We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Buck • 1 day ago

It looks like the ECat SKL test resulted in a mixed bag of outcomes. At this point, I would imagine a great deal of analysis is occurring at the California lab of his mystery partner, looking to understand the reasons for the failure of specific components. One can only speculate on how long it will take to do this analysis, build the improved ECat SKL, and schedule a new test.

However, I appreciate the positive movement on signing up new customers as well as installing new ECat SKs for an expanding customer and revenue base.


Gerard McEk
June 15, 2019 at 7:02 AM

Dear Andrea,

1. Are you happy about the progress in testing your E-cat SKe?
2. Has the reliability of the heat supply to your customers already improved?
3. Are you already satisfied with that heat supply?
4. Do you already accept and deliver new orders for heat supply?

I hope things are developing well!

Kind regards, Gerard McEk

Andrea Rossi

June 15, 2019 at 9:22 AM

Gerard MkEk:

1. Partly: some parts of the Ecat SK-Leonardo worked very well, better than expected, but some worked poorly. We had to suspend the test and return to remanufacture some parts differently. Much work still to do. Never give up.
2. yes
3. yes
4. yes

Warm Regards,


sam • 3 hours ago

Frank Acland

June 16, 2019 at 8:12 AM

Dear Andrea,
You said that you stopped the E-Cat SK Leonardo test because of certain components failing.

1. Do you know yet what corrections need to be made?
2. What is the timetable for retesting?
3. How serious is do you feel this setback for the prospects of direct electricity production from the E-Cat SK?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi

June 16, 2019 at 12:23 PM

Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- 1 month
3- we will never give up
Warm Regards

The Director • 2 days ago

I no longer believe Rossi will commercialize his technology. In my opinion, the previous totally unprofessional demo with puppets in his kitchen as an intentional effort to push people away. But I do believe the basic concept of his technology is valid and he's likely producing copious excess energy. Instead of waiting for him to commercialize the tech, however, I believe people who can do so safely could replicate the effect themselves without too much difficulty.

sam • 3 days ago

Steven N. Karels
June 12, 2019 at 9:22 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

You had previously mentioned building different eCat reactor sizes, up to 100kW thermal output.

1. Are you still investigating or planning different sized reactors?
2. Is there any practical limit to the number of reactors that may be combined in parallel?
3. Can you forecast what cost you expect to charge for electrical power, e.g. $25 USD per MWhr?

Andrea Rossi
June 13, 2019 at 12:55 AM
Steven N.Karels:
1- yes
2- no
3- premature
Warm Regards

Frank Acland
June 12, 2019 at 10:58 AM
Dear Andrea,

1. Is the current test for direct electricity from the E-Cat being done by you personally, or is a third party doing it?
2. Will a report be published if it is a success?

Kind regards,

Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi
June 12, 2019 at 6:57 PM
Frank Acland:
1 it is made by our Team
2 in due time, yes
Warm Regards

Axil Axil • 4 days ago

manuel cilia
June 12, 2019 at 5:28 AM
Dear Dr Rossi
Are you anticipating excess heat as well as electricity out of the new experimental Ecat. Would it be possible to generate hot water as well as electricity (Co-generation).

Thank you

Andrea Rossi
June 12, 2019 at 10:42 AM
Manuel Cilia:
We expect it and we are working for it.
Warm Regards,
It is conceivable that the extraction of electrical power from the SK reactor will not lower the production of heat in that hybrid configuration. If this possibility comes to pass, it will have a decisive impact on the theory of where the main source of energy ultimately originates in the LENR reaction.

j Harmsworth • 6 days ago

Focus Fusion, which I think is the same as or related to LPP Fusion is developing a system of fusion containment and generation that they had previously said produced copious X-rays which could be easily converted directly to electron flow/ electrical generation. Their theory and device is quite advanced and supported by solid and extensive theoretical development. If Rossi's machines can generate X-rays i would assume he could use a similar method of direct generation of electricity.

Nils Georg Leirset • 6 days ago

Since 1989, there are clear indications that the power of society, which is largely based on fossil energy, is working to stop the new. They can do that in many hidden ways, via the CIA for example. If new energy comes powerful and unexpected, it can become a shock to society and country. The natural thing for the CIA would be to get in touch with companies that Rossi is working with and threaten them to end the partnership. Can this be averted, and how can it possibly be averted?

A key country can be China. They had a whole city that was aimed at LENR research through collaboration with Cherokee Investment Partners in 2015-2016. The premise was probably extensive openness about research worldwide. However, the recent evolution of the trade war can easily make China closed, and thus the 2015 program can be a two-edged sword against Western countries.

The risk should at least bring much greater acceptance and willingness to public attention on the topic of Western countries, such as acceptance of Rossi, and more money for research.

causal observer • 6 days ago

Any suggestions about -possible- mechanisms by which the SK could produce useful electrical power?
Going back to the arc light / plasma model, the SK presumably produces a plasma, which means a lot of free electrons.
So far so good. How then might the SK, or SK rigged up with some other equipment, produce current and voltage?
Seems like that would require some geometric differential of charge density in the plasma (one part of the plasma being more positively or negatively charged than another.)
How could that occur?
I'd like to believe the SK can produce direct electrical power, however, if it is treated as a black box, it still has to hook up to a standard electrical circuit at some point. So again, what are possible ways that it might work?

Alan DeAngelis • 5 days ago


Could electricity be extracted from the E-Cat (represented
by B in the picture) with an induction coil (A in the picture)?


Alan DeAngelis • 5 days ago

another repost.

Alpha voltaic cell at 00:44 min.


Use the alphas from.

Li-7 + p > 2 He-4
17 MeV

gdaigle • 6 days ago

Magnetohydrodynamic power generation?

Axil Axil • 5 days ago

How did Magnetohydrodynamic power generation work out for Mills?

Mats Lewan • 6 days ago

[Also slightly off topic]: Since I'm curious to get a picture of what the opinion is today about Andrea Rossi and his claims, I invite you to answer to a poll on whether he has what he claims. Feel free to share.

Edac • 3 days ago

I would have like to have voted 'Yes', but I am no by no means sure about the "more or less ready for commercial use.". So I had to vote 'Not really'.

PhysicsForDummies • 6 days ago

Soliciting responses to this poll on ECW is akin to soliciting responses on Flat Earth websites asking if you still believe the earth is flat. You are selecting a group that has a built in bias (some would say irrational bias). Since Rossi has given no shred of evidence that any claims on JONP about the SK are factual, (robotic factories, unnamed customers, unnamed employees, "industialization", highest echelon partner companies ...) believing in Rossi is entirely a function of faith. Even his puppet song title is "I believe in the e-cat SK", asking for believers, not showing evidence of power out > power in. Faith is not scientific. Perhaps you have more inside information than the general public, if so I would like to know. I will change my mind with real evidence.

Roland • 5 days ago

You have already demonstrated that you are functionally innumerate as you have been repeatedly presented with such evidence and continue to post the same libels ad nauseam.

Mats Lewan • 6 days ago

[Slightly off topic]: What if LENR reactions turn out to be more energy dense than fission and fusion, or in other words, that they have a higher efficiency extracting mass out of a certain quantity of fuel and turn it into energy?

Rossi told me that the total quantity of fuel (powder) in the Doral 1MW plant was about 6-7 kg. He hasn't told me about any results of an isotopic analysis of the used fuel but I got an impression that he considers the portion of the fuel that was involved in the reaction to be too small to result in any significant isotopic shifts. I don't know if this is correct, since I have no knowledge about the analysis.

But let's assume that this is correct. Let us then compare to well-known nuclear and chemical reactions.

Releasing 1MW of power for one year means a total energy of about 9 GWh which, according to E=mc2, corresponds to about 0.3 grams of mass turned into energy. The question now regards the fuel efficiency.

For example, the Hiroshima bomb contained 64 kg of uranium out of which a little less than 1 kg underwent nuclear fission. The released energy was about 15 kt TNT or 17 GWh which corresponds to less than a gram of mass turned into energy.

The Nagasaki bomb offers similar numbers—6 kg of plutonium of which about 1 kg underwent nuclear fission releasing 21 kt TNT or about 24 GWh, which corresponds to about 1 gram of mass turned into energy.

In other words, in order to turn about 1 gram of mass into energy, you need to let 15-20 kt of fuel undergo a chemical reaction, or about 1 kg fuel undergo a nuclear fission reaction (and you need several times more mass of fuel to make one kg undergo fission). This makes nuclear fission about 10 mln times more fuel efficient than chemical reactions.

(The mass turned into energy in chemical reactions and in nuclear fission derives from binding energy in atoms/molecules or in nuclei respectively, being released, resulting in a corresponding decrease of mass).

This also means that if the LENR reaction powering the E-Cat system in Doral had the same fuel efficiency as nuclear fission, about 300 grams of the 6-7 kg of fuel should have been involved in the reaction. That would be about 5 percent of the fuel which would easily be detected through isotopic analysis of the used fuel.

Now, *IF* the isotopic analysis didn't show any significant shift, this could mean that the fuel efficiency is higher than in nuclear fission, or in other words that only a minor amount, let's say a few grams of the total fuel amount of 6-7 kg, was involved in the reaction in order to turn 0.3 grams of mass into energy.

The smallest possible amount would obviously be 0.3 grams of fuel involved, meaning that the LENR process would be 100 percent fuel efficient, compared to nuclear fission being about 0.1 percent fuel efficient and chemical reactions being less than 0.00001 percent fuel efficient.

Optimising the technology, which Rossi apparently has done through the development of the E-Cat SK, this could mean that instead of needing 6-7 kg of fuel to produce 1 MW of power, you would need much less fuel. Looking at the photo of the QX which essentially would be the same core reactor as the SK, this seems probable–you would need about 50 SK (each rated at 20 kW) to produce 1MW of power and I don't think that you would fit about 100 grams of fuel in each reactor.

On the contrary, I think Rossi says there's about a gram of fuel in each reactor, meaning that the total amount of fuel would be about 50 grams. This already puts the LENR reaction ahead of nuclear efficiency–in the worst case the fuel lasts only for a year, meaning that you need 50 grams of fuel ot transform 0.3 grams of mass into energy, making the fuel efficiency 0.6 percent or six times higher than nuclear fission.

If the SK on the other hand is 100% fuel efficient, this fuel would last for about 150 years.

Axil Axil • 6 days ago

You ignore the possible reaction of excess electron creation from the vacuum. This could occur through either Hawking radiation or Unruh radiation.


A quantum simulation of Unruh radiation

In this article, a Bose condensate is pumped with a magnetic field and that field extracts energy from the vacuum.

Could the gigahertz pumping signal that Rossi uses in the SK reactor milk the vacuum using a super fast oscillating magnetic field to produce energy from the billions of polaritons in a polariton condensate on every cycle of the pumping signal?


By the way, to my great surprise and delight this post got through moderation by Sabine Hossenfelder, a top particle physicist where I verify my science on her blog. Any post with the word "LENR" in it, does not make it through moderation, but this one did.

Mats Lewan • 5 days ago

Thanks Axil. I always wondered if the idea of fluctuating particles appearing out of the vacuum within the limit of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle—e.g. an electron-positron pair—and then annihilating each other releasing energy, had any theoretical support in physics. To me it would break the law of conservation of energy which I thought was still considered fundamental.

Stephen • 6 days ago

This is interesting I’m also curious.

I’ve up to now had two models in mind when thinking of his work and and have been curious what comes up.

On one hand I’ve been thinking he has may be found a way to use glow discharge from metal hydrides and it’s subsequent handling to enhance p + Li fusion at low energies somehow.

On the other hand the above would only be valid for light nuclei (I suppose? Unless the high energy alpha can stimulate heavy nuclei transmutations somehow) so the reported transmutations and changes in isotope ratios of heavier elements maybe implies something different perhaps involving dense Hydrogen or something similar.

It’s interesting the point you raise though about conversion efficiency. It’s a completely alternative way to look at it. Where as low numbers of transmutations might imply the first option I was considering the efficiency would also indicate something new may be.

I had thought that he has maybe found a way to control the heavier transmutations in his later devices by displacing the Li7 reaction from the source of the glow discharge plasma in the metal hydrides to a more distant dense region in the thermal plasma. This might be useful for thermal reasons, and to control alpha bombardment of the metal hydride. It might also be useful if particular isotopes with small nucleus energy gaps need to be protected from transmutations in order for it to work correctly for example).

So I guess the question is really if there is sufficient Li7 and H in the device and what affects and enhances the efficiency of that reaction over its life time.

Is it the Li7 and H content that is sufficient to last 150 years?

I’m very curious because I like both possible mechanisms. Li7 and p and Dense Hydrogen.

I tend to think it’s a mechanism optimized to combine both these approaches somehow. Even enhancing Li+p fusion requires some special mechanism. And all the different data from different sources in different places for some very different applications are pointing to a common mechanism in someway. I find that even more exciting than the e-cat even though that is already incredibly astonishing in it self.

What would be truely astonishing would be if there is less Helium from the alpha or less Lithium consumption than we would expect given the energies generated. That would imply something really new and exotic and potentially groundbreaking new physics and it’s applications as has sometimes been speculated.

colinsky • 6 days ago

Season 9 of Game of Postpones is under way!

Nixter • 6 days ago

I do believe that Dr. Rossi has a working e-cat device but his lack of scientific disclosure makes it impossible to judge the veracity of his claims. I hope that his claims of producing electricity directly from an E-cat Is true, we have been hearing about this since 2011, at some point the technology will be revealed, but the wait has been arduous.

Axil Axil • 5 days ago

LENR will produce electrons but the question is will the LENR reaction within the Rossi plasma produce enough electrical power to be useful.

Buck • 1 week ago

This is a very interesting string of comments by Rossi about the ECat SKL test for direct electricity production. It looks to be a ~1-week test as it was just started on 6/7 and is expected to be completed by 6/15. Fair to say that with the test being done in California, it is not at Rossi's lab in Florida.

The open question is: Who's facility is being used? Global partner or independent 3rd party lab like SRI?

If it is a 3rd party like SRI, then this suggests that Rossi has already privately tested the ECat SKL to some level of performance. Only then would he agree to spending the valuable time of a 3rd party lab, which arguably is for a validation of results, not an original first test of performance. A validation test would be extremely reasonable given the profound implications of an ECat SKL that meets or exceeds the target level of conversion Rossi has already shared (see Steven N. Karels' May 8, 2019 at 6:42 PM posting on Rossi's blog).

Karels: Can we safely assume that for the eCat-SK Electric to be commercially viable, the conversion efficiency from thermal to electric must be greater than the typical Carnot efficiency (e.g., 45%) and limited to about 95% (due to electrical conversion efficiency to a standard (AC or DC) output)?
Rossi: yes

Roland • 5 days ago

ABB has a campus with laboratories in San Jose CA.

Buck • 3 days ago

Oblique confirmation that the testing is being done at the global partner's facility


Frank Acland
June 12, 2019 at 10:58 AM

Dear Andrea,
1. Is the current test for direct electricity from the E-Cat being done by you personally, or is a third party doing it?
2. Will a report be published if it is a success?

Kind regards,
Frank Acland

Andrea Rossi
June 12, 2019 at 6:57 PM

Frank Acland:

1 it is made by our Team
2 in due time, yes

Warm Regards

sam • 6 days ago

Steven N. Karels
June 9, 2019 at 8:36 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,

It is reasonable to believe that you have a high degree of confidence in the eCat-SK Electric to place it in a location of independent testing in California. Obviously, it must have correctly functioned at your location before you would have allowed it to go to California. Any update(s) would be appreciated.

Andrea Rossi
June 10, 2019 at 3:51 AM
Steven N. Karels:
No, we are making tests in the context of an R&D
Any assumption is premature.
Warm Regards

Buck • 5 days ago


this comes off as a non-denial denial.

Who said it wasn't R&D?

I am guessing Rossi is being strict about pre-judging R&D experiments: you never count the chickens before they hatch! Never!

It also suggests that this test is occurring at his mysterious global partner's facility. However, a similar logic still holds: it is more likely to be a validation test rather than an initial performance test.

Alan DeAngelis • 1 week ago
Alan DeAngelis • 1 week ago


They will see a hidden wire going up to the sky.


PappyYokum • 1 week ago

It would be nice to see something that does more than sit on a workbench and glow while measurements are taken.

Alan DeAngelis • 1 week ago

Power an electric guitar?

Take it away Juliette.


Frank Sedei • 1 week ago

The whole scientific world should be waiting with bated breath and hope. Good luck, Andrea!

PhysicsForDummies • 1 week ago

The whole scientific world should be doing experiments and developing theories rather than sitting around waiting for yet another unsubstiated announcement on JONP.

Carlen • 6 days ago

If you don’t believe Rossi, that’s fine. That is healthy skepticism which is welcome in science.

On the other hand to pretend that Frank actually meant for scientists to stop working, sleeping, eating and glue themselves to the screen is unhelpful to the conversation. There is nothing unscientific about cheering on another researcher, even if their research is proprietary.

A lot of amazing research was at one point proprietary, or is still today. This is the nature of a capitalist economic society. You may take issue with this, but that is probably for another thread entirely.

Anon2012_2014 • 1 week ago

"This particular test is made in California, because there we have the right technological support"

Possibly good news -- that possibly he has Google or another California anti-global warming group providing "technical support" and thus directly observing his results. First (possibly) good news in a long time.

gdaigle • 1 week ago

SRI International or Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would be even better!

Jarea • 5 days ago

I do not know but SRI has ties to Smithsonian and Smithsonian is known to hide many things and to be controlled by snakes.