Interview with Andrea Rossi on E-Cat Commercialization

I had the opportunity to interview Andrea Rossi on June 11 2018 about the latest developments in his efforts to commercialize the E-Cat. You can listen to the interview at the YouTube link below.

A few of the main points covered:

The 100 kW E-Cat SK is still under development, and will undergo tests of months in length before they decide whether it is ready for commercialization.

The 1kW E-Cat QX is ‘almost’ ready. They will make a final decision by the end of June. Leonardo’s goal is to deliver E-Cats by the end of this year. Rossi stated that a public presentation may be delayed until early 2019 due to logistical difficulties of having a presentation in mid-winter during the holiday season when weather might be problematic.

Andrea Rossi stated that the first commercial efforts will be to provided heat for private industry. While technologically the E-Cat could be used to generate electricity in power stations, Rossi stated there are regulatory issues that make that a hard arena to break into.

The price that customers will pay for heat will depend on each specific situation, but Rossi states that it will be at between a 30 to 50 per cent discount compared to a customer’s current fuel costs.

Rossi has 22 people working with him as part of his team.

  • спаситель русских

    Joyous news. Let’s wait a little longer

    • Vinney

      No doubt the readers of ECW (and his own blog) will know when the two or three separate customers will have taken delivery of the Ecat plants before Christmas, though it will not be the official launch. Just like an imminent technology launch, a few details of performance will be disclosed, so that not all the details are new at the official launch. We did not get a point on the timeline to industrial production of the 1MW units, but only that Ecat QX R& D will be finished by end of June.
      LENR research and patent activity should soar next year, Rossi will have opened the floodgates.

  • William D. Fleming

    Frank, thank you so much for this great interview! Rossi is a very impressive person, and I feel reassured that things are on track and that the world is about to change dramatically.

    Very exciting!

  • John Littlemist

    Frank, it has soon been 9 months since the last me356 interview. Just hinting… 😉

  • f sedei

    Frank: This live interview with Rossi adds needed reality to the discussion of LENR. Nice job. Thanks.

  • causal observer

    “22 people”: that’s a good reality check. If he had said “10” or “50” I would be rubbing my chin.

  • sam

    This is part of a comment from Bob on Lenr Forum who listened to A.R interview.

    3) Regulatory issues? What? He has stated (as his faithful echo) that he has the certifications! More seriously, it does not matter WHO is running reactor, one STILL has to meet regulatory requirements. He is stating that he can put a plant in a factory and sell the owner heat and not have to follow regulatory law! This is absurd! If the reactor is in a plant, it HAS to meet regulations regardless of who owns or runs it! This is pure fantasy!
    Adrian should know this, but he will most likely not admit it. Ownership of a device does not determine whether one has to meet regulatory law, it is operation and where it is operated.

    Could someone who knows Regulatory issues comment on what Bob said?

    • frank

      Adrian Ashfield seems to have a lot of experience in industrial certification . Maybe he can help you answering these questions.

    • Vinney

      I think he means, because it’s nuclear the electricity regulatory authorities will require to know how it works in detail, putting his ‘industrial secrets’ in jeopardy. Whilst for generating heat for industry the standard is much lower, ie: It just has to demonstrate ‘non-ionising’ radiation.
      My question is that the Ecat was originally deemed ideal for boiling water cheaply to 400-600 degrees C before superheated steam is created by gas turbines. It is just pre-heating the water, is this use still possible.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Just to clarify, I do not and have never posted to LF, so this is not me.

      • Omega Z

        So just someone who is trying to throw red flags.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I have no idea of their motivations.

          • Omega Z

            That’s true, but we know the M.O. of most of the certification antagonists. When you point out the certification, they question the validity of the certifying body. When you show that it’s a respected international company, they then go for the local requirements.

            Local certification isn’t about the product certification itself but that it has been installed accordingly to what it was certified for and been installed according to code. This is all standard procedure and comes into play for every type of equipment installation in industrial operations. The only time I’ve witnessed a problem is when Federal-State or local regulations are in conflict which is easily rectified.

            It’s been Industrial certified. If that were an Issue, It would have been dealt with under the certification process. So when people bring these issues up, you have to ask if they just don’t know the process or if it’s someone trying to stir up FUD.

    • Axil Axil

      There are a number of Bob’s on LF.

  • Nixter

    Dr. Rossi seems to be depending on Patent protections and secrecy to keep his Intellectual Property from copiers. There is a possibility of compulsory licensing in cases where the invention is considered to be essential to life. Normally only used in the pharmaceutical industries where companies might gouge those in dire need of life saving drugs, in rare cases Patent holders can be forced to issue licenses at fair value, this technology could be considered important enough to be categorized as being essential for life in third world countries.

    • Omega Z

      A reality check.
      Power plants and their on going maintenance and the personnel involved are still a substantial cost of electricity. Probably people will find it is only cheaper. Not dirt cheap.

      In poor parts of the world, people have no air conditioning or refrigerators. No washer & dryers, television, computers or microwave ovens and likely no wiring in their homes of any kind. Even with the availability of electricity, they don’t have the means of obtaining these things. It is hard to justify the cost/benefit to provide energy just so they can have a light bulb in their homes.

      However, electricity will become available over time. This situation has been dealt with before in western society. It took place over decades.

      • Nixter

        I agree, poor nations probably lack the financial backing needed to initiate and win such a legal case. There could be vulnerabilities from wealthy countries with adequate financial resources though, I would like to see an opinion on this from an expert in the patenting field, I think that the US has enough protection for a properly filed patent holder, but if Dr. Rossi has patents in other countries the protections may differ enough to pose a danger. India has used this tactic to wrest total control away from patent holders in the US (Pharmaceutical Companies) I’m not sure how it works, I think a company in India (for instance), gets a special local compulsory licensing arrangement where legal protections are stripped (not enforced), from the pharmaceutical industry when a secret and or patented idea is deemed too valuable to allow to go through narrow expensive channels exclusively. As the value of the invention rises so will the scheming and attempts to circumvent the IP protections. E-Cat technology (and any working LENR designs), has monetary value so large that it will be difficult to enumerate it. Even if half as successful as Dr, Rossi claims, it will be transformative and disruptive like nothing before, and it logically follows that many efforts to undermine it’s secrets will be equally formidable. I wonder how long the E-Cat’s proprietary information will remain secret? Years, months, or days?

        • Omega Z

          You mist my point. LENR will not be that cheap and has nothing to do with Rossi’s IP rights. Of every $3 I pay for electricity, only $1 dollar is for fuel. The rest is brick & mortar. Developed nation or poor nation. A Billion$ power plant will still cost a Billion$ regardless what fuel is used. The only savings in electricity cost will be from a cheaper fuel.

          As to Big Pharma: They sell 200 to 300 drugs to all countries except the U.S. at cost or below cost. They can only do this because they charge the U.S. exorbitant prices to cover their losses elsewhere. Without the exorbitant profits from the U.S. market, 200 to 300 drugs would have to cease production or experience a substantial price increase to their own citizens.

          Not my opinion. Not Propaganda. This is directly from public statements from Big Pharma, 1 Big Pharma in Norway, another Big Pharma, I can’t recall in Europe and another Big Pharma in Israeli. All have stated the same.. Without the exorbitant profits from the U.S. market, Big Pharma may cease to exist as well as their products..

          • Nixter

            LENR technology has the potential to be less expensive compared to today’s energy prices if the IP were transferred to entities less concerned with keeping prices artificially inflated for the purpose of profits through the control of the secret sauce. Once the proprietary E-Cat information becomes commonly known, the technology has a chance to become ever cheaper and economical to produce. Are you are assuming that retrofitting existing plants will be the only avenue for market penetration? Or building new plants designed to use E-Cats but the general design similar to a traditional power plant? I would not assume that, I would consider all possibilities like other less centralized operations becoming the norm, meaning smaller power plants on a neighborhood or per home scale. We should not assume that next generation LENR device designs will only produce heat, a more efficient way to produce electricity directly is a definite possibility. The limiting factor for LENR flourishing into the world might well be the IP, not the physical method of hardware deployment. With only one small company controlling all of the R&D the ability to make new discoveries is limited, with a wider deployment of R&D by companies competing against each other the technologies advancement will be greatly accelerated.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Think of it. We’ve gone from “Is it real?” to “Is it safe?”

    Win win!!

    • PhysicsForDummies

      No, we have gone from “Rossi says this” to “Rossi says that”.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        We’ve seen isotopic shifts in Parkhomov’s version of the E-Cat.

        • Rene

          Yes, we have seen Bob’s analysis. Good to see something is happening although nothing like the Rossi claims. Next year is reckoning/unveiling ‘day’.

      • Miles

        Still no final product. I’m waiting Rossi.

  • Rene

    We’ve gone from nearly too cheap to meter to “a 30 to 50 per cent discount compared to a customer’s current fuel costs.” – if it works.

    verify verify!!

    • Alan DeAngelis

      30 to 50% would be a big foot in the door.

      • Alan DeAngelis
        • Alan DeAngelis

          Back again to the whale metaphor (I posted the shorter version of this clip before). It’s probable a good idea to stay submerged (slowly penetrating the market place) because there are a lot of angry Ahabs out there who would like to kill the E-Whale.

      • Rene

        It is if that number holds, and of course, if it works. We’ll see next year. But, nonetheless, the sliding decrease in efficacy is likely a good indicator of how much market spin he did, which is now dropping down to practical reality. It gets to be a huge problem in efficiency if one needs to have fossil fueled equipment on hot standby. I’m not sure if Rossi has factored that into the total efficiency. Whales notwithstanding.

        • artefact

          The 30 to 50% are the savings for the customer. I think the COP is still very high so that the other 49 – 69% or so is profit for Rossi. He needs to make money quick to expand his business.
          Without competition the price reduction could stay on that level for a while.

          • Vinney

            Gerard Eck mentions the same, a health profit without destabilizing the status quo.
            Not what we like to see as disruptors here at ECW, but a model that Rossi likes, and he has less time than us.

          • Omega Z

            If you pay 11 cents per kilowatt hour and gas and coal suddenly dropped to near zero, you will still pay about 6 cents per kilowatt hour. Power plants and the forever maintenance, personnel and the rest of the grid still have a substantial cost.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          I was just thinking that even if its impact is marginal for now that would be enough to show the world that LENR is real.
          That in turn would wake people up to the fact that the marbled institutions that disparaged the field for almost three decades are not infallible and are actually a stifling impediment to progress.

  • LION

    Hi Streetwise,
    actually this is misleading as it presently stands.

    First one must admit that the Court case doubtless had consequences.

    Secondly 63 was doubtless (at least to me) accurate at the time of reporting, and involved all persons working with Andrea at that time.

    Thirdly I believe that in this NEW interview Andrea is specifically referring to the number of his CORE TEAM who are involved with Development and Testing.

  • Samec

    Calculations of 4th grader:

    When you sell heat and no hardware, you must wait 4-8 years of selling heat to have money for ONE new e-cat production plant. The world need 200 – 250 robotized production plants for saturation of world’s demand for new e-cat hardware.

    If you have better business plan than dottore, please write it here.

    • greggoble

      If you think that Rossi is the only one who will saturate the energy market with cold fusion, you are sadly mistaken.

  • greggoble

    ICCF-5 Circa 1995 ‘Bechtel’ ‘Amoco’ ‘Shell Oil’ and LENR Energy Commercialization

    It’s important to understand that major energy corporations are most likely developing LENR energy systems. While there isn’t much evidence of this, I expect to see a lot of this work becoming released over the next year or so as LENR energy enters the marketplace. Major energy corporations would play this sort of hand ‘close to the vest’, with little to no disclosure till fully prepared. Examples of both are found in the ICCF-5 review by Jed Rothwell:


    DuFour, at Shell Research, [19] made the same improvement as Karabut, with equally good results. He combined several separate calorimeters for different components into one unified flow calorimeter, which accounts for all inputs and output. He continues to detect up to 7 watts of excess heat. It is good to see that the oil companies are seriously pursuing this form of energy.

    Another oil company finally came of the woodwork. Amoco reported some old but extremely important early results. Eisner [27], of the University of Houston, described the 1989 experiments that he and Lautzenhiser and Phelps of the Amoco Production Company performed. According to Amoco’s 1989 report [28], the first experiment “yielded a 30% energy gain over the life of the experiment (two months). In June 1989, the experiment was modified and a second run also yielded “about 30% excess energy until the catalyst become waterlogged.” Other successful runs were performed. Their conclusion: “The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment.” Amoco has superb closed-cell flow calorimeters, their signal to noise ratio is exceptionally high. They are world class experts in this type of work. They got excess heat far beyond the limits of chemistry and nuclear products in these early experiments. It is a shame they did not talk about it back in 1989, but at least they have set the record straight today. It is not clear to me whether they are still working on cold fusion or not.”

    Jed Rothwell 1995

    references: *26. A. B. Karabut, “Excess Heat Measurements in Glow Discharge Using Flow Calorimeter,” ICCF5 paper # 319. *27. M. Eisner, “The Serendipitous Design and Execution of an Early Experiment which confirmed Heat in the Fleischmann-Pons Effect,” ICCF5 paper # 212. *28. T. Lautzenhiser, D. Phelps, “Cold Fusion: Report on a Recent Amoco Experiment,” Amoco Production Company, Report T-90-E-02, 90081ART0082, 19 March 1990.

    In fact, the 1995 Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion presents items of historical importance to issues of commercialization, corporate interest and development strategy. Right now, over thirteen years later, these issues are of particular interest to those attending ICCF21. This year, along with the scientific presentations is talk of market entry and development strategy. Recent claims and contracts are being presented (there is also the usual talk of non-attendees commercialization efforts). As we follow this years conference and await it’s full published works and media reports, many a persons’ thoughts turn to commercialization and the credibility market entry brings. For those considering these subjects, it’s a good idea to read and study the following items from the conference of 1995, ICCF-5. Doing so helps one to gain both a historical perspective and insight into these issues.

    Of particular interest is Jed’s review of ICC-5. Many of the concerns he expressed have been resolved, others have worsened, and (arguably) nearly all will be eliminated with market entry. Concurrently competition and secrecy will increase, yet not along all fronts.

    Gaining a sense of history also sets one to realize that history is in the making…

    ICCF-21 is shaping up to be a milestone event in the ‘cold fusion’ arena.

    Thanks ICCF-21

    Also appreciation is extended to MFMP and the folks at LENR Forum etc.

    And to all (each and every one of you) who help bring LENR energy technology to market.

    Further Study and References from ICCF – 5

    Issue 2 May/June 1995 – Infinite Energy Magazine

    “Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-5)” by Jed Rothwell


    Highlights of the Fifth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF5) are reviewed. A live demonstration system from Clean Energy Technologies Inc. showed 300% to 1,000% excess energy. Wide-ranging positive results in both excess heat and nuclear products were reported from E-Quest, U. Milan, Osaka National U., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, NTT, the Japanese National Laboratory for High Energy Physics (KEK), Los Alamos, BARC, Amoco Production Company, Shell Oil, Harwell Laboratory (in retrospect!), and others. An electrical engineer from Bechtel Corporation gave a superb talk on the economic and technical aspects of the commercial development of cold fusion energy.

    “A notable talk at ICCF5… ‘A Development Approach for Cold Fusion'” by Bruce Klein (Bechtel Corporation)

    This, and all ICC5 documents, can be viewed at ICCF-5 Proceedings lenrcanr org (from part two pages 589 thru 596) -ed note: This document is: Pons, S., ed. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1995, IMRA Europe, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France: Monte-Carlo, Monaco. 640


    A plan is presented for the investigation and development of the cold fusion effect, ultimately leading to implementation of commercial devices. The plan represents a methodical approach for identifying and addressing theoretical, scientific, engineering, and economic concerns.

    The plan is presented from the perspective of a large architect/engineering corporation which performs work in established energy industries and which is not currently involved in cold fusion. The plan consists of a number of phases designed to establish the corporation’s level and method of involvement in the field.

    The phased plan provides a number of decision points; at each decision point a commitment to a higher level of funding is made on the basis of additional information which has been generated by the plan to that point. In this way, the corporation can control its financial outlay, yet funding is appropriate so that pursuit of the plan is not hampered.

    1) Introduction and Premise
    2) Background
    a. Electricity generation and consumption
    b. Propulsion (internal combustion engines, gas turbines, etc.)
    c. Industrial uses
    d. Home use (heating, air conditioning, and electrical loads)
    3) The Important Questions
    4) Phase 1 — Survey the Field
    5) Phase 2 – Establish the Broad Parameters of Practical Machinery, Economic Attractiveness, and Timetable
    6) Phase 3 — Examine the Legal Implications
    7) Phase 4 — Identify the Work Remaining
    a. Theoretical Basis
    b. Configuration
    c. Temperature
    d. Repeatability
    e. Throttling
    f. Radiation
    g. Long-term Performance
    h. Power Conversion
    8) Phase 5 — Establish Working Relationships
    9) Phase 6 — Perform Directed Experimentation
    10) Phase 7 — Develop Prototypes
    11) Phase 8 — Initiate Commercial Implementation
    12) Summary:

    “The potential impact of cold fusion on a company currently involved in the energy industry is too great to ignore. If a phased approach is used, in which each phase represents an increment of financial and technical involvement, the company can minimize its financial exposure while still establishing a favorable competitive position. The benefits of such a plan are further enhanced if the company pursues this work in cooperation with others already involved in the field.” – Bruce Klein 1995

    The next paper presented at ICCF-5 dovetailed nicely with this from Mr. Klein’s presentation:

    Quote (see 6 — Phase 3 ‘Examine the Legal Implications’ pg. 594)

    “The sorry state of the cold fusion patent situation is well known. Almost no patents have been granted, and most researchers are operating without patent protection. This has probably had the effect of limiting communication among researchers to some extent. But this is not likely to be a corporation’s major concern.” Bruce Klein 1995

    Title “A Model for Commercialization Utilizing Patents” Presented by Frederick G. Jaeger, President of ENECO, University of Utah Research Park. View at ICCF-5 Proceedings lenrcanr org (pdf part two pages 597 thru 602)


    The biggest impediment to commercial development today is lack of widespread demonstration devices and firm scientific understanding of the mechanism or mechanisms responsible for variously reported cold fusion and enhanced energy effects. With scientific understanding, the possibility of commercial amplification and replication could rapidly occur, which would quickly spawn a wide variety of initial commercial products.

    The commercial development of cold fusion and enhanced energy devices will probably follow a normal cycle of science > technology > commercial products. First generation products will probably take advantage of 50 – 100 degrees C heat output, and move to higher temperatures with increased product sophistication.

    The first tier of entrepreneurial companies are already active in the field. With market maturation, inevitable second stage consolidations and joint ventures will occur. In the third stage, the technology ultimately will best lend itself to optimum development by large multinational companies who already have a well established business infrastructure in place. Speed of technology dissemination will be crucial.

    Our model examines the role that patents, as a basic building block, play in the commercialization process. Patents are generally granted to citizens of a country to promote overall technological advancement. The basic concept is that in exchange for an inventor laying open their ideas to the public ‘to stimulate innovation’, their government will grant an individual monopoly use of the invention for a period of time, typically 17-20 years. In the U.S., patent rights were granted to citizens in the original constitution.

    Shell Oil Company (report of excess heat beyond chemical) New Energy Times Library

    “Measurement of Excess Energy and Isotope Formation in the Palladium-Hydrogen System” J. DUFOUR, J. FOOS, J. P. MILLOT, Shell Research/ CNAM Laboratoire des Sciences nuclÈaires 2 rue Conte 75 003 Paris, Presented in 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion.1995. Monte-Carlo, Monaco: IMRA Europe, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France.

    Dufour went on to file a LENR patent in 1998 which was granted in 2003… “Method and Device for Producing Energy from a Metal Type Hydride” EP2474501A1


    The invention concerns a method which consists in generating an activated and metastable form of hydrogen from a hydrogen plasma confined in the metal lattice interstitial sites by exposing the confined plasma to the action of a magnetic field in conjunction with a displacement of the protons and electrons in a direction parallel to the magnetic field action. Said exposure generates from the confined plasma the required activated and metastable form of hydrogen. Then the interesting effects of this activated form are recuperated. Figure 1 shows a device more particularly adapted for managing nuclear waste and enabling for example to transform Uranium 238 into Thorium 232.

  • greggoble
  • greggoble
  • sam

    June 16, 2018 at 6:28 AM

    Hello Dr Rossi
    I am wondering how far along is the Ecat
    robotics factory.10,20, percent or more completed?
    Also will the presentation of the Ecat you are
    having by the end of this year or beginning of
    next year be from a Ecat customer location?

    Enjoy your summer.

    Andrea Rossi
    June 16, 2018 at 8:30 AM

    1- enough
    2- to be agreed upon with the Customer
    Warm Regards,

    June 16, 2018 at 2:05 PM

    I watched on youtube the presentation of the Ecat QX at the IVA of
    Stockholm on November 24th 2018 and i found it very convincing.
    Now let’s wait for the presentation of the product. Did you already decide where it will be?

    Andrea Rossi
    June 16, 2018 at 3:40 PM
    Surely in the USA. Where exactly we did not decide yet.
    Warm Regards,

  • sam

    June 19, 2018 at 4:04 PM
    Dr Andrea Rossi,

    Hi, I hope you and your team are well today. A couple of questions relating to reliability & repair, if I may–

    1) Since Leonardo Corp. is providing heat, rather than an actual device, does that mean that Leonardo is also responsible for maintenance and repair activities?

    2) Based on your year-long experience with the Doral plant, is it your plan to significantly improve the reliability of upcoming E-Cat plants?

    3) Do you now have on your diverse team an experienced Reliability Engineer– that is, someone experienced in failure rate analysis and the design and manufacturing of highly reliable thermal systems?

    Best wishes,

    Andrea Rossi
    June 19, 2018 at 4:24 PM
    1- yes, apart some maintainance issues that will be made by the Customer
    2- yes
    3- does a race horse have 4 legs?
    Warm Regards,

  • sam

    June 20, 2018 at 3:38 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Is some of the attendants of the demo you made in Stockholm at the IVA on November 24 among the clients you are going to sell the heat to?

    Andrea Rossi
    June 20, 2018 at 7:05 AM
    Warm Regards,

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.