat. They disagree with Rossi’s conclusions. They think his calorimetry is invalid. I was not aware of this conclusion until this press release was published. I had only heard there were disagreements.

    I know a great deal about both Rossi’s work and I.H.’s work. Based on what I know, in my opinion it likely that I.H. is correct and Rossi is wrong. That is all there is to it.

    This is a technical dispute. It has nothing to do with politics or money. If the reactor worked as claimed, I am sure I.H. would be happy to pay for it. As things now stand, if they do not pay, they will not get any intellectual property. Why would they throw away an $11 million investment if they thought the reactor works? That makes no sense.

    You need to wait and read I.H.’s response to the lawsuit before you take sides. Your speculation about politics and I.H.’s motivations are unfounded nonsense. You know nothing about the technical details of the calorimetry or why I.H. does not agree with Rossi’s analysis. Until you have a chance to review the technical data, you cannot know what is going on here and you have no reason to think Rossi is right and I.H. is wrong.


    • sam

      Axil reply

      AxilMay 10, 2016 at 5:11 PM
      When a test is designed, a test paln is generated that defines what the test is going to do and how it is going to do it in detail. Both parties look at the test plan and sign off on that plan.

      This I.H. test plan should had the test procedures defined in detail which included how energy production was to be determined.

      If the test plan was not implemented as documented at the start of the test, any party that has exceptions to the details of the implementation should have resolved that exception before the test was performed.

      It sounds crazy to me… that standard testing signoff procedures were not followed in this case. I have written test plans and managed tests where each step of the test was signed off one excruciating detail at a time. If I.H. did not agree with the test procedure, the test should have been terminated on the first day and redone to the satisfaction of I.H. and restarted.