1 MW E-Cat Plant Watch Thread [UPDATE #41 — 350 Day Test is Over, Mats Lewan's Sources Say Success]

Since there are beginning to be more frequent references to the 1 MW E-Cat plant that we have been told will be installed and be open to visitors at some point (perhaps this year, according to Andrea Rossi), I thought I would create a dedicated thread to the topic which I will update as needed, like I have done with the thread about the third party report. It keeps all the information together and I think makes things easier to find.

UPDATE #41 (Feb 18, 2016)

Mats Lewan hears the test was successful:

A comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by Andrea Rossi announced that the 1 Year test of the E-Cat Plant has been completed.

Andrea Rossi
February 18, 2016 at 4:31 AM
Gerard Mc Ek:
The charge size has beene refined with the experience in thousands of experiments and, obviously, also on the base of theoretical considerations.
Yes, the test of 350 days is finished, yesterday the ERV has completed his tests.
Now it will take about a month to know the results from his report.
No more information about the 1 MW E-Cat that made the tests from now until the publication of the results will be allowed.
Warm Regards,

The ERV is the “Expert Responsible for Validation” who is apparently an outside independent entity with experience in nuclear engineering and testing.

So the charge substitution process mentioned below was not an interruption to the test, but signaled the end of the test, and presumably it will continue to be used.

Go to comments

UPDATE #40 (Feb 17, 2016)

In an update on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today Andrea Rossi stated that there is currently an important operation taking place with the 1 MW E-Cat Plant:

Andrea Rossi
February 17, 2016 at 7:44 AM
Wed Feb 17 2016, 07.43 a.m.
1 MW E-Cat : charges substitution on course
E-Cat X: in good standing, very promising
Warm Regards,

I’m pretty sure this means that the charges used in the E-Cat reactors in the 1MW plant have lost efficiency to the extent that they can no longer be used. Rossi has said he had hoped that the charge could last for a full year, but it sounds like that’s not the case. This will mean that there will be more down time for the plant and will probably push back the ending date for the test quite a few days. Rossi has said in the past that it will take a few days at least to change the charges in the reactors.

Go to comments

UPDATE #39 (Feb 6, 2016)

We’re heading into the final stretch of Andrea Rossi’s 1 MW plant test, and while Rossi has reported loss of efficiency in the plant’s reactors, and some more leakages, the test still continues. Today we’re at day 348, so we could be just weeks away from the finish line and it sounds like they are nursing the plant all the way to the end. Here’s a Q&A on the topic today.

Hello Mr. Rossi,
i have two questions.

1) it is february now, the test phase of your 1MW plant should be almost over. When do you think it will be done?

A: Still do not know, up to the end. Anything can happen anytime to cause a delay.

2) what is going to happen, if everything is successfull, soon after the end of the test? Will we get to know who the Costumer is? Will we see new demos? Will other Costumers be able to buy a new plant? What?

A: If all will go well, we will start the industrialization process. No more demos will be made. Other plants will be sold. I do not know if the Customer will want to expose himself or not and this, obviously, will not depend on me.

Go to comments

UPDATE #38 (Feb 1, 2016)

It looks like the countdown clock we have been running on this site has been overly optimistic based on recent statements from Andrea Rossi on when the test might conclude. So I have adjusted the clock to the end of March, rather than February 29. Here’s a Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:

February 1st, 2016 at 8:52 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi,
I understand that the tests of the 1 MW E-Cat will be co,pleted by the end of March: is this deadline still valid?

Andrea Rossi
February 1st, 2016 at 9:07 AM
If we’ll have not surprises from Her, I would say yes, it makes sense.
Warm Regards,

UPDATE #37 (Jan 29, 2016)

Well that was a brief update. Rossi has updated his previous post. Maybe in his reply to me in Update #36 he meant that the trouble was over, not the test.

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2016 at 1:29 PM
Frank Acland:
It is over. Trouble resolved thanks to our great Team!
Warm Regards

UPDATE #36 (Jan 29, 2015)<

Well, it seems the year-long test has failed. It did not make it to the finish line. Here’s what I asked AR on the JONP.

“Frank Acland January 29th, 2016 at 1:02 PM
Dear Andrea,
What do these troubles mean for the test in progress? Is it over, or will you need to bring in new reactors?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi January 29th, 2016 at 1:29 PM
Frank Acland:
It is over.
Warm Regards

What this will mean to the E-Cat commercialization project now is an open question. Knowing Rossi he will not be giving up. I expect that Rossi will go on with his R&D on the E-Cat, especially with the E-Cat X which he has seemed very hopeful about, but by his own admission, the low temperature plant technology is not ready for the marketplace.

UPDATE #35 (Jan 29, 2015)

From a couple of new comments from Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, it sounds like things are not going too well with the 1 MW plant.

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
René Bergeron:
at 10.10 a.m. of Friday Jan 29 2016:
1 MW E-Cat : troublesome, lowest efficiency, working on it. Not a good night, honestly.
E-Cat X: remade another to continue destructive tests
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
January 29th, 2016 at 10:14 AM
Please, understand that to put in the markes an immature product in our case could be devastating.
There is nobody in the world that more than me desires to put massively the E-Cat in the market, but we are not ready. Too bad about sceptics.
Warm Regards,

We’ve been hearing from Rossi about the reactors losing efficiency lately, and it sounds like the problems are continuing, and increasing. Rossi says that they do have backup reactors in place and we don’t know if he’ll deploy them. From Rossi’s tone here, it sounds like he’s going to be doing some rethinking about everything. I guess we’ll find out more what this means for the overall test.

UPDATE #34 (Jan 23, 2015)

Andrea Rossi has provided some interesting details about the current plant under test in this response to a question from Barty about the current test in progress:

Andrea Rossi
January 23rd, 2016 at 8:12 AM
Your assumption has right of citizenship in the kingdom of logic, but we must be conservative.
There are many parts of the plant that need upgrading and the next generation of industrial plants (F9) will be different. I cannot give the details of the parts to be modified, for obvious reasons, but we are talking not just of plumbing and wiring, we are talking of internal structure of the reactors.
This plant belongs to the first generation, substantially it is equal to the plant tested in Bologna in the Winter of 2011; the next one will be different and I am already designing it (again: F9).
Warm Regards,

Comparing this plant to the 2011 Bologna plant gives an indication of how many changes might be needed, since the design of that plant has been superseded. I think this is the clearest statement from Rossi so far about his assessment of the current plant design, and it is an admission that it really is not suitable for the marketplace in its current iteration. He has reported the need multiple repairs during the course of this test, and when he mentions changing the “internal structure of the reactors”, this would imply that quite a bit of work will be needed, and further testing, which brings up the question of whether there will need to be more extended testing, and how long it might take to get a satisfactory plant on the market.

Go to comments

UPDATE #33 (Jan 17, 2015)

Andrea Rossi has stated that there continues to be some loss of efficiency in the reactors of the E-Cat plant. He says he had hoped the fuel charge would be enough to last a full year, but as the test enters its final days it seems like the potency is decreasing somewhat. There appear to be three options at this point:

a) Keep going with the same charges in the reactors; Rossi says so far the COP is good enough despite the loss of efficiency

b) Change the charges; Rossi said this:

The charge, if necessary, can be changed, obviously delaying the term of the test end by the number of days necessary. We still have days spared of the allowed 400 days, so the validity of the test should not be compromised. So far, anyway, it has not necessary to change the charge.

c) Employ the backup reactors which are in standby mode; of this option, Rossi wrote: “that is another safety boat. In a military term: it is our “reserve” division.”

Update: Thanks to Gerard McEk for asking a further question about this:

“Dear Andrea,
You wrote that after a long night fight you have assessed the lowering COP problem.
Can you tell us if that means that the COP is back to normal, or were some other issues solved that were bothering you because of the decreasing COP?
Can you define when you consider the test positive?
Thanks and kind regards, Gerard

Andrea Rossi January 17th, 2016 at 12:26 PM
Gerard McEk:
The COP has slightly diminished its value, but we stopped the tendency to go lower, now it is stable.
The test will be defined positive or negative when the 350 days of operation will have been completed.
Warm Regards,

Go to comments

UPDATE #32 (Jan 14, 2015)

In the end, it is happy customers who will prove whether E-Cat technology is useful or not, and from what Andrea Rossi states here, it sounds like the current customer would like to extend its use of the plant after the conclusion of the test — which is an indication that they are happy with their energy savings:

January 14th, 2016 at 5:53 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,

Since the test period is soon over….

1. Have the Customer indicated a wish to extend the lease if test is a success (or buy the plant) ? AR: yes

2. If not extended lease, what is your further plans for the test plant? AR: if the results will be positive we will make more plants

3. Have you identified changes in the design that will be implemented when / if you start manufacturing on a broad scale…? AR: yes

Go to comments

UPDATE #31 (Dec 30, 2015)

As we approach the end of the year, over 10 months into the test it sounds like the reactors in the E-Cat plant are getting a bit fatigued. Andrea Rossi wrote a week or so ago that one of the reactors was showing less efficiency, and today he wrote this on the JONP:

Time: 08.05 a.m. of Wed Dec 30st :
E-Cat 1 MW: another reactor shows a decrease of efficiency, but still has enough COP. The charges are starting to give evidence of consumption. Very interesting to study the phenomenon from now on.
E-Cat X: works, makes heat and electricity, is very promising.
Warm Regards,

Rossi has said that the charge in each of the four reactors was slightly different, and this was a deliberate move so he could observe differences in operation based on different formulas. From an experimental point of view this would be interesting to AR, but whether the plant is able to meet the goals for the test remains to be seen. AR has said that there is an option to replace the charges in a if necessary, but he said that was a complex operation that could take up to six days to accomplish. Also, there is still in place the backup bank of small reactors that have not been used for most of the test, but which Rossi has said could be employed if there was a need.

There’s some more information on the situation in this Q&A between Steven Karels and Andrea Rossi on the JONP:

a. Are all four 250kW reactors currently being used? yes

b. Are any reactors producing less than 250kW of thermal power? -can’t answer

c. As a particular reactor approaches fuel exhaustion, do you see increased control issues? no

d. Likewise, do you observe a decreased effective COP for that reactor? yes

e. Likewise, do you see decreases in the time of SSM for that reactor? yes

f. Can the other reactors have their output increased beyond 250kW to compensation for the reactors experiencing approach of fuel exhaustion? can’t answer

UPDATE #30 (Sep 21, 2015)

I asked Andrea Rossi some questions regarding the condition of the plant, and about the repairs that have been done on the reactors. I have included his responses after each question.

Dear Andrea,

You have made a number of repairs on reactors over the course of this long-term test.

1. Have you changed any of the fuel or charge in any of the reactors yet? AR: no
2. Are you using the same reactors as when you started? AR: yes
3. Have your repairs involved replacing components and/or materials surrounding the reactors? AR: yes
4. Have you been successful in your repairs in reducing the amount of problems with the E-Cats? AR: yes

I followed up with another question: “Regarding repairs you have had to make on your reactors again, are they mainly connected with materials degradation caused by long-term heat exposure?”

AR: I would say yes, and we learnt much about new mterials to be used instead.

UPDATE #29 (Sep 20, 2015)

Andrea Rossi was asked directly today when the 1 MW plant would be over and he gave this response: “The tests should end by February 2016, so long no major delays are caused by malfunctions.”

So that makes me guess that the total downtime so far has probably been between 1 and 2 weeks.

UPDATE #28 (Sep 19, 2015)

There’s some interesting information on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the amount of down time that has been during the current test of the 1 MW plant. A reader asked Andrea Rossi about how many days the plant has been down since the test started on Feb 20th this year. These were the options to choose from:

1) less than but equal to 24 hours?
2) greater than 24 hours but less than or equal to 7 days?
3) greater than 7 days but less than or equal to 4 weeks?
4) greater than 4 weeks?

Andrea Rossi responded: “3”. This means that for the test to run 350 days in total, the ending would be pushed back to at least February 10th, and as far as March 3rd, 2016. And this means the counter I have been running is not accurate — I think I better take it down!

UPDATE #27 (Sep 18, 2015)

By my calculations, based on what Andrea Rossi said in update #26 below, the 1 MW plant has been running for 207 days now, and the test in progress is supposed to run for 350 days. On the Journal of Nuclear Physics today Rossi was asked that if the test were to end today, would he consider the results positive or negative.

His response was: “Positive with the potential risk to become negative.”

I take this to mean that the plant has been operating well, producing energy via the ‘Rossi effect’ at a significant COP — however it has not been running long enough for Rossi to declare final victory. So far, so good, but the 350 day milestone seems to be the finish line that has yet to be reached.

UPDATE #26 (Jul 7, 2015)

Today Andrea Rossi gave the first concrete answer to a question about how long the 1 MW plant has been operating. The question on the Journal of Nuclear Physics was “How many operative days of 24 hours each has the 1 MW E-Cat operated, from the start up to now? Can you tell us this?”

Rossi’s response was:

Andrea Rossi
July 6th, 2015 at 2:28 PM
JC Renoir:
136 days as of today.
Warm Regards,

136 days is about 4.5 months. Rossi has said recently that they have had to shut the plant down on occasion to fix certain things, and we don’t know how much downtime there has been so far. According to Rossi, they are contractually obligated to have the plant run for 350 days in a 400 day period, so this would mean the plant will need to run for at least another 214 days. So by my calculations, the test can’t end until February 2016 at the earliest.

UPDATE #25 (May 2, 2015)

Andrea Rossi gave some information today about the plant that indicates that it will have to produce a COP of at least 4 based on the power rating of the resistors used in the plant:

Andrea Rossi
May 2nd, 2015 at 6:38 PM
The 1MW E-Cat does not have the power to supply 1 MWh/h of energy without the Rossi Effect. The total power of the resistances is about 250 kW, therefore by Joule effect we can give max 250 kWh/h of energy. This is why we have to study well the duration of the charges and, until we have not a precise idea, we have fixed in 6 months the fuellife. This time we have the possibility to try 1 year; obviously as soon as we notice a decrease of efficiency we change the charge.
Since we have 400 days at our disposal to operate 350 days, in this test and R&D agreed upon with the Customer, we have room for this experiment.
Warm Regards,

In other words, if the plant is producing 1 megawatt with 250 kW of resistance heaters, it would be 400 per cent efficient (COP 4) if the resistors were powered continually — this is not taking into account the periods of self-sustain that Rossi has said are very long. All this points towards a COP well beyond the minimum of 4 calculated here.

Rossi also mentions here that they are going to try to run the plant for a full year on one charge, and not stop the experiment at the minimum 350 day mark. According to Rossi, in another post today, this will mean that the test will end in December 2015 at the earliest, February 2016 at the latest.

UPDATE #24 (May 1, 2015)

Here’s an interesting post from Andrea Rossi on the JONP that explains in part how the reportedly high COP is being achieved: by having one E-Cat drive another — this is the ‘synergy’ that Rossi has mentioned quite a bit. Using one E-Cat to power another has always seemed to me to have a lot of potential in terms of energy savings, and so it’s good to hear that Rossi and his team seem to be having some success with it.

Andrea Rossi

The ssm is enhanced by the fact that with the control system directing multiple reactors we can obtain a synergy between them using some of the reactors to drive others, where the driving ones ( mouse operation) are less than the cat ones. This way the ssm phases are substantially more that the driving ones. This synergy, obviously, is possible only with big plants ( so far).
I cannot give the numbers, as correctly Steven N Karels anticipated and, also, after consulting Orsobubu, I have to add that what we have now is not the final result, things can worsen substantially in time and the final results could be either positive or negative ( this last phrase could be substituted by F-Something).
Warm Regards,

UPDATE #23 (Apr 22, 2015)

Below is a lengthy comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by Andrea Rossi which gives a lot of details about the measurement systems in place at the 1 MW plant. I had not seen this post until now (it was a comment on a very old JONP post) — but it was published on April 3rd. One interesting aspect is that there is an appointed ‘Referee’ — presumably an independent party — who is keeping track of all the measurements involved, and who it seems will make the final determination about the COP.

Andrea Rossi
April 3rd, 2015 at 7:44 PM
The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus

the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider

56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.
Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.
Warm Regards,

So with a referee in place, I wonder if this could be considered another ‘third party’ test.

UPDATE #22 (Apr 21, 2015)

Another comment about sources visiting the 1MW plant currently under test by Rossi from the Sifferkol website run by Torkel Nyberg (see here http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/?p=626:

“I know first hand from very reliable sources that themselves have visited the Rossi/Industrial Heat E-Cat customer that the plant works very well. This has been verified both by measurements made by the customer and by significantly reduced electricity bills. The plant seems to be able to produce heat from electricity with a COP in the range of 20-80 depending on the level of self-sustain-mode applied. I guess that is what Rossi is working on right now.”

Mats Lewan now has updated his blog post (see update #21 below) to confirm that he has heard the same information as reported on the Sifferkol site. He writes:

UPDATE: Since a COP (Coefficient of Performance — output energy/input energy) ranging from 20 to 80 has been reported, I can confirm that I have got the same information.

UPDATE #21 (Apr 20, 2015)

Here’s an interesting comment from Mats Lewan from a new post on his animpossibleinvention.com site, that gives some confirmation about what Andrea Rossi has been saying about the performance of the 1 MW plant:

From credible sources I get confirmation of what Rossi states — that the plant is running very well — which means that we should expect important results presented at the end of the 400 day trial, backed up by a customer who certifies the useful power output and the measured electrical input from the grid. Such results will be difficult to challenge . . . Since these results will be presented before the next ICCF, this year’s conference may have been the last before a major breakthrough for cold fusion.

Mats has good connections when it comes to people related to the E-Cat, and I would not question what he reports here. He is certainly not one to hype things. He mentions here a 400 day trial. According to Rossi, the customer requires the plant to run well for 365 days out of 400. Rossi has said they won’t be able to report until November at the earliest, but if the rest of the run is smooth sailing with no major downtime, we might get a report by the end of this year.

UPDATE #20 (Apr 9, 2015)

The following brief quote below is posted with permission from an email exchange I had with Andrea Rossi recently.

The Lady E-Cat 1MW is stable and the COP is very high, because we are mostly in ssm mode. I am writing from inside the computers container.

UPDATE #19 (Mar 29 2015)

More encouraging words today from Andrea Rossi regarding the 1 MW plant:

The E-Cat this week has been good, with very, very extended ssm periods. I prefer to give data regarding the COP after the end of the test.
From inside the plant,
A.R., with Warm Regards

It’s hard to interpret exactly what Rossi means by ‘Very, very’ extended self-sustain mode periods, but it sounds quite emphatic, and suggests a fairly dramatic improvement in COP. I would guess that since the early guaranteed COP Rossi talked about in the early days of the E-Cat was 6, that they could be getting double that, or even more.

This ability to self-sustain is really the remarkable thing about the E-Cat. From testing we have seen so far, without a self-sustain mechanism, it appears that the E-Cat can get a maximum COP of 3 or 4 which is impressive and could be commercially useful in some situations — but the commercial appeal will really grow if you can cut your fuel expenditures by 75 per cent or more, which might be possible with extended self sustain periods.

UPDATE #18 (Mar 13 2015)

More from Rossi on the subject of update #17 today:

The ssm of the 1MW E-Cat is very long. It has been a terrific surprise, due to evolution of the charge and to the control system. I am not permitted to publish numbers before the end of the test, but I must say that the final results can be positive, but also could be negative, so we retain the data until the test is finished. One thing is for sure: I do not stay here 16-18 hours per day to sharpen the points to the pencils. We also have a new kind of gauge, which is the bill of the electric provider to our Customer, wherein are written the MWh he consumes per month ( the electricity source that feeds the plant has been insulated from other loads): the Customer makes a ratio between the thermal MWh we deliver and the MWh he pays for to the electricity provider and has the real COP. This is a measuring system not very sophysticated, but brutally true: the Customer is positively surprised from the results, so far, after a troublesome initial period. We hope the situation goes on likewise.
Warm Regards,

The news sounds very positive from Rossi here — good to see the real COP being measured by the electric meter and the electric bill. That is all that matters to most people.

UPDATE #17 (Mar 13 2015)

Andrea Rossi made an interesting, seemingly off the cuff remark in a comment regarding the USPTO rejection of the his patent. He says that patent or no patent his work will go forward, but there is no reason not to try for a patent through the appeal process. At the end of this comment he remarks:

P.S. The plant is going well. Very long ssm periods. Very long.

SSM refers to self-sustain mode, when the E-Cats continue their reaction with external power turned off. The longer the self sustain periods, the better. The higher the COP, the more money the customer saves on energy, and energy savings is what the E-Cat is all about in the final analysis.

UPDATE #16 (Mar 11 2015)

I submitted a few new questions on the Journal of Nuclear Physics to Andrea Rossi regarding work on the 1 MW plant:

1. How many members of your team, beside yourself, are assigned full time to manage the production of the 1MW plant? AR: 1- here are two persons fix plus me. They work 8 -10 hours per day, I prefer to stay here 16-18 hours per day. When necessary we call reinforces.

2. If the plant passes the year-long test, how many people will be required to manage the plant?

AR: 2- none, the comtrol system will make it all, but will be necessary the presence in the factory of a specialist certified by us.

3. Have any of the reactors in the plant received a replacement charge so far? AR: 3- no and I hope the charge will last 1 year.

Although Rossi has not said when the test started, he says it will be over sometime between November and next February, so by calculations I think we are probably about four months into the year-long test, and so far the fuel charges seems to be holding up. Initially Rossi said E-Cats would need a charge every six months, but now he has higher expectations.

UPDATE #15 (Feb 25 2015)

It seems from the following question and response that the 1 MW E-Cat plant is running well:

Dear Andrea,

As you continue your year-long production testing on your customer’s site, is the customer able to carry on operations normally, or are you interrupting their production activity with your work?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland

Frank Acland:
The Customer has a back up, just in case we’d have interruptions.
Warm Regards,

My own interpretation of this response (could be wrong) is that the energy used in the production process (whatever that is) is coming from the E-Cat. Rossi has mentioned that contractually he needs to have his plant operating 365 days out of 400, so there seems to be a certain amount of downtime acceptable to the customer, and from this response it sounds to me like the backup is not automatically activated during “pit stops”. Maybe if there was an extended E-Cat outage the backup would be employed.

UPDATE #14 (Feb 14 2015)

There’s no major news on this front, but there have been a few comments lately from Andrea Rossi regarding the 1 MW plant, which seems to be working away under the watchful eye of Rossi and his team. Here are few samples from recent posts he has made on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Andrea Rossi
February 14th, 2015 at 8:14 AM
Yesterday we had problems with the control system, eventually fixed.
Today ( Saturday) I can see that so far all is ok.
Warm Regards

Andrea Rossi
February 14th, 2015 at 8:08 AM
Joya del Sol:
It is not true that several years ago we were testing a 1 MW plant in the premises of an industrial Customer. I never said that.
We are doing it now. The future will depend on the final results of the tests on course. The results could be positive, as we hope, but also negative, as I have to say. This plant is the first commercial plant in operation in the world making thermal energy necessary to an industrial manufacturing concern, inside the premises of the Customer. This plant’s efficiency is not just measured on the base of scientific calculations, as happened up to now, but mainly on the base of the energy costs related to the manufacturing system of the Customer: what counts for the Customer are not the scientific calculations, but the money he makes ( or loses) using the E-Cat instead of a regular plant.
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
February 12th, 2015 at 5:55 AM
Bernie Koppenhofer:
Alexander Parkhomov replica is very interesting, though !
As I said, the tests of the 1 MW plant delivered to our Customer will end between November 2015 and February 2016.
Warm Regards,

UPDATE #13 (Jan 9 2015)

Another Q&A with Rossi and a JONP reader today regarding the timing of the commercial phase of IH’s work, following the conclusion of the year long test of the 1 MW plant:

Q. You said that, in the most positive scenario, the commercial phase will likely start shortly after the end of the test period of the 1 MW plant. If everything goes as expected, again in the most positive scenario, how long should this test still last?

A. Andrea Rossi
January 9th, 2015 at 12:48 PM
In the best scenario could be November 2015/ January 2016.
Wishes of a great 2015 also to you from our Team,

With this being a ‘best case’ scenario, I think we might be wise not to expect major news from IH until 2016 at the earliest. We might be pleasantly surprised this year, but things of this magnitude generally tend to take longer than the most optimistic forecasts. We always seem to be waiting for one more test from Rossi and Co.!

UPDATE #12 (Jan 8 2015)

There’s precious little new information about the progress of Industrial Heat’s 1 MW plant that is apparently under testing at the moment at an IH customer site. Andrea Rossi is not revealing much on the JONP about it these days, but I did manage to get in a couple of responses to questions about it recently:

Q: In November you mentioned that the current 1 MW E-Cat plant you are working on has a volume of reactors of half a cubic meter (500 liters of volume) — which would mean a power density of 2 kW per liter. Today you mention a power density of 10 kW per liter (excluding heat exchangers). Is this for a different system?

A: Yes, the volume of the reactors has been reduced to about 1l/10kW

Q: So you have redesigned the plant as you have worked on it?

A: Not just me, but our Team did. (AR responding to another question on the topic): I can say that the ratio between volume and power has still room to be reduced. The tale of the Incredible Shrinking Cat is not yet at “The End”.

Q: How satisfied are you with the performance of the 1 MW plant so far?

A: I cannot give any information regarding the performance. I can say that I am optimist about the behaviour of the I MW plant along the 1 year test. I can say that nothing happened that could turn me pessimist. So far. I must add, under the permanent direction of Orsobubu, that the final output could be positive, but also negative.

The last comment suggests to me that things are going well for now. I think the testing of the plant began around September of last year, so I don’t expect any conclusive information coming from Rossi or Industrial Heat until September of this year, at the earliest.

UPDATE #11 (Oct 2, 2014)

Well that was quick . . . Andrea Rossi today responded to a question on the JONP about whether the problems with 1 MW plant were worse, or better than two weeks ago, saying:

Our 1 MW plant is a magnificence and an ouvre d’art: we resolved the problems we had ( so far…). We have a great team!

It sounds like a positive turn of events. Not sure if this will put them back on track to unveil the plant in the near future. Rossi has said on numerous occasions that the plant needs to run for at least one year before they can consider the situation ‘consolidated’.

UPDATE #10 (Oct 1, 2014)

Andrea Rossi was asked today by Timyceyln whether he thought it would be wise to get outside experts in to help with the heat control system for the new E-Cat plant, which is where he and others think IH might be having problems.

Rossi replied:

In our Team there are specialists of the necessary fields and when we need support we ask it from external specialists of our trust. Obviously the control system are a vital part of the plant and your Group can be sure we have top level engineers that have designed it. Obviously we work only with persons who got the necessary clearance, beside the necessary professionality.

It’s interesting to learn that they are are reaching out to outside experts, too. There must now be a substantial number of people ‘in the know’, but his talk of ‘necessary clearance’ suggests that there are strict requirements of confidentiality put in place which would keep the news from spreading outside authorized circles.

UPDATE #9 (Oct 1, 2014)

A reader on the Journal of Nuclear Physics suggests that a positive report could put Rossi and IH under tremendous pressure from competition and the awakening of sleeping giants, including those who would want to steal the secrets of E-Cat technology. Rossi responded:

You have imagined the bright side of the moon. I should have to imagine the dark side of the moon. The consequences of a failure would be devastating.
In both cases, I will continue, as always, to pray God every morning and then put down at work, because in both cases much work will have to be done by our team. First of all, we want to see the 1 MW plant work well for a long, long time, and make profits for the company of our Customer. I have to focus on this, not on the sides of the moon.

It’s a good example of how Rossi sees his job. He doesn’t seem to spend too much time worrying about “what ifs”. His focus right now seems to be getting the 1 MW plant to run correctly, and I guess that the problems they have encountered with this project have heightened this focus. Failure in this first project would really set back the IH business plan — for who would want to deal with a company who can’t make a product that operates correctly?

UPDATE #8 (Sep 19, 2014)

I asked Andrea Rossi today on the Journal of Nuclear Physicsabout the status of the 1MW plant that he reported had been taken to the customer’s plant and he responded:

We are resolving problems, in a preliminary phase. It will take at least one year before considering consolidated the situation.

In a follow-up I asked if they were still planning on allowing visits to the plants in the near future. His reply:

In the near future is impossible. In future yes, but I cannot give a scheduling, because it depends on what the Customer thinks: we are not in the factory of Industrial Heat, we are in the factory of a Customer. Presently we have problems to resolve.

So it appears that all is not going smoothly with this first installation. It’s not clear what the problems are, and I’m not sure that Rossi will be telling us.

UPDATE: Thanks to Barty for asking on the JONP about the nature of the problems they are experiencing:


We have a lot of minor problems; obviously I cannot give the particulars; also, we have to adjust the plant to the particular needs of the Customer, as you correctly said, therefore, as usually, from problems are born more problems. Lot of work to do.

Warm Regards,


More from the JONP:

Dear Andrea,
What you have in your installation program are bugs which are uncovered in any first field test. Just look at Apple with their introduction of the I-phone6 or Boeing with the 787. Nothing unusual.

AR: Yes, exactly; anyway, in my life I have designed and installed hundreds of industrial plants, never had the luck to see one pass through the first period of several months without troubles. This is NOT an exception.

UPDATE #7 (Sep 19, 2014)

Here are some new questions and answers from the Journal of Nuclear Physics that have just been posted regarding the 1 MW plant production:

1) Are the automated production lines running properly?
AR: We are not yet in a situation that justifies an automated production line, but we have already ready part of them and the designs for the complete operation. [Rossi added the following after the initial post:] Obviously, before we launch a mass production we need first of all to evaluate the report of the Independent Third Party, the results of at least one year of operation of the 1MW plant in the factory of the Customer and the follow up of our R&D process. Probably you think all this takes too much time: you have not idea of the thousands of thousands of particulars you have to adjust; the more you work, the more you have to work because new problems are born from former ones. It is a permanent ( Hi, Orsobubu!) struggle.
2) Have you shipped 5 or more 1MW plants during Aug and Sept?
AR: No
3) How many man hours does it take to assemble a 1MW plant?
This information is not available to the public.

The answer to question 1 does not surprise me; I expect that IH is in a preparatory stage, but since there are probably not many orders for E-Cat plants, there is no need for mass production yet. I would also guess that there will be a need for qore investment before mass production takes place — in terms of manufacturing machinery, labor, distribution, installation, and maintenance. I would expect and hope that the IH team will be planning carefully how they introduce the E-Cat to the public which could lead to interest from industry and orders for their plants.

UPDATE #6 (Sep 12, 2014)

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi made the following statement:

The 1 MW plant is in the factory of a Customer of IH. As far as I know, the Customer will not allow any video for the time being. IH has not jurisdiction in the factories of his Customers as for what is related to videos to be published. Eventually specific visits, as I already said, will be allowed, but it is too soon to talk about this. (emphasis added)

To the best of my recollection this is the first time that we have heard that the 1 MW plant has left the IH factory and is now on site at the customer’s premises where it will be put to work. I take this as good news; I am sure the plant will have been tested by IH, and if had been major operating problems, I don’t think the plant would have been shipped to the customer.

UPDATE #5 (Aug 20, 2014)

Andrea Rossi was asked on the Journal of Nuclear Physics what will be happening in September. He responded by writing:

“Our activity is in expansion, the team is increasing. Important events are on the verge to happen.”

UPDATE #4 (Aug 11, 2014)

Second update to this thread today — in another comment on the JONP today, Rossi I think indicates that things must be going well with the operation of the plant. He was responding to a comment about the name of the phenomenon and added:

I know that we have a consolidated explication about how the so called “Rossi Effect” works and the physical mechanirms that allow it to work. Otherwise, it could not work reliably in industrial applications.

UPDATE #3 (Aug 11, 2014)

To have the E-Cat working ‘reliably in industrial applications’ would seem to bode well for this first plant.

I asked Rossi today on the JONP about how things were looking behind the scenes from his perspective. He replied:

This is a period of top level engagement for what concerns the 1 MW plant, we are in the most critic moment; all our team is focused on it. About the Report, the waiting for it is a massive vibration in the field of anxiety.
Warm Regards,

UPDATE #2 (Aug 2, 2014)

I put some questions to Rossi on the JONP about the 1 MW plant today:

1. Will the customer of the first 1 MW plant be involved in the testing of the plant before it is installed to ensure it meets expected performance standards?

– No, we have to respect the guarantees of performance we signed for and we will be paid if the guarantees will be respected. As it happens for any kind of technological plant.

2. Will the plant replace an existing heat source at the customer’s location, or will it be installed on a brand new production line?

– Brand new production line with a back up in case of problems to our plant

3. Is your work on the 1MW plant currently on schedule?

When Rossi says the plant is ‘on schedule’, I think this may mean that it will be revealed this year. Just the other day he said “Visits will be allowed when the Customer will allow them, maybe within the year.”

– Yes

UPDATE #1 (Aug 1, 2014)

A question posed on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today by Hank Mills got an interesting answer from Andrea Rossi:

HM: Regardless if the one megawatt plant satisfies the customer or not, how much did it cost to build in parts and materials. (This does not include labor but only the container, electronics, plumbing, reactors, etc.)

AR: This information is confidential for commercial reasons, so far. I can say, though, that the production cost in $/Kw is very competitive with the cost of power of traditional power and heat generation systems.

Even though the numbers obviously remain confidential, there could be quite a revelation here from Rossi in that he is seems to be tacitly admitting that they have done enough testing on the system to be able to run the numbers in terms of overall costs of E-Cat produced energy compared to other energy technologies. Maybe he forgot to put his ‘positive or negative’ disclaimer here.

In other words, you can’t calculate the production cost in terms of $/kw unless you know the amount of energy you are producing. If the E-Cat is ‘very competitive’ in comparison with traditional power and heat generation systems, it sounds to me like positive results from the 1 MW plant.