Interview with Andrea Rossi on Current and Future Developments of the E-Cat

I had a meeting over Skype with Andrea Rossi on July 20th 2017 in which I conducted an interview. Mats Lewan published an earlier interview with Rossi here which focused primarily on issues surrounding the recent litigation with Industrial Heat and the subsequent settlement which was done so well, that I felt it was not necessary to cover the same ground.

Below is a transcription of the interview.

As you look back over the last four-and-a-half years in which you were in partnership with Industrial Heat, what are you thoughts?

I have good memories of things I made positively with them, as well as, unfortunately also bad memories. It has been a very important, huge, rich experience, scientifically speaking.

What will be the effect of the settlement on your work going forward?

It affects a lot because, first of all, since we worked together beside Industrial Heat I made only a research and development work, because based on the agreement we had, they had the burden of the management of the business.

Now the situation is completely different for me because now I return to be, for all the world, not only the chief scientist of research and development, but also the chief executive officer of what will be the development of this technology in terms of its application in the industrial environment.

So my responsibility is changed completely. Also my freedom of movement. Now I am completely free to move around. Before the litigation I had a restricted area of behavior that was limited to my operation of a scientific and technological character. Now I have wider responsibilities – I think I am prepared for this.

Running a business and running a science and research program, for most companies, it’s not the same person doing that, right?

Well it is true, once they are already developed and consolidated, but in the beginning it is not true, because you think of the model of Microsoft. Mr. Bill Gates, at the beginning, I would say that he covered all the four bases, and was the pitcher and the batter, too.

To do what you want to do, which is to disseminate this technology worldwide, is going to take huge resources, financially, would you agree?


You’re a very small company at this point, as far as I can tell. So how do you get from where you are now, to where you need to be, as far as a business plan, or commercial partnerships are concerned?

My friend, does a general explain his strategy before the beginning of a battle? I am perfectly aware of my limits, and am perfectly aware of the fact that we need to move in a system, and I am working to find the right system to move in. I cannot tell you the strategy, but I can tell you the first move.

Our first move will be the presentation of the E-Cat QX that will be made around the end of October. That will be our first official, I think, strong move. And then the rest will come. I have a precise strategy; as with every strategy, it forsees many that things will change on the battlefield in the course of  operations, like when you play chess. You know the theme you are going to play, but you still don’t know where the music will lead you.

Let’s move to the E-Cat QX – What is the difference between the E-Cat QX and the early E-Cats?

I cannot tell you this now, because to answer properly to your intelligent question I would have to give an intelligent answer, and not a reticent one.  And I prefer to delay the description of the E-Cat QX to when we make the presentation.

I would say that the patent that we have covers the essentials of it, but there are substantial differences. The COP is higher, the efficiency is higher, and I am very proud of the work that my team has made on this issue. A proper description will be made when we make the presentation. A main difference is the dimension. The dimension of the E-Cat QX is extremely smaller, so the density of energy is very, very high which I think will lead to applications in fields like jet engines. But this is field of research and development that has to be developed.

If you are commercializing the E-Cat, you have to start somewhere. Which applications do you think it will be easiest to start with?

Production of heat for industrial applications. The industrial applications are necessary because it is where we have the certification. For the domestic applications we still do not have the necessary certification.  But, the production of heat in all industries where heat is basic for their production. For example: cement works, oil refineries, food industries, heating of the buildings of industries – simple heating – because in half the world you have to heat where you work for at least four or five months of the year. The most immediate product that we make is just heat. We can heat air, we can heat water, we can heat oil, we can heat whatever and we can also gain very high temperatures because the E-Cat QX reaches in its core very high temperatures. So basically, when you heat something you cannot overcome the temperature of the primary, we have a primary that has a pretty high temperature. We can have a primary of over 1000 degrees Celcius.

A heat exchanger has a primary and a secondary. The primary is where you have the heater. For example in a boiler you have a burner, and the smoke of the burner is the primary. The secondary is the water which is outside of the cylinder where the burning of the fuel happens. In our case we have the primary temperature of the burner, because a normal burner has a temperature of about 1500 degrees Celcius in the core of the flame, and we reach that temperature in our reactor.

A lot of people talk about the ability to generate electricity with the E-Cat because of concerns about carbon emissions and so forth. Does your technology have the ability to replace fossil fuels for the generation of electricity?

I hate the term “replace” because the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear “replace” is people who remain without jobs. So I would be very cautious about using this term. But I believe that it is opportune that all the energy sources integrate in time, intelligently. And for sure, the primary temperature that we reach in the E-Cat, we can heat the steam up to the 550 degrees Celsius that are necessary to have efficiencies of around 35-38 per cent with the Carnot cycle. So yes, we can be an intelligent source, without replacing anything. The planet will become always more and more thirsty for energy, so without burning jobs we can just implement our capacity to produce energy in an environmentally friendly way. Now the best available technologies for the burning of coal can allow for the burning of coal without pollution, and without creating desperation sites in places like certain towns in Pennsylvania that risk to become like ghost towns. I don’t think this is an intelligent way to do things.

You have said in the past that one of your goals, in addition to creating a new form of energy, is to create jobs.


In what areas do you see your technology providing employment opportunities for people?

Apart from the manufacturing  of E-Cat, that will be robotized — robots make  low level work, but robots create high level jobs for young people that will have to reach a high level of instruction to have a job (I don’t think this is bad, I think this is good) – and if energy becomes more competitive, this automatically generates a cascade of jobs in every sector where energy is consumed.

So you are thinking about indirect employment as well as direct employment?


You have mentioned in the past “robotized factories” – how advanced are your plans or progress towards robotized production of your E-Cat QX reactors?

It is very advanced. I have made a study with ABB, and we are very advanced with that, and when the industrialization will be made it will be made necessarily with robotized construction lines because the QuarkX can be conceived only with a robotized production line, because the QuarkX is a very small module, it is a module of between 10 and 20 Watts. So you need to be able to assemble many of them; it is unthinkable to do this job only with manual work. The basic assembly must necessarily be made with robots. I have also seen already a factory that has the kind of robots in operation to do other things, and you can see tens of thousands of pieces coming out. And also, and this has been a big pleasure, I have seen in this factory there are many guys working, guys that have to improve themselves, because now, instead of making a fatiguing work with risk also to their health, they make a work which is smart.

Can you tell me how much the materials would cost to make a Quark – just materials?

I would say, just raw materials, 1-2 cents per Watt.

This afternoon was the first time that I had become aware of a new paper that you have written with Carl-Oscar Gullström, that has been published on

It is an update that a paper that Oscar and I made several months ago, March if I remember correctly, because we gave that work to some peer reviewers who asked us to upgrade many points, and we worked again on it. Carl-Oscar Gullstrom is a very intelligent physicist, he is very young, and we will work with him. He is very strong, he is very intelligent, theoretically very prepared. He comes from a Swedish school of physics – I like him very much, I like to work with him.

The physics in the paper is very complicated, I do not understand much of it, honestly, but does what he describe match your understanding of what is happening in the E-Cat?

We have much more work to do for what concerns the theoretical issues. I think that path can bring to a theoretical explication, but as you have seen we consider this just the beginning of a long path because we are still distant to have reached a point where we can say we have found the theoretical explication of this effect.

In the past you have worked with Dr. Norman Cook

Yes, the work of Norman Cook is perfectly reconcilable with ours. Now, in this period, my friend Norman Cook, my supposition is that this litigation has kind of created in many persons a fear of making some mistake sustaining one or the other party, so many people decided to stay out of the ring and let the two boxers exchange punches of every kind, see the blood spit out, and say “let them fight, and we will go in the ring when all will have been finished”.  So my sense is that now the litigation is finished it will be easier for me to work with my friend Norman Cook.

I am sure you were aware that in the paper that was published this week was included a picture of your QX reactors. So now it’s not so much of a mystery what they look like. I noticed that two different ones were show, right? One with a heat exchanger, and one without.

The one without the heat exchanger is not an E-Cat QX. The E-Cat QX is the green one.

What is the other one?

The other one is a tool that I use to make experiments.

I see, so that is not what a QX will look like.

No, the QX will be smaller than bigger things like the green box you have seen.

There was a technical question regarding the measurement of the input power for the QX. You have a 1 Ohm resistor with .105 V input. Is that the only resistance that is measured – is there resistance in the reactor?

No. We have measured only that resistance [the 1 Ohm resistor] because that is the only resistance we have in the circuit. If the E-Cat has a resistance, that makes our calculations more conservative, because, as you well know, the resistance goes in the denominator when you make the calculus of the amps. You have volts as the numerator, and the resistance as the denominator. So the bigger the resistance, the smaller is the amount of amps.

To be conservative, since the datum of the resistance of the E-Cat QX is confidential, we just do not consider the resistance. Because correctly we should have to make the sum of the resistance of the resistor that has been put in the circuit, and the resistance of the E-Cat. So we should have amps = volts/R1 (the resistor)+R2 (the resistance of the E-Cat). But we do not consider the resistance of the E-Cat, we consider it as if it is a perfect conductor, and we only consider the one 1 Ohm to make the calculation of the amps.

To make the measurement very easy is the fact that the electricity is direct current; we use only direct current, so there are not all the complications connected with frequencies, etc.

Also in the photograph are shown two meters. What is each measuring?

We use two voltmeters to make a double check. The difference of the measurement is the margin of error of two different voltmeters ( several mV )

You talk about your presentation being your opening shot. You have said in the past that you can run the E-Cat QX from a battery producing direct current.

Yes, yes, we can run it with a battery – we need 24 Volts. So basically we can put two car batteries in series.

Well for the purpose of the presentation, myself and many other people think you need to use batteries to make things simpler than using AC from a mains source.


Would that be easy to do?

Yes, absolutely. I am using batteries in my laboratory now. Luckily, the trial is finished — luckily it is finished, because it is not just the trial, it is the preparation of the hearings – 8, 10, 12 hours with the attorneys to do something that has nothing to do with my work. It was a pain. So now I am in my factory every day, and among the many things that I do is also do experiments with batteries. There is no difference at all, we can use batteries.

Okay, well I would recommend that because I think it would make a lot of people feel more comfortable.

No problem.

I have just one question about the settlement document. There was a section in there that talked about the fuel formula. It was restricted information for just a few people.


In there it said there parts (a) and (b) for the fuel formula . (A) was hydrogen, lithium aluminum hydride, lithium and nickel (or other element in column 10 of the periodic table) — which are described in your Fluid Heater patent. And then there was b) which was an “Additional Element”, and there was no mention of this in the patent.  So what does this mean for your patent if you do not include that Additional Element?

Because a patent is valid when an expert of the art is able to reproduce an effect with the information given in the patent. Now there are many people who are expert in the art who have reproduced the effect using information in the patent. So my patent is valid, it has been validated practically in all the world for this reason, because replications have been made. And some very important replication, I suppose, is going soon to be disclosed. But also very important replications have been made from people who have just read my patent and reproduced. Obviously, this Additional Element increases the efficiency. In fact, all the replications that have been made started from Lugano had a COP that is between 2 and 3. The Additional Element makes the efficiency much higher. So this is a difference between a patent and the know-how.

So would you consider the Additional Element as a trade secret?

Yes. This is why we demanded that the settlement agreement had to be written so that all that must remain a secret.

What is the size of Leonardo Corporation, as far as the number of employees these days?

In these days employees of Leonardo are actually six persons. The dimensions of our factor at Doral are approximately 7000 square feet, there is another laboratory that is out of there – for now this is our dimension.

Let me say this, because I am proud to say this.  We are working pretty much on the 1 MW plant that has worked for one year, because probably you know that after the 16th of February 2016, the plant has been sealed by the parties, and it was in a land of nobody, like the land between the two Koreas. Basically nobody could enter there. We put our locks, they put their locks, and to enter, as in the safes of the banks, you needed two keys, etc., etc. So, it was tragicomic.

Now, I got my key, their keys also had been given back to me, I have opened everything, and now we are dismounting everything, opening all the reactors. The big ones that worked pretty well, and the small ones that never worked, because at the beginning they had many problems. Now we are going to open all of them to study. It will be very interesting, the analysis. Also the isotopic analysis of the powders of the four reactors that worked, and also the degradation that happened in one year. So now we will have precise data about how the powder became through one year, etc. In the small ones it will be very interesting to understand now why the heck they did not work, as if in some of them there was simply no charge. Because they were connected in a way that was necessary for coordination. So now I am disassembling the plant in thousands of small pieces to be analyzed because this is technology, this is how technology is made.

Ok, a change of subject. Do you have commercial interest – people who are aware of what you are doing, and interested in your work?

Yes, I do.

Let’s say I am an oil refiner and I learn about your technology from the presentation, and I think this is something that could make my process much more efficient. How do I incorporate it in my system – what’s the process?

Well the process is pretty simple. You buy the plant and the plant becomes yours, and you use it. We will put some conditions like parts that cannot be removed. Like sometimes the car makers make prototypes of cars where they put the seals in the box of the engine so that you cannot open it and they give it to you and say you go, and they give the car to you for very cheap.  So you go, and now and then you have to bring the car to them so they can test what happened inside the engine, etc., etc. We will make something like that. So basically our plant will be partially sealed where the charges are, for example, where only we will be able to put hands, and you use the plant, and we assist you.

By the way, probably you have some kind of magic capacity in your mind, some psychic capacity emanating from your brain, because the day after tomorrow I meet an oil refiner. So I don’t know you are some sort of (inaudible)

No, you mentioned it [oil refining] earlier in the interview.

Ah, that’s why you know!

Ok, what if you are a manufacturer, a technologist, and you wanted to manufacture products that incorporated your technology. Is it going to be possible for people to license this technology and pay you a royalty?

What do you mean, license the technology?

I mean you give them the formula and they go ahead and make their own products, and pay you a royalty.

I got it. Everything is possible, it depends on the agreement. You know we have just exited from an experience with a license, and we have learned the hard way how important it is to make proper agreements. Everything is possible, anybody can license anything – good contracts are necessary.  Now we have also a strong legal team, because in any case in this war we have selected a very good legal team, so now we have a legal team that is pretty much experienced in the field, and so the contracts that we are going to make will be less naïve than the agreement that I signed in 2012.

So would you say that you are open to cooperating with other industries in cooperative ways?


I know that during the one year test and after that, you mentioned a few times that it had had an effect on your health. How is your health now?

Perfect. I had problems. I had problems for many reasons. Also consider that for one year I worked from 5:00 p.m. to 10:30 a.m. the next day, sleeping from 11:00 a.m. – you sleep a few hours, you have also to read, you have to make some sport, so you sleep 3-4 hours each day. For one year and with many other factors, yes I had something serious, but I am completely healed. The last analysis had shown that there is nothing left.

  • Hhiram

    It is time for a spectacular demonstration of the QX. Something that will awake the entire world to the reality of LENR and prove once and for all that Rossi has something real.

    Rossi needs to show something that is truly *impossible*, like boil a bathtub of water for an entire day with the QX powered by a small battery.

    And this needs to happen while Rossi is still healthy, before he takes his world-changing secrets (if they are real) to his grave.

  • Zephir

    Great piece of journalist work. The stress from IH lawsuit probably adversely affected A.Rossi health, glad to hear that Andrea is fit again..

  • Buck

    Great questions. I am glad that Rossi shared that there is commercial interest, oil refiners included.

  • coolabuelo

    Great! Thanks Andrea and Frank!

  • Makes sense. E-cat & LENR as a whole is unproven in the industry. So initial contracts drawn up in an untested field are problematic. But through the drama of the previous contract Rossi has found a legal team who are now familiar with the technology and with the way Rossi works. One thing leads to another. Rossi sounds a lot more confident to me as well. I hope as equally promising rising morale is happening with other projects.

  • Gary W. Scott

    Thanks Frank (and A. Rossi) ! Trying to understand his circuit diagram. Sounds like his EcatQX can be powered by upto 24VDC (assuming he is not transforming the voltage) and draws 0.105 amps. If its average resistance is in the neighborhood of 227 ohms then it works out like this.
    That makes the input to the EcatQX at 2.5 watts with an output claimed at 10- 20 Watts COP~ 4-8 then. See circuit I’m estimating here.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In the interview he says that they „use two voltmeters to make a double check”. Therefore, I would rather think that they are both connected to the resistor (I did not analyze the photo, though).

      Using two different instruments would also be a very effective method to prevent errors due to RF interference or the like. It seems virtually impossible that both meters would produce exactly the same false reading.

    • Axil Axil

      What happens if the plasma is produced 1 to 2 watts (like a battery)?

    • GiveADogABone

      With a reported 20 Wh/h output that would make the CoP 20/2.51=8 which is a bit different to the suggested 22,000.

  • Thanks Frank. Well done.

  • artefact

    “The one without the heat exchanger is not an E-Cat QX. The E-Cat QX is the green one.”
    Good to know 🙂

  • Dan Galburt

    My take on Rossi’s proposed input power measurement method is the following:

    I think that the volt meters read the voltage across the series combination of both the 1 ohm resistor and the E-Cat Qx reactor. Thus rather than measuring the actual current passing through 1 ohm resistor and the E-Cat QX reactor the voltage measurement places an upper limit on the current and input power and a lower limit on the measured COP.

    Reactor current <= V/R

    Reactor input power <= V^2/R

    Since R =1

    Reactor current <= V

    Reactor input power <= V^2

    Assuming the reactor resistance is a positive value (A good assumption??)

    By using this method Rossi hopes to prove that the COP exceeds a minimum value without releasing information on the actual current flow through or the exact COP of the reactor. I think it is possible that the resistance of the reactor itself is variable and Rossi wants to keep information on the variability confidential.

    I also think it’s likely that the measured voltage of 0.1 volts is a value achieved when the reactor is in a near self-sustain mode. A larger current may be needed to start the reactor and its possible during startup the 1 ohm resistor is bypassed. The need for higher start power or at least voltage is reflected in need for a 24V battery.

    If my assumptions are correct then Rossi may be able to achieve his twin goals of showing the reactor works without releasing confidential information. Unfortunately it is also likely that without at least a fully independent block box test of the reactor most scientists will still not regard the functionality of the E-Cat QX as being a reality. Only credible independent testing and replications will do that. Successfully manufacturing and shipping e-Cat QX based units is not by itself an independent replication, but if the shipped reactors are reverse engineered that could result in publicly documented independent replications. I doubt that Rossi wants that to occur until he is ready.

    While showing the E-Cat QX reactor has a high COP is most important, a demonstration of the ability to switch the reactor on and off in a short period of time would be a nice to see.

    • If Rossi starts shipping boxes with a COP > 2000, the only reason scientists would replicate it is to get some of the IP themselves.

      It’s like when the Wright brothers were tweaking their design from 1903 to 1908. There was a steady stream of visitors asking to see a demo. Their response was simple: If we demo it to you, will you buy airplanes from us? The answer was hem/haw until the US Army agreed.

      The army wrote up a contract to pay them for a certain amount of airplanes if they met the demo specs which were considered incredibly aggressive just 6 months before.

      All that supposed interest in the Wright brothers wasn’t to buy airplanes, it was to steal their IP.

    • Mylan

      This is probably right, but Rossi has a significant communication problem. This point should be described in more detail, especially if you try to write a scientific paper about it.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Thank you! Most interesting.
    Makes a pleasant change from the endless insults (with no news) from the blog, that will remain nameless.

    • My presumption is that they’ll say on the next demo that Rossi cheated somehow. I just don’t see how he can cheat the next time. It always seems to be some kind of back-guessing that they find Rossi cheating somehow. It is amazing how much they attribute to Rossi as a con artist, the greatest con artist ever it would seem.

      • Why even mention “them” ? Find out your truth and stick to it. Personal truth is the real deal not outside people used to arbitrate personal truth. This article is worth revisiting in light of this. On a major investment intelligence site – … I signed up for the newsletter and found myself watching a video by their CEO (?). I also read some about what the Brent Crude Futures index really is. As I’ve found before it can be difficult for industry outsiders to appreciate how a technology like the E-cat and other LENR types is really appreciated inside the industry and by investors.

        • I mention “them” because he mentioned “them”.

        • Omega Z

          Industry insiders and investors think long term out of necessity and the long term looks bleak without some new energy sources. They understand that wind/solar combined with batteries are not true replacements of fossil energy and are merely a stop gap.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Using the E-Cat QX reactors to make E-Cat QX reactors will be the big force multiplier.

  • another fascinating read. thanks frank and Andrea!

  • Brokeeper

    This has brought much into focus. Thank you, Frank.

  • Let’s all hope that Rossi’s words are fact, not fiction. If true, it will kill the costly renewable energy schemes that require mandates and subsidies because they are so inefficient. A COP of over 2,000 will require no bribes (subsidies) or threats (mandates). Mafia style energy policy is always wrong.

    • FC

      According to the US government, unsubsidized renewables are already cheaper than everything else, bar combined-cycle gas.

      Having said that, I too wish for the E-Cat to revolutionize the industry.

      Btw, excellent job again, Frank.

      • Omega Z

        You know how to fix that don’t you. Just increase the carbon tax.

        China is building new high tech supercritical coal plants pushing 51% efficiency. They must be down around 2 cents per kilowatt. India is following suite replacing 25% efficient coal plants with the new supercritical coal plants and receiving carbon credits to boot.

      • If wind and solar were so cheap, *obviously, obviously, obviously, a million times obviously* they would not have to be mandated and subsidized. The marketplace should decide the best product at the lowest price, not our government which is idiotic and corrupt to the hilt. Politicians win elections by lying, not by telling the truth. Did you know that the Sun does not shine all the time, and at the same intensity? Did you know that the wind does not blow 24 hours a day, and at the same speed? Those facts kills their usefulness for large scale energy production. Proponents advertise wind and solar as if they were reliable and not inherently intermittent, and they ignore the fact wind and solar always need fossil fuel back-up, so you have to double the costs of construction. The end net result is sky high costs to consumers. Wind power takes up so much land that to satisfy 100% of New York City’s electricity needs with wind power would require impossible around-the-clock winds within a limited speed range, and a wind farm the size of the entire state of Connecticut. States that have wind and solar mandates have far higher energy energy costs than states that do not.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Oh,Christopher, you must get up to date on the evolution of solar and batteries. Also, please check out the history/outcomes of government subsidies in aviation, drugs and oil industry or roads for that matter.

      • Yes, already cheaper and getting even cheaper EVERYDAY with ZERO fuel cost volatility (the fuel is free).

  • Richard Hill

    CW: put 24V DC into a “chopper” get pseudo AC then use a transformer to get any voltage you want to make the plasma.

  • Omega Z

    24V DC is a lot of power when focused on a very small target. It can turn a tungsten filament white hot. Scale is everything…

  • SG

    Just hope he doesn’t go exclusive with the oil company. LOL.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      We can work out the chances of that with this.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Rossi had better count his fingers and toes before going into meeting with oil industry.

  • Andreas Moraitis
    • Andreas Moraitis

      Apart from using a HV pulse for ignition or touching the electrodes for a moment (as in the old carbon arc lamps), there might be a third way: If the material between the electrodes is conductive when the device is cold, it could be evaporated and ionized as soon as the circuit is closed. Both in the condensed and in the ionized state a low voltage would be sufficient to maintain a current. I cannot guarantee that this idea is practicable, though.

  • Karl_AA

    After the legal issues solved the E-Cat story is getting interesting again. Thank you Frank and Andrea

    • Alan DeAngelis
      • Vinney

        I just hope they also re-design the fuseluge so that it has more aerodynamic lift, thus improving overall air safety. The plane should be able to glide to land with an option to extend landing by hundreds of kilometres (from altitude of course).
        Not the flying ‘bricks’ we have today.

  • GiveADogABone

    What is the original source for the belief that the CoP of the QX is at the 22,000 level?

  • roseland67

    It appears that Engineer 48 can now order 1MW plants for his customers.

    How much time from From date of order to delivery?
    How much does the 1 MW plant cost?

  • sam

    July 22, 2017 at 10:16 PM
    Andrea Rossi
    July 23, 2017 at 7:17 AM
    All well with the E-Cat QX.
    Today we are also working with the reactors that we have disassembled from the 1 MW plant, to analyse the charges and we are finding important information.
    Warm Regards,

  • LindbergofSwed

    Thank you Frank, I am impressed that you have such a good balance when you interview and talk to people. Interesting with the Additional Element also. Is it possible to guess it based on the Lugano ashes?

  • Gerard McEk

    Thank you Frank, good work!
    It is nice to see AR free talking as he was doing before his contract with IH.
    I am sure this will lead to more interesting revelations the coming time.

  • Dr. Mike

    A really good interview! Thanks for asking the important questions for which everyone was wanting answers. It was good that you suggested Rossi power his demonstration of the E-Cat QX with batteries, since this should enable a simple measurement of the input energy going into the system with a dc voltmeter and a dc ammeter. If Rossi uses two commercial 12v auto batteries that can easily be recognized as unmodified to power his demonstration, there will be no question of energy being supplied to the system that is at a higher frequency than can be measured by the power meters. It won’t matter if the controller supplies high frequency signals to the actual device since only the system efficiency is important.

    • Optimist

      Well, it can also be tricky to measure DC current if there is a switch mode regulator drawing power from the batteries. It actually depends on the quality of the DC meter how well it captures a pulsating current/voltage. The way to go to eliminate the risk of false DC readings can be to use a T-filter with a pack of capacitors between two resistors with LP frequency well within the specified bandwidth of the multi-meter or to measure the “possible” high frequency component over the measurement resistor with a fast sampling oscilloscope or NI-ADC card. The third way would be to measure the power-dissipation of the measurement resistor but that could also call for speculations on the accuracy.

      • Omega Z

        I don’t expect this to happen, but- Batteries have a limited storage capacity. If QX output exceeds that capacity by a factor of 10, then you have an answer.

        • Optimist

          Yes you are right, but with 0.5Wh/h use at 24V the Ampere consumption is only 20mA. With regular car battery of 50Ah, it would take 2500h or over 100 days to empty it. For a 1 week demonstration, a 3.4Ah battery would be sufficient. The current consumption is however so small that it is no problem to include a simple RCR Low Pass filter in series with the input power and thereby excluding incorrect DC readings. Based on the previous history of criticism on the power ratio measures associated with the ecat, this would be a simple but important precaution to provide a “hard to deny” proof of COP.

      • Dr. Mike

        I agree that the the output of the batteries should be checked with an oscilloscope to determine the appropriate method of measuring the input power to the system. There shouldn’t be an objection to monitoring the battery output current with a sampling resistor and an oscilloscope, where as Rossi might not want to disclose what output comes from the control system and therefore probably won’t want to show this output on an oscilloscope.

  • Mylan

    I feel the same way about his coal comments. I don’t know what he is trying to reach by saying this.

    • Omega Z

      Being politically correct. Why generate resistance when you don’t have to. Besides, oil, coal, and N-gas will always be needed. They all fill multiple purposes. Should Rossi’s QX be as claims, It will still take decades to replace fossil energy needs. In the midterm, Energy companies will use Rossi’s tech to reduce production costs.

      To replace current energy demands will require several (100 Billion Quarks) “a year”. It will take decades to build out the capacity and support structure to accomplish that. In time. Given a 10 year average life cycle in private vehicles would require 30 billion Quarks alone every year. That doesn’t include other transport such as maritime transport. air travel and farming and industrial machines which will require replacement Quarks every year. And, They say energy demand will increase possibly double in a few decades.

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding: “And then there was b) which was an “Additional Element”, and there was no mention of this in the patent. So what does this mean for your patent if you do not include that Additional Element?”

    IMHO, Rossi and R, Mills are working with the same plasma based reaction. Mills says he is using a secret oxygen carrying metallic oxide compound to ignite the plasma in his reaction. Now Rossi says the same thing. So it goes to reason that the Rossi secret additive is an oxygen base compound. The compound that Mills is using might be vanadium oxide.

    Vanadium(II) oxide, has a vaporization point ( Boiling point – 2,627 °C (4,761 °F; 2,900 K) that fits well into the plasma temperature range that the QuarkX is running at.

    The problem that Rossi will face is that this oxygen based additive and its various alternatives have been patented by R.Mills, so Rossi might have some IP problems ahead.

    • Omega Z

      You can’t patent elements. You could only patent say- a special processing technique.
      Of course that would rule out legal battles.

      • Axil Axil


        Mills and Rossi are both patenting an energy generating catalytic system where the catalysts are listed as a component of their IP.

        • Buck

          What about adding adjacent elements across and down the periodic table thereby changing the mix?

          Lawyers can argue that their mix is not equivalent, is actually superior, and therefore not infringing. This is especially true as Mills is still caught up by his inability to show a harnessed system whereas Rossi will presumably be demonstrating a commercially viable prototype.

          • Axil Axil

            Mills has been producing patents of catalysts for 25 years and he must have in that time included every possible chemical compound that exists. This is the great talent that Mills has, writing patent applications that are hundreds of pages long filled with lists of chemical compounds.

          • Buck

            . . . . and still nothing works.

            Time will tell how the pending IP conflict within the LENR industry unfolds.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Catalysts can be formed in situ by a chemical/physical/atomic process so only elements can be added and as said above, these cannot be patented.

          • Axil Axil

            The in situ procedure including the chemical compounds that respond to that process can be patented as a package…right?

          • Omega Z

            Topic- can it be copyrighted


            Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.

            Note that if your recipe has secret ingredients that you do not want to reveal, you may not want to submit it for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records.

            As I understand it, a cookbook and it’s illustrations, format may be copyrighted, but individual recipes not so much.

            Note Rossi has stated to Frank that the additional element falls under trade secret…

          • Bob Greenyer

            it becomes more difficult

          • roseland67

            Which makes the IP issue moot,
            I do not see why people are so concerned/wrapped up in the idea that Rossi’s IP is worth anything.

            If the Ecat works as claimed,
            (Energy Out > Energy In),
            the first company to buy one will reverse engineer it.

          • Bob Greenyer

            And that is why it will be leased, with high penalties for tampering.

          • roseland67


            Think about it,
            How high a penalty can make someone NOT reverse engineer the single greatest advance since the internet?
            Further, how can Rossi possibly hope to “Police” this possibility?

            IF, the Ecat works as stated, the potential is to great, no one will stop because of a $$$ penalty.
            Rossi simply cannot defend this, it is impossible, he must see this eventuality

          • Omega Z

            Can recipes be protected under copyright Law?. In a word, no. As a federal judge in Ohio recently explained, copyright protects the particular layout of a recipe in a published recipe book, or the photos that accompany the recipe. But copyright does not protect the idea or instructions that the recipe embodies.
            Trade Secrets aka formulas and processes can be legally protected. If one takes the proper steps to protect them with NDA’s and confidentiality agreements to assure they do not become commonly known. If it’s proven they were obtained by misappropriation, you can collect up to double any proven economical damage and may include all legal costs.

            How such claims are dealt with depends on geographic location as the trade laws that pertain to them may very even state by state in the U.S.. However, these laws are quickly becoming uniform. Legally recognized in most of the world and observed by everyone else.

            However, unlike patents etc, If someone develops/discovers with their own intellect what turns out to be your trade secret all by themselves, you have no legal recourse. Said person can what they please with it.

            If a trade secret is obtained by reverse engineering, chemical analysis or what ever may be considered as misappropriation, but as yet, not been taken up by the courts.

            The courts can’t require you to give up your trade secret. A judge has twice ordered COKE to do so and both times COKE successfully defended against it…
            In legal proceedings, a judge is also required to take what ever actions are necessary to protect trade secrets by closed door, gag orders or whatever.

        • Omega Z

          They are patenting devices. The patent includes a list of the catalysts(elements) but they are not patented. Also, any special device for processing those catalysts can also be patented.

          Elements like music. I can patent a specific patern of notes, but the musical notes themselves can not be.

          • Axil Axil

            A mixture of catalysts are like music. Lithium aluminum hydride is one note of the song and vanadium oxide is another note. The song of the two combined together is the LENR song.

            Mills has specified a billion such combinations and has covered a huge range of catalytic music

    • Optimist

      It will be interesting to see how the world will handle the IP issues. Obama used in 2013 a veto in a patent fight regarding an IP that Samsung had that would have limited the import of some Apple products into the US market. If the interest of a couple of mobile products was enough to abandon the general US patent policy, what can you say about a technology that could prevent an apocalypse? Will any country respect that IP or will the time that Rossi and Mills have to gain profit be limited to the time frame until replicators catch up with them? Is shorting the energy company stock maybe the only way to profit?

      • roseland67


        Whoever buys the 1st working
        Energy Out > Energy In Ecat will disassemble it and find out what makes it work.
        The potential payoff is simply to great.

        The IP that everyone discusses here will be repackaged, the IP issue is moot, if real, it will be duplicated immediately.

        • Bob Greenyer

          With COP significantly over 1 and recoverable driving power greater than input, then COP becomes meaningless as you can close the loop.

          What then becomes important is safety – so the optimal elemental and driving choice may not be the safest, and so choosing alternatives with a lower 1st yield that are fully safe may be important.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Rossi has said he recognizes that problem and his solution is to set up an automated production line to sell them cheap enough to discourage reverse engineering.

  • Axil Axil

    From the eyewitness description of the QuarkX that Alan Smith gave us as follows:

    “I do remember. BTW, eye witness accounts claim that the tube itself is transparent, and the electrodes bright silver colour. nothing is visible in the gap. I have no idea about sealing or anything else – except that the plasma can apparently be made ‘any colour you like’. The example shown was glowing yellow when energised for short periods. That’s all the info I have.”

    The transparent tube is not obscured by wiring, so the quadrupole field must be produced by circuit loops at the ends of the tube (maybe boron nitride). A possible endcap circuit might look like this:

  • Stephen

    Just thought it’s worth mentioning Andrea Rossi just mentioned on JONP. That the E-Cat QX has the same conductivity as silver.

    I’m not sure how to copy that post here, maybe someone can help me out with that.

    I’m not sure what this means for the resistance of the E-Cat QX but silver has the highest electrical conductivity of all metals even more than copper.

    I wonder if he uses silver or that it just has similar conductivity.

    • Buck

      July 23, 2017 at 2:15 PM

      Dr Andrea Rossi

      Is the E-Cat QX an electric conductor or does it have a resistance ?


      Andrea Rossi
      July 23, 2017 at 2:57 PM


      The E-Cat QX has the same conductivity of Silver.

      Warm Regards,


      • Stephen

        Thanks Buck

    • GiveADogABone

      Battery 24V DC
      1 Ohm resistor short circuited – current? 24A
      Actual current in the battery, 1 Ohm resistor, Qx and current limiter in normal service? 0.1A

      Deduction: there is an active current limiter in series with the battery, 1 Ohm resistor and the QX during normal operation that is out of circuit during startup.
      Ballast Basics:
      For a lighting device based on electric gas discharge to work, the ionization of gas in the tube is necessary. This phenomenon takes place at a relatively high potential difference and/or temperature than the normal operating conditions of the lamp. After the arc is set up, the conditions can be brought down to normal. To achieve this, three types of methods are generally employed: pre-heat, instant start and rapid start. In pre-heat, the electrodes of the lamp are heated to a high temperature before the voltage is impressed upon them through a starter. Instant start ballasts were developed to start lamps without delay or flashing and use an initial high voltage in place of raised temperatures. Rapid start ballasts make a tradeoff between pre-heat and instant start and use a separate set of windings to initially heat the electrodes for a lesser duration and then, using a relatively lower voltage to start the lamp. Another type, programmed start ballasts is a variant of rapid-start. Any of these starting principles may be used in the ballasts. Initially, when the gas is unionized, it offers a high resistance path to current. But after the ionization takes place and the arc is set up, the resistance drops to a very low value, almost acting like a short circuit. If all this current is allowed to pass through the lamp, the lamp would either burn out or cause the power supply to fail. Thus the ballast needs to perform the current limiting.

      • Gerard McEk

        The QX can be very easily driven. The existing controller can do 100 QX’s as AR told Frank. This all seem to point to my assumption:
        The reactor controller can initiate and stop the QX’s (probably by a high voltage pulse). The QX reactor has an internal current source and once started, it continues in a stable Self Sustaining Mode. The external resistor may be required for stability of this SSM. (Today I asked AR about the need of this resistor). I would be not surprised if no external drive is required while in operation, but only to start and stop the QX'(s).

        • GiveADogABone

          It is really early days in studying this lot but I am hooked on :

          Gas discharge devices are CCNR(current controlled negative resistance) or ‘S’ type, so require a bias current to operate in the NDR(Negative Differential Resistance) mode.

          The DC current bias has to be sustained continuously and I guess the battery is essential for that. The maximum electrical power output seems to be a function of (V2-V1)(i1-i2).

          I saw somewhere that such a device can be open circuit stable, so maybe if you want just heat and light then the battery can be disconnected.

          • Gerard McEk

            AR replied on my question if the 1 ohm resistor is required that this information is ‘confidential’.
            To Uwe Doms he replied that during the test the QX would be 67% of the time in SSM.

          • GiveADogABone

            What does SSM mean if the QX is generating 10% electricity? Perhaps just the DC is open circuit and an AC signal injection, that can be amplified to produce the 2W AC output, is input?

          • Gerard McEk

            I have no idea how AR defines SSM in this case. If the resistor is essential for the LENR process to work, then he may not add the energy generated in it as output energy.
            I personally would define the process by electrical energy in (measured at the mains side) and heat energy out.
            I have no idea if he is using a separate AC signal injection to control the LENR process, but if he does that energy needs to be included in the COP calculation.

          • Omega Z

            If I understand right, Rossi said the control box can function with AC/DC, but the Quark only works with DC. aka, power supplied the QX by the control box is only DC.

          • US_Citizen71

            Now imagine that gas arc is being heated by Li7 + p -> Be8 -> 2 He4 + 17.2 MeV reactions. The elements are there are they energetic enough to react?

      • Stephen

        Yes. Especially if in addition to those points if the LENR once initiated, can either directly or indirectly sustain the plasma as well.

  • Omega Z

    As usual, you show your lack of economic understanding. There are 2 kinds of business in the world. Those who make a profit and those going broke and with no change in circumstances close up.

    If you want to complain about inequities, then complain about those that are real. Bankers who recieve $20M income, coaches that recieve $10M, ballplayers who recieve $50M a year, But keep in mind they a very few. The majority of ballplayers, bankers and coaches make a fraction of that.

    It’s interesting that society often rebels against the wealthy, yet never find much in the way of money. It’s because most people can’t differentiate between wealth and money. On the plus side, we have a number of great movies such as “National Treasure” where they find that fictional wealth.

    Also interesting is that you rale against a system that has provided the world with it’s highest standard of living in history. Perhaps you would like it better in the 16th century where reaching the ripe old age of 40 was a major milestone.

    Anyway, If you don’t want me to make a profit growing your food or building you a house, you should just do it yourself. Then you will note feel exploited…

  • Bob Greenyer

    What might be the ‘secret additional element’ in Rossi’s latest reactor

    • Richard Hill

      Bob, Do you feel sorry for the poor speculators who have their garages filled with bags of lithium carbonate over layers of nickel bars. They now have to rush out and buy Rossi’s secret element.
      If you are right and its only carbon they will top themselves.

      • Bob Greenyer

        They can always consume the Lithium carbonate to mediate their mood.

    • Drewling Beaver

      cant answer but i know both foccardi and industrial heat worked at some point with palladium as an additive to nickel… u know can get messy…. but they did for some reason

      • Bob Greenyer

        Pd is very good at storing Hydrogen isotopes.

  • Gerard McEk

    This is an interesting comment, not shown in rossilivecat:
    Andrea Rossi
    July 23, 2017 at 9:22 PM
    Mike Phalen:
    No and it is not relevant to the COP of the E-Cat QX. By the way, I can say that such consume mainly is due to the cooling system and the heat can be recovered. We have a strong overheating of the electronic components due to the high temperature of the reactor that by conductivity through the copper cables reaches the circuitry. It has been a struggle against the time: how to exchange heat soon enough and efficiently enough to avoid the burn of some essential component. We burnt a lot of control systems before finding the solution, because the normal thermostatic systems were useless, due to the time lapsed between the set and the real exchange of enough heat to save the components. It seems stupid, but it was not. We tried without success all the traditional systems, but for one reason or another, they were either not efficient or too “dirt” ( like immersing all in dielectric oil). Most of our unreliability issues came from this problem. At the end we found the solution.
    Warm Regards,

    • Bob Greenyer

      Circulate Hydrogen, Highest heat capacity and you just increase the circulation speed as required. Ok, so it has other issues.

    • Gerard McEk

      My conclusion is that some ‘electronic components’ seem to be located quite near to the E-cat QX.

      • Gerard McEk

        It could also be that very high frequencies, generated by the QX were causing the troubles. If this was the case, then a wire wound 1 ohm resistor near the QX may have cured this, because it’s inductance has a considerable impedance for these high frequencies.

  • FC

    I totally agree with you from a political point of view. Subsidies distort the economy, which I believe is best when left alone. (I’m sure other people here will disagree.)

    But do you really think that coal, oil, gas and nuclear aren’t subsidized (either directly, indirectly – through military intervention – or both)?

    I think that all forms of energy have been and continue to be subsidized. I would support banning subsidies today and choosing the cheapest, safest and most beneficial energy source. Which nowadays, in my opinion, is a combination of solar, wind, hydro and geothermal.

    Btw, I would bet CO2 from coal kills more birds, let alone human beings, than wind turbines.

    • I oppose all subsidies. That said, the amount of subsidies for wind and solar are far higher (by a enormous amount) than for fossil fuels per btu of energy produced. Fossil fuel subsidies are totally unjustified and not needed. If a product works at a good price, people will buy it. If there is demand for a product, producers will sell it and expand production. We need LENR or simplified hot fusion to replace fossil fuels ASAP. I am optimistic there will be a solution, but I have no idea which company will produce an actual viable product first. This is an old article and the exact numbers are way out of date, but the basic situation has not changed much.

      • FC

        Thanks for the link. I have read a few similar articles before. I think it is slanted and outdated.

        I fully agree that putting LENR on the market is the preferable option, but it may take another 20 years, for all we know. In the meantime, there are economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

        I recommend that you watch this video:

        Which is a fragment of this longer video:

  • sam

    Frank Acland
    July 23, 2017 at 7:18 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    How many 20W E-Cat QX reactors would you be able to operate from a single control box like the one you used in the recent Gullstroem-Rossi paper?

    Many thanks,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    July 23, 2017 at 9:21 PM
    Frank Acland:
    One hundred.
    Warm Regards,

    July 23, 2017 at 2:53 PM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    During the demo of the E-Cat QX will you give detailed information of it?

    Andrea Rossi
    July 23, 2017 at 3:02 PM
    We will give information about what is not confidential, for obvious reasons.
    Warm Regards,

  • hhiram

    The short duration also makes the claim that the reaction is LENR doubtful, since ordinary chemistry (i.e. oxidization/burning) could produce the same energy from the fuel for a short time. The only way to confirm it is LENR is to have the total energy out FAR exceed what is possible from ordinary chemistry. All critics will look at the 1.8 seconds and dismiss the claims about LENR immediately.

    • Omega Z

      But this test was not done for us. It was done for the sole purposes of Rossi & Gullstrom.

  • fusionrudy

    I have never seen heat pipes mentioned in the discussions about cooling. According to my knowledge they are far superior to copper or silver in conducting heat away. They are frequently used in Space systems.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    It is not clear how he is measuring the thermal output and where the 1.8 seconds comes from. If, as Rossi has said, you can start and stop the reaction quickly, he might have taken a temperature reading, turned on the reaction for 1.8 seconds, and then turned it off. He could then wait until the temperature rise was at a maximum to read the 1.58 degree C difference.

    Several things are puzzling about the measurement. First of all, the picture shows a thermometer that someone has said is a kitchen thermometer. To my knowledge, those devices have a time constant (time to reach 63.2% of the final temperature difference) of many seconds. A time of 1.8 seconds would not be a feasible period to make the temperature measurement.

    On his blog, he has said that the October (November, December,….??) test will use a flow-calorimeter. This is different from the apparatus exposed in the paper. He has also said that the measurement will use a Omega certified Type-K thermocouple to make the measurement. He might have used that in the measurements for the paper, and the displayed temperature probe is bogus. I am not sure. If anyone has a part number of the paper’s pictured temperature sensor, please let us know.

    I looked up the Omega Type-K data and studied the time constants for fine-wire thermocouples. Omega has a handy chart here:

    What you can see from the charts is that there is a radical difference between fine, unsheathed sensors, and sheathed sensors. The unsheathed 0.001″ wire has a time constant of 0.003 seconds. Typically you must wait about 5 time constants for an accurate temperature reading when measuring temperature changes. If a sheath is added, the finest diameter sheath (1/32″) bumps the time constant up to about 1.8 seconds.

    For the paper, since the authors mention 1.8 seconds and a delta t of 1.58C, and since the apparatus picture does not show fluid in/out lines for the calorimetry, we can infer that they made a measurement over that short time. For the upcoming October test, Rossi has said that he will use a flow-calorimeter. For that, the Type-K probe with a “seconds” time constant can make accurate measurements.

    Another issue is how he could make the 1.58C measurement with a thermocouple. To my knowledge, thermocouples are not that accurate. If the displayed temperature probe is a kitchen type probe, it typically only displays one digit to the right of the decimal point. Omega states the accuracy of Type-K (over a wide range) as “Greater of 2.2°C or 0.75%” — however that is over a wide temperature range. Over a narrow range, it might be that accurate. It is worth noting that the Type K thermocouple only changes about 40 microvolts per degree C at 100C. Making an accurate measurement at that low a voltage also introduces error.

    Short answer: We need more information about how the calorimetry in the paper was actually done.

    • Frank Acland

      I asked about the 1.8 seconds on the JONP today, Tom. He explained:

      Andrea Rossi
      July 25, 2017 at 6:47 AM
      Frank Acland:
      It is a formula to calculate the speed of heating: it means that we measured a speed of heating of 1.58 Celsius degree every 1,8 seconds in a mass of 11 grams of water.
      Warm Regards,

      • The 1.8 seconds may indicate a collection rate of 2000 samples per hour (or some multiple thereof).

        2000 / 3600 s = 1 / 1.8 s

        So the “arbitrary” 1.8 seems to be related to the selection of a much more pleasing integer collection rate over some longer period of time… as 1.8 is evenly divisible by 6, and 60’s are all over the place when dealing with time.

        • Frank Acland

          Good explanation!

          • artefact

            On JONP:
            “Andrea Rossi July 25, 2017 at 8:38 AM
            Frank Acland:
            The choice of a period of 1.8 seconds is due to our kind of calculations.
            Warm Regards, Andrea

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Thanks for asking the question, Frank. My guess is that the 1.8 seconds is related to the analog acquisition system and tempered by the time constant of the sensor. What Rossi’s explanation also is somewhat different from the paper because the paper talks about mineral oil, not water, giving it a specific heat and density value.

        Alternately, the measurement could have been made over many seconds and the temperature delta expressed in terms of 1.8 seconds. For example, measure it over 60 seconds, noting the temperature rise of 52.7 Degrees C and then dividing by 60 giving a “degrees per second” and then multiplying by 1.8.

        If you have a first order system (a heater in a mass of water is very similar to a first order system) with a fixed heater power and a heat loss proportional to the temperature difference of the environment, you will see an exponential rise in temperature that “slows” as the system reaches the point where the heat loss matches the heater power. By measuring the temperature verses time, you can fit the data to a model that estimates the initial slope of the temperature rise (where the loss is zero because the temperature difference is zero). Rossi did mention that the heat loss through leads caused control system failure, so it is significant when estimating heat out of the QX.

  • Samec

    Dr. Rossi not want convincing demo. He want maximum of CEOs in information assymetry. Unconvinced CEOs will doing wrong decisions for example: start building nuclear powerplant for 500 billion (in our country). Every one day of delayed convincing demo cost this planet 3 billion USD because of wrong decisions of uninformed CEOs. Dr. Rossi knows this phenomenon.

  • hhiram

    I agree completely DocSiders, which is why after many years of following Rossi I still have less than 10% confidence that has a real LENR reactor.

    If his reactors really worked without any issues, IH would have done anything in the world to keep him happy. They would have happily paid $89 million to partner with a technology worth billions.

    For goodness sake, if Rossi demonstrates his QX in October and it is totally convincing, then he could easily raise $100 million via Kickstarter with no investor strings attached.

    So despite all of the complexity of the settlement, the simple truth is that if he had a bullet-proof LENR reactor that produced COP > 10, there would be people lining up around the world like you and me to invest everything we own in his company.

    My guess is that he either has nothing, or he has a working LENR reactor that actually produces only a very small and not commercially useful COP of 1.1 or something like that.

    But of course I desperately hope he proves me wrong in October!

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi July 26, 2017 at 6:38 AM
    Today we are making substantial improvements to raise the power of the apparatus that will be presented in the demonstration.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • Jimr

      Foolish to make changes just prior to demo, on something that has been running successfully. Thats like a wife preparing a favorite dish for company and experimenting with a new receipe.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi has more then 1 QX in operation.

        Also, when you look at the pictures, you’ll see 2 different rigs setup. The 1 on the right is a QX set for operation with the heat exchanger around it.

        The rig on the left, Rossi uses for testing various ideas such as improving the power range ect.. If it doesn’t work out, he still has the QX type he is currently using. In the mean time, he has 3 months to play with before the demo.

    • Buck

      This may be a very good idea. It is my hope that he chooses to use a larger number of E-Cat QXs than 1.

      Rossi has stated that he wants to present this to many different people in October. It is my guess that if he includes non-science non-engineering types, he will need to be more dramatic than what a single QX can achieve.

      It is important to recognize that it takes a QX 3.09 minutes to raise 1L of water by 1C. The scientists and engineers in the group will recognize the importance of COP and the implications of what a small QX achieved. But, the “civilians” will want something far more impressive such as bringing 20L to a boil quickly.

      A grouping of 100 QXs may be the answer.


      Steve Karels worked through the math on how quickly a single E-Cat QX module will raise xxx grams of water 1C.

      I worked the math for an answer in min/liter, building upon Steve’s work, because it gives an easier volume and time scale for me to understand. And it points to a scale for the demonstration this October.

      It will take 3.09 minutes to raise 1L of water 1C.


      Steven N. Karels
      July 25, 2017 at 12:54 PM

      Dear Andrea Rossi,

      You posted “Flow heating: 1.58 C / 1.8″ x 11 g”
      Just to make sure we understand your nomenclature:
      11 grams of water flowed over 1.8 seconds causing a change in temperature of the water of 1.58C.
      Water flow rate past the reactor = 11 grams / 1.8 sec = 6.1 grams of water per second
      The thermal change rate was 1.58C in 1.8 seconds or 0.88C/sec
      Therefore, the amount of water raised 1C in one second was 6.1 grams of water raising 0.88C in one second or 5.4 grams of water was raised 1C in one second
      A Calorie is defined as raising 1 gram of water at normal pressure 1 C and 1 Calorie = 4.186 Joules
      So raising 5.4 grams of water 1 C in one second required 5.4 Calories or 22.47W

      Is this interpretation correct?

      Andrea Rossi
      July 25, 2017 at 2:24 PM

      Steven N. Karels:

      Thank you for your insight,

      Warm Regards,


  • Andreas Moraitis

    The question if the output reached the claimed 1MW has never been relevant. It was all about the required COP (> 4 to 6, according to the contract). That means > 40 to 60 kW, at an input of 10 kW.

    • Bruce__H

      I’m not talking about what is or what is not relevant to the legal issues in the case. I am talking about the physical limitations of the plant.

      Penon and Rossi both claimed that the plant at Doral regularly ran at 1 MW power. If this claim conflicts with physical principles then it can’t be true. THHuxley’s analysis indicates that the proported heat exchanger on the 2nd storey of the Doral facility could not have dissipated even 0.5 MW without requiring several times the electrical power actually delivered to it by Florida Power and Light. It would therefore seem that the heat exchanger never existed in the manner that Rossi claims. .

      • US_Citizen71

        Exactly how do you do an accurate analysis of a system that you have no diagrams, plans or pictures of? To me it sounds like a total strawman argument.

  • FC

    Totally agreed. Personally, I never liked the biofuel idea. And if it was up to me, I would never allow subsidies to distort market forces.

  • Jonas Matuzas
  • Gerard McEk

    Today Andrea made an interesting remark:
    Andrea Rossi
    July 26, 2017 at 6:38 AM
    Today we are making substantial improvements to raise the power of the apparatus that will be presented in the demonstration.
    Warm Regards,

    So how does he improve the ‘power of the apparatus’?
    I assume he meant the E-cat QX.
    He can improve that by improving the heat take-off from the QX? OR
    Raise the current (if that is possible)? OR
    Better reactor housing material? OR
    Improved controller?
    Any other suggestion?

    • US_Citizen71

      He may be daisy chaining multiple reactors together so that the system COP is >1, if the total system COP is calculated in the demonstration. I know he claims not to read the LENR Forum but I am not sure if he reads E-Catworld. With all of the suggestions and discussions about the upcoming demonstration here, he might have made the decision to improve the demonstration this way.

    • artefact

      On JONP:

      “Steven N. Karels July 26, 2017 at 9:36 AM
      Dear Andrea Rossi,
      Are the improvements:
      1. Raising the output power from a single reactor?
      2. Ganging additional reactors together?
      3. Both?

      Andrea Rossi July 26, 2017 at 3:44 PM
      Steven N. Karels:
      1- no
      2- yes
      3- no
      Warm Regards, A.R.

      Andrea Rossi July 26, 2017 at 3:41 PM
      1- we are putting more modules in parallel
      2- between 200 and 500 W
      Thank you for your attention and sustain,
      Warm Regards, A.R.”

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes I saw. I forgot the most obvious one, although when I started my comment I had that in mind, but wile thinking of alternatives I forgot to write it down. I’m getting old… 😉

  • Omega Z

    If you really want to increase the efficiency of a heat exchanger, you push the air through it rather then pull the air through.

  • US_Citizen71

    At minimum Wong was suppose to have had a first person view of heat exchanger.

    My question for you, if Wong is the incompetent charlatan that those over at the LENR Forum claimed him to be, why would you use his testimony as a source for anything? So is he incompetent or competent? He can’t be both unless he is Schrodinger’s Engineer!

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Who cares. If you want to increase the heat exchanger efficiency, there are a number of ways to do so. Spraying a mist of water is one. Increasing fan speed, more fins, etc.

    The point is stop beating a dead horse. IH and Rossi settled and the plant is being disassembled.

  • Stephen

    Hi Bruce__H.

    Maybe pages 188 and 189 of these dispositions will clarify things a bit.

    Andrea Rossi explains quite well the lay out etc.

    Earlier postings in the docket were quite selective but I think these fuller ones clarify things a bit.

    According to this both the fans are attached to the other side of the heat exchanger box with respect to the windows and draw air into the heat exchanger from there.

  • Buck


    If my math works, 20 modules will take about 15min to raise 1L of water 100C. This assumes that it takes 1 module about 3.09min to raise 1L of water 1C.

    I am guessing this will be more visually dramatic to the non-scientists and non-engineers watching the October demonstration of the E-Cat QX than watching a single QX heat water.


    July 26, 2017 at 9:20 AM

    Dear Dr. Rossi

    You say that you are increasing the power. Is this be combining
    multiple E-CAT QX’s together. Could you give an indication of how many
    you will now show at the demonstration?



    Andrea Rossi
    July 26, 2017 at 3:46 PM


    We are piling up 20 modules.
    Today we worked all the day on the apparatus for the demonstration, it is working.

    Warm Regards,


    • Buck

      The above calculations were based upon the recent Rossi-Gullstrom published results.

      In the Karels-Rossi exchange below, Rossi makes it clear that the QX modules will be run with a target of 10W output rather than the 22W of the Rossi-Gullstrom results, essentially doubling the time to drive an temperature increase of 1C.


      Steven N. Karels
      July 26, 2017 at 6:43 PM
      Dear Andrea,
      1. How many in parallel?
      2. All controlled by a single controller?
      3. Still no phase change?

      Andrea Rossi
      July 26, 2017 at 8:04 PM
      Steven N.Karels:
      1- we’ll see. Our module at average, not risky operation, has a power of 10 W, now we are working to pile them up in a tiny space.
      2- yes
      3- yes, we’ll increase the flow to maintain the T below 100 Celsius degrees, just to make measurements simpler.
      Direct current, liquid phase make the test a simpler case
      Warm Regards,

      • Björn-Ola

        It will be a good test, I think.
        They will use a flow instead of heating up oil. No phase shift.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          I agree that this is a better way to measure evolved heat.

        • Björn-Ola

          Andrea Rossi
          July 29, 2017 at 9:10 PM
          It will be a calorimetric measurement, based on the delta T of the water in liquid phase. We are not going to light bulbs for the simple reason that we make heat, not electricity.
          Warm Regards,

    • Jimr

      Is Rossi saying that they have not experimented with 20 or 100 modules tied together previously. I’m beginning to wonder about his operation.

  • Omega Z

    When you pull air through, the air takes the path of least resistance with reduced surface area contact. When it is pushed through, it creates turbulence and the air contacts a greater surface area. In high efficiency gas heating systems this is criticle as they use steel tubing twisted like a pretzel. Lack of proper airflow causes hot spots and early failures. AC condensers actually pull air through, but that’s due to cost considerations. If Rossi did pull air through the heat exchanger, that also likely had to do with cost considerations.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Apparently you are not familiar with the term “beating a dead horse”. Rossi now owns the 1MW device, he has said that it will not be the path he used in the future, and he is taking it apart. It is dead.

    The only implications for people who want to order the Ecat QX are that the Ecat QX works as advertised. There are no “profound implications”.

  • US_Citizen71

    So you are now claiming Wong is competent?

  • US_Citizen71

    Yes I have looked at it it is a wonderfully crafted piece of FUD. I would rate it 80% pontification and self-adulation, 15% mudslinging and 5% information. His spreadsheet is very difficult to follow at best. He leaves it to the reader to try and figure where he pulled his data from, sure he sprinkle links throughout his rant but does not indicated on his sheet where any figure he used came from. THH mentions several times that although he found several references that matched Wong’s data used in Wong’s calculation he continued searching until he found numbers that matched his predetermined conclusion that Wong used bad data. When faced with a Google warrior whose own admission “I will always be grateful to Rossi and Wong for encouraging me to learn about heat exchangers. The maths, which I had when young always avoided…” shows he just learned thermal dynamics via Google vs a professor of mechanical engineering I will side with the Professor.

    Going back to my original comment that you still have not answered “Exactly how do you do an accurate analysis of a system that you have no diagrams, plans or pictures of?” the answer is you can’t. Wong’s finding would not have held up in court as an absolute determination of the capabilities of the 2nd floor heat exchanger in my opinion and neither would THH’s. But as stated above I have more confidence in Wong’s conclusion than I do of THH’s conclusion.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    „And if that part isn’t true then the E-Cats don’t work either.”

    That’s a strange kind of logic. If there was not enough capability to dissipate 1MW (minus consumption and losses), you could only conclude that the output must have been lower than claimed. So what? At a heat-to-electricity conversion efficiency of 0.3, a COP of about 4 would be enough to make the technology economically viable. THH would have to prove that the COP was below this threshold if he wants to make a point.

    • Bruce__H

      You are completely correct. I should have said that the E-Cats don’t work in the manner claimed by Penon and Rossi.

      From THHuxelynew’s work it might be possible to say how much heat could have been dissipated from the heat exchanger and therefore what the maximal COP could be. I will think about that.

      I do have my doubts about the existence of Rossi’s heat exhanger at all though. After all, as late as April 2016, a month after the Doral trial was finished, Rossi claimed in an interview with Mats Lewan that any heat not used up by the processing taking place in the JMP part of the Doral factory was sent out through the roof. No mention of a 2nd-storey heat-exchanger. Why not? Does this means he was lying to Mats Lewan?

  • Thomas Kaminski

    A number of things were provably false in IH’s submission. By your conjecture, IH is fraudulent.

    • Bruce__H

      OK. That has nothing to do with my concerns about the E-Cat though.

      To review. If Rossi’s claims about how the Doral test worked turns out to be physically impossible, then that cast doubts on the E-Cat QX too. Therefore it is still of use to consider how the Doral test actually worked. Even if IH had never entered the picture, that line of reasoning would still be valid.

  • US_Citizen71

    Two major points as today is a busy day for me professionally. The first he needs to make his sheet at least as easy to follow as high school students physics homework if he wants others to participate in the tenderizing of this deceased equine. He needs to how his work. Show what equations is he using and why. The reader shouldn’t have to click on Excel cells and try to reconstruct his formulas and work flow. Two he is neglecting a major source of energy in the system and its effect on air flow. That source is the heat. Jet engines spin and compress their airflow due to heat mostly. Heated air will increase in velocity and pressure.

  • Frank Acland

    My question was why the test lasted only 1.8 seconds — I think that is what what he considered nonsense.

  • Vinney

    Did he take into account the heat dissipation of what Rossi calls the ”Circulator’. Supposedly some gravity feed tank that distributes the heat to multiple heat exchange unit.
    Remember, his previews business designed and made ‘custom’ industrial heat exchange equipment. In other words, he was a genius at thermodynanics before he discovered the E-cat process. Case close I think.

    • Bruce__H

      No. THHuxleynew did not include these features in his considerations.

      I would be interested to know where you got the information about gravity feed tanks and multiple heat exchange units. Is this from Mr Rossi?

      I am also unfamiliar with a previous business of Rossi’s designing custom heat exchangers. Where can I find out about that?

      • Omega Z

        I don’t have a link, but I can verify that Rossi designed and built heat exchangers for hundreds of customers in the past. Rossi has had multiple successful business of which he sold to fund his E-cat R&D.

        • Bruce__H

          The ones he used in Italy were commercial versions weren’t they? Not designed by him.

          For the validation test in Ferrara he used an old radiator from a ship. It was a big problem because it made too much noise for the neighbours. In the end it caused him to scale down the test until it fell outside the parameters of the contract he had with IH. I wonder why he didn’t just make a silent one like he did in Doral?

          • US_Citizen71

            He might have spent his budget on the the old radiator or the materials needed to make a new one might not have been available swiftly enough.

          • Omega Z

            I would guess mostly commercial off the shelf components. The design/layout would be done by Rossi. You will find in most industrial/commercial facilities, one size does not fit all, but are designed to order.

  • US_Citizen71

    I am referring to the ideal gas laws, as temperature is increased the volume will increase. If the volume increases the pressure will increase, unless it has an outlet. If it has an outlet the velocity of the heated gas will increase. Then you have the fun of the aperture size of the outlet which affects the back pressure, along with calculations for whether the pipe/conduit is square or round which flow differently. There are many considerations to take into account which is why I would go with Wong over THH as Wong should understand all of them very well and THH not so much as he claims to have just learned thermodynamics recently.

  • Bruce__H

    All posts in previous threads still exist as far as I know.

    None of the points I have raised have been addressed very well. With a few exceptions, people make a few hand-waving excuses in Mr Rossi’s favour and then stop. Most people here don’t even do.

    Right now it looks as though what Mr Rossi was saying about his system couldn’t be true. The plant in Doral most probably never put out 1 MW … or even 0.5 MW. If some people have good objections to the difficulties t raise I wish they would bring them forward.

    • Björn-Ola

      Yes, i think that the heat dissipation is an issue that has not been explaind. Dr Wongs calculation is in my opinion wrong. He did not take into consideration that the temperature of the air must increase up to 60 degrees when passing the heat exchanger. The fans should make a lot of noice as well and that could not go unnoticed.