Rossi Blog Reader
This website tracks recent postings to Andrea Rossi's
Journal of Nuclear Physics,
sorting the entries with priority to Rossi's answers, which appear under each question.
• Email to Andrea Rossi - Journal Of Nuclear Physics
• Website comments to the Webmaster (who has no contact or connection with Rossi).
• Updated: 2026-10-11 21:20:09.957965Z
Many Thanks for the work you are doing
Michael Marino:
Many Thanks for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
2D zitterbewegung model.
https://youtu.be/DS0hUQluOHY?si=yevpiznUjECRs9K1
Sam:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
The safety certification that you have obtained for the SSM E-Cat, is it refereeing to a basic E-Cat module or is it to a finished product?
Kind regards,
Calle H
Calle H:
There is not difference, because the basic module of 100 W is the product and all the Ecats with more power will be assemblies of the basic module,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Does this describe 100W Ecat operation?
1) The SSM captures energy at a rate required by the load to provide continous or intermittent load power at any value up to 100W within specifications. A regulatory mechanism ensures load tracking to prevent excessive or under energy capture and prevent Ecat heating and poor delivery?
2) The non SSM captures energy at a fixed rate to provide continuous 100W power to a heater load. The load resistance must be within a specified range such that all power is absorbed by the load. A regulatory mechanism allows the Ecat to be shut down or activated by external temperature control?
Thank You
Steve D
The description of the Ecat will be disclosed at the presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
January ’27 is no longer that far away, and neither is the presentation. Have you decided how you’ll describe the principle behind Ecat? Will it be LENR, Zero Point Energy, ZIAE, or something else entirely?
Regards, Giuseppe
Giuseppe Censorio:
Zero Point Energy born by Zitterbewegung Induced Anomalous Energy,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Thank you for continuing to share information about the development of the E-Cat.
I have three questions:
1. Will independent laboratories be permitted to verify sustained net energy production before the January/February 2027 presentation?
2. Will the January presentation include a working E-Cat that independent observers can test and measure?
3. Is there an anticipated date for contacting those of us who volunteered to participate in the early demonstration program and received an acknowledgment of our applications?
Thank you for your time and continued efforts.
Warm regards,
Daniel Hawk Hicks
Daniel Hawk Hicks:
1. yes
2. yes
3. no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Some time ago, you indicated that the third-party team preparing for the Global Presentation would start its work around November.
May I ask whether this work has now started, and whether the planned evaluation includes both the SSM and non-SSM versions of the E-Cat?
I understand that the scope and timing of the work may depend on technical developments and that you may not be able to disclose details at this stage.
My question is simply intended to understand the current status of the independent evaluation in preparation for the Global Presentation.
Thank you for your time.
Warm regards Svein
Svein:
Not started yet.
Still we do not know if the SSM version will be ready,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Nikola Tesla and Zero Point Energy.
https://youtu.be/JK-J2d1nJNw?si=0HchSy23W_-B-ifz
Sam:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
# PRELIMINARY CONCEPT — FOR DISCUSSION
## 100 kW / 800 VDC SSM Generation Rack for AI Data Centers
**Not a Leonardo Corporation specification**
**Subject to confirmation of Ecat SSM electrical and mechanical interface requirements**
### Purpose
This concept examines whether the Ecat 100 W / 12 VDC SSM module could be packaged by an established data-center rack integrator as a modular approximately 100 kW, 800 VDC power source.
The objective is to use the SSM modules as the fundamental generating elements while minimizing intermediate power conversion.
The rack integrator would provide the mechanical packaging, high-voltage backplane, protection, monitoring, SCADA and data-center interface.
—
## 1. Basic Generation Architecture
Assuming a nominal SSM output of:
**100 W at 12 VDC**
approximately 67 SSM modules could be connected in series:
**67 × 12 VDC = 804 VDC nominal**
**67 × 100 W = 6.7 kW nominal**
This series-connected group would form one **SSM Generation Blade**.
### One Generation Blade
**67 SSM modules in series**
↓
**~804 VDC**
**~6.7 kW**
↓
Blade protection and monitoring
↓
Common 800 VDC rack bus
—
## 2. 100 kW Generation Rack
Fifteen nominal 6.7 kW generation blades connected in parallel would provide:
**15 × 6.7 kW = 100.5 kW**
The resulting architecture would therefore contain approximately:
**1,005 × 100 W SSM modules**
providing approximately:
**100 kW at ~800 VDC**
The preliminary rack envelope being considered is:
**28.0 in W × 48.0 in D × 82.3 in H**
The exact blade arrangement would be determined after the final SSM mechanical dimensions, electrical clearances and thermal requirements are available.
—
## 3. Proposed Rack Architecture
“`text
67 SSM MODULES
CONNECTED IN SERIES
│
▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 6.7 kW SSM BLADE│
│ ~800 VDC │
└────────┬─────────┘
│
│ × 15 BLADES IN PARALLEL
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ ~100 kW SSM GENERATION RACK │
│ │
│ B01 B02 B03 … B13 B14 B15 │
│ │
│ Optional redundant blades │
│ │
│ Common ~800 VDC Backplane │
│ │
│ Rack Control / Protection │
│ SCADA / Monitoring │
│ │
└────────────────┬────────────────┘
│
▼
~800 VDC OUTPUT
│
▼
DATA-CENTER POWER SYSTEM
“`
—
## 4. Modular Redundancy
Because the generation blades would connect in parallel to the common 800 VDC bus, loss and isolation of one blade would primarily reduce the available current and generating capacity rather than intentionally changing the nominal system voltage.
Additional generation blades could therefore potentially provide **N+1 or N+2 redundancy**.
For example:
**15 active blades = ~100.5 kW**
Additional blades could provide reserve generating capacity.
A failed blade could be electrically isolated while the remaining blades continue supplying the common bus, subject to confirmation of the SSM module’s load-sharing and parallel-operation characteristics.
This could allow the generation rack to be designed using principles similar to redundant data-center power systems.
—
## 5. Blade Monitoring and SCADA
Each generation blade could contain a small isolated control and monitoring section.
Possible measurements include:
* Blade voltage
* Blade current and power
* SSM module/string health
* Temperature
* Insulation status
* Fault condition
* Blade connection status
A central rack controller could collect information from all generation blades and provide the appropriate interface to the data-center management system.
The purpose of this electronics would primarily be **protection, monitoring and system management**, rather than conversion of the generated power.
—
## 6. Potential Advantage of Native 800 VDC Generation
Emerging high-power AI data centers are moving toward high-voltage DC distribution architectures.
If SSM modules can be series-connected to produce the required bus voltage directly, a generation rack could potentially supply approximately 800 VDC without requiring a large intermediate power-conversion stage solely to create that voltage.
At 100 kW:
**100 kW / 800 V ≈ 125 A**
This is considerably more practical for rack-level distribution than attempting to distribute the same 100 kW at approximately 50 VDC.
Existing data-center equipment could then perform the downstream conversion required by the compute racks.
—
## 7. Proposed Industry Division of Responsibility
The concept intentionally separates the energy-generation technology from the data-center packaging technology.
### Leonardo Corporation
Supply the Ecat SSM generating modules and the electrical/mechanical interface requirements necessary for their proper operation.
### Rack Integrator
Design and manufacture:
* Generation blades
* Mechanical chassis
* HVDC backplane/bus
* Protection
* Fault isolation
* Monitoring
* SCADA
* Serviceability
* Redundancy
* Safety systems
* Data-center interface
### Existing Data-Center Power Ecosystem
Provide the downstream 800 VDC distribution and conversion infrastructure required by the compute equipment.
This approach could allow Leonardo to address the AI/data-center market without having to become a data-center rack manufacturer.
—
## 8. OCP Rack & Power Direction
The architecture is intended to be investigated in relation to the work of the **Open Compute Project (OCP) Rack & Power Project Group**, particularly emerging high-voltage DC and high-power rack architectures.
This document does **not** claim OCP compliance.
The objective would be for an experienced rack integrator to determine how an SSM generation rack could be engineered toward compatibility with applicable OCP and data-center power requirements.
—
## 9. Information Required for Detailed Engineering
Before detailed rack engineering begins, the following SSM interface information would be required:
**Mechanical**
* Current 100 W SSM module dimensions
* Weight
* Mounting requirements
* Required module spacing
* Thermal requirements
**Electrical**
* Nominal and allowable output-voltage range
* Rated output current
* Output V-I/load characteristic
* Permitted series connection
* Permitted parallel connection
* Required electrical isolation
* No-load operation
* Transient/load-step response
* Startup and shutdown requirements
* Fault behavior
* Maximum fault current
* Grounding requirements
These parameters would allow a professional rack integrator to determine the final number of modules per blade, blade dimensions, backplane architecture, protection requirements and achievable rack power density.
—
# Proposed Commercial Building Block
### 100 W SSM Module
↓
### 67-Module / ~6.7 kW / ~800 VDC Generation Blade
↓
### 15 Parallel Generation Blades
↓
# ~100 kW / ~800 VDC SSM Generation Rack
↓
### AI Data-Center HVDC Infrastructure
—
## Discussion Question for Leonardo Corporation
**Is there anything fundamentally incompatible with the Ecat SSM module in the proposed architecture of approximately 67 modules connected in series per generation blade, with multiple generation blades subsequently connected in parallel to a common approximately 800 VDC bus?**
If the architecture is fundamentally compatible with the SSM modules, the next step could be to discuss the concept with established data-center rack engineering and manufacturing companies.
Potential organizations with relevant rack-integration expertise include **Jabil, Flex and Celestica**, among others.
Such organizations could potentially evaluate the mechanical packaging, protection, monitoring, serviceability and standards requirements while Leonardo Corporation remains the supplier of the SSM generating technology.
**PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CONCEPT — NOT A PRODUCT SPECIFICATION**
Axil:
Thank you for the information.
Answer: not at the demonstration, to avoid confusion, but we are open to receive proposals, to be dealt with under NDA, and in private,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The proposal to use an 800‑VDC Ecat distribution for AI data centers is intriguing, especially the idea of a 1‑MW Ecat generator feeding a high‑voltage DC network. However, the article hints that a single large generator might not be optimal, suggesting modular or distributed generators could reduce complexity and improve reliability.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I have been studying how the 100 W, 12 VDC SSM modules might be packaged specifically for the emerging 800 VDC AI data-center market.
A possible architecture is surprisingly simple.
Each generation blade would contain approximately 67 SSM modules connected in series:
67 × 12 VDC ≈ 804 VDC
67 × 100 W ≈ 6.7 kW per blade
Fifteen generation blades connected in parallel to a common 800 VDC backplane would therefore provide approximately:
15 × 6.7 kW = 100.5 kW
The proposed rack envelope is approximately:
28.0″ W × 48.0″ D × 82.3″ H.
Each blade could contain the 67 SSM modules plus a small section for blade control, protection, sensing and SCADA monitoring.
The blades would be connected in parallel at the common 800 VDC bus. Therefore, failure and isolation of one blade would primarily reduce available current/power rather than changing the nominal bus voltage. Additional redundant blades could provide N+1 or N+2 capacity.
This could result in a modular architecture:
100 W SSM module
→ 67-module 6.7 kW / ~800 VDC generation blade
→ 15 parallel blades
→ ~100 kW / 800 VDC generation rack
→ existing data-center 800 VDC power architecture.
This appears particularly interesting because the Open Compute Project Rack & Power Project Group is already developing standards around high-voltage DC rack power, including ±400 VDC/800 VDC architectures and 100 kW power shelves.
I suggest that it might be worthwhile inviting companies with expertise in rack design and manufacturing to the Ecat demonstration. Companies such as Jabil, Flex and Celestica already work in AI/data-center rack integration and power infrastructure.
If the demonstration confirms the characteristics of the SSM modules, an engineering handout could be provided showing this proposed 100 kW modular rack architecture and its relationship to the Open Compute Project Rack & Power standards.
The objective would not be for Leonardo to design the data-center rack itself. The SSM module could remain Leonardo’s product, while established rack integrators design and manufacture standardized data-center power systems around it.
This could create an additional OEM market for the SSM module without requiring Leonardo to develop the downstream data-center infrastructure.
Would you consider inviting representatives of rack/power integration companies to the demonstration and making basic SSM mechanical and electrical interface information available to them?
Warm Regards,
Axil
Proposed Distributed 800-VDC Ecat Architecture for AI Data Centers
The rapid increase in AI processor power creates an interesting opportunity for an Ecat-based power system.
My original thought was to construct a large Ecat power plant—perhaps approaching 1 MW—and use it to supply an 800-VDC data-center distribution system.
There may be a better solution.
Instead of building one enormous Ecat generator and then distributing its power throughout the data center, smaller Ecat generating blocks could be placed close to the groups of processors that consume their power.
The basic principle is:
GENERATE POWER NEAR THE COMPUTING LOAD
rather than:
GENERATE 1 MW IN ONE LOCATION AND DISTRIBUTE ALL OF IT ACROSS THE DATA CENTER.
Why 800 VDC?
The AI industry is moving toward high-voltage DC distribution because the power required by future GPU racks is becoming extremely large.
At 800 VDC:
50 kW = 62.5 A
100 kW = 125 A
400 kW = 500 A
1 MW = 1,250 A
This immediately illustrates why I favor a distributed architecture.
Rather than transporting 1 MW at 1,250 A from one Ecat installation, we could create multiple independently protected power blocks.
A useful initial engineering target appears to be approximately:
100 kW / 800 VDC / 125 A per Ecat power block
The final size should be determined by the actual Ecat characteristics and the requirements of the compute equipment, rather than treating 100 kW as a fixed requirement.
Proposed architecture
The Ecat generating elements do not necessarily have to be contained in one physical box.
Individual Ecat diode assemblies could be distributed physically while their outputs are electrically aggregated into an appropriate power block.
The proposed hierarchy is:
NON-SSM OR SSM ECAT DIODES/MODULES
→ LOCAL SERIES/PARALLEL AGGREGATION
→ PROTECTED DC FEEDERS
→ ECAT POWER BLOCK — approximately 100 kW
→ COTS BIDIRECTIONAL DC/DC POWER CONDITIONER
→ REGULATED 800-VDC / approximately 125-A OUTPUT
↔ LOCAL ENERGY BUFFER
→ SHORT 800-VDC DISTRIBUTION
→ COTS 800-VDC-TO-INTERMEDIATE-VOLTAGE CONVERTERS
→ PROCESSOR POINT-OF-LOAD CONVERTERS
→ GPU / CPU COMPUTE BLOCK
The process is then repeated throughout the data center:
Ecat Block A → 800 VDC → Compute Block A
Ecat Block B → 800 VDC → Compute Block B
Ecat Block C → 800 VDC → Compute Block C
Ecat Block D → 800 VDC → Compute Block D
and so forth.
Ten 100-kW blocks would provide an aggregate installed generating capacity of 1 MW without requiring the Ecat itself to be constructed as one enormous 1-MW generating unit.
Power conditioning can use COTS technology
An important discovery is that approximately 100-kW DC/DC conversion is already a commercial power-electronics class.
Commercial bidirectional DC/DC converters are available for energy-storage, microgrid and high-voltage DC applications.
Maxwell Technology, for example, advertises a 100-kW isolated bidirectional DC/DC converter with an approximately 740–860-VDC high-voltage range.
Maxwell Technology:
https://www.maxwellpower.cn/productinfo/5960640.html
IMAX Power also offers a 100-kW bidirectional DC/DC module for energy-storage and DC-bus applications.
IMAX Power:
https://imax-pwr.com/product/100kw-non-isolated-bidirectional-dcdc-module/
ABB is developing its Infinitus DC architecture specifically around 800-VDC power conversion, distribution, protection and power quality for AI data centers.
ABB Infinitus:
https://www.abb.com/global/en/areas/electrification/campaigns/infinitus-dc-portfolio
At the other end of the 800-VDC bus, commercial converters are emerging that convert 800 VDC into the lower intermediate voltages required by computing equipment.
Advanced Energy, for example, has introduced isolated 800-VDC-to-50-V DC/DC converters rated at 6 kW continuous power and designed for next-generation AI data centers.
Advanced Energy:
https://ir.advanced-energy.com/news/advanced-energy-introduces-800-v-dc-converters-for-next-generation-ai-data-centers-new-dc-dc-converters/4a23cb7c-eda6-405d-b5f6-5081b61c4c01
Therefore, the proposed Ecat system does not necessarily require the invention of an entirely new data-center power architecture.
The objective would be to make the Ecat conform to the emerging architecture.
The Ecat becomes a standardized 800-VDC power appliance
The design objective could therefore be very simple:
ECAT ENERGY SOURCE
→ COTS POWER CONDITIONING
→ STANDARDIZED 800-VDC OUTPUT
Once power reaches that interface, conventional data-center equipment can take over.
This is important because it establishes a clean engineering boundary.
Leonardo would not have to manufacture processor power supplies, rack converters, data-center busways or facility power equipment.
The Ecat system would simply supply properly conditioned DC power at the interface expected by the data-center infrastructure.
Aggregating many Ecat diodes may actually help
If individual Ecat diode output fluctuations are substantially independent, combining large numbers of diodes could reduce the percentage variation of their aggregate output.
For statistically independent fluctuations, the relative random component would tend to decrease approximately as:
1 / square root of N
where N is the number of generating elements.
This means a large diode population could potentially provide some inherent statistical smoothing before active conditioning occurs.
That gives us three levels of stabilization:
LEVEL 1 — DIODE AGGREGATION
Random variations may partially average out.
LEVEL 2 — COTS DC/DC CONDITIONING
The converter regulates the resulting power block onto the 800-VDC bus.
LEVEL 3 — LOCAL ENERGY BUFFER
A battery, supercapacitor or hybrid storage system handles residual short-term differences between Ecat production and processor demand.
If the diode fluctuations are correlated rather than independent, aggregation would not remove that common-mode component, and the conditioner/buffer would have to handle it.
Actual synchronized voltage and current measurements are therefore essential before sizing the storage system.
The buffer may be much smaller than expected
The storage system does not necessarily have to power the processors for hours.
Its primary purpose could be to absorb fast production/load differences and bridge the response time of the other power systems.
For example, a 20-kW power deficit lasting:
100 milliseconds requires 2 kJ = 0.56 Wh
1 second requires 20 kJ = 5.56 Wh
10 seconds requires 200 kJ = 55.6 Wh
Consequently, if Ecat fluctuations occur primarily on short timescales, a relatively small high-power battery/supercapacitor system could potentially perform the required stabilization.
Long-duration backup could remain a facility-level responsibility.
Keep the facility power backbone
I would not eliminate the conventional data-center electrical system.
Instead, it becomes the common backup and support network.
Conceptually:
FACILITY / GRID POWER BACKBONE
↕ ↕ ↕
ECAT BLOCK A ECAT BLOCK B ECAT BLOCK C
↓ ↓ ↓
800 VDC 800 VDC 800 VDC
↓ ↓ ↓
COMPUTE A COMPUTE B COMPUTE C
During normal operation, most Ecat-generated power travels only a relatively short distance to its associated computing load.
The facility system remains available for startup, maintenance, redundancy, abnormal conditions and failure of an individual Ecat power block.
Failure becomes local rather than plant-wide
The modular architecture provides another important advantage.
If one 100-kW Ecat block fails:
isolate that block
→ facility power temporarily supports its compute load
→ other Ecat blocks continue operating
→ failed block is repaired/replaced independently
A single Ecat problem therefore need not remove an entire megawatt of generation.
This is a natural match for the redundancy philosophy already used in data centers.
Scale-out power for scale-out computing
Perhaps the most attractive feature is economic.
A data-center operator would not necessarily have to purchase a complete 1-MW Ecat installation before installing the first compute equipment.
Instead:
ADD COMPUTE BLOCK
→ ADD ECAT POWER BLOCK
ADD COMPUTE BLOCK
→ ADD ECAT POWER BLOCK
Generation capacity can grow with computing capacity.
A 1-MW data center might eventually contain ten nominal 100-kW Ecat power blocks, but they could be installed progressively.
This converts the Ecat from a large centralized power plant into a modular data-center power appliance.
The proposed design principle
The concept can be summarized in one sequence:
MANY ECAT DIODES
→ LOCAL AGGREGATION
→ ~100-kW POWER BLOCK
→ COTS POWER CONDITIONING
→ 800 VDC / ~125 A
→ SHORT LOCAL DISTRIBUTION
→ COTS RACK CONVERSION
→ GPU/CPU COMPUTE BLOCK
Then replicate that architecture as the data center grows.
The exact optimum Ecat block size cannot be established until the electrical characteristics and stable aggregation limits of the Ecat are known. It may ultimately be 50 kW, 100 kW, 200 kW or another value.
But the central idea remains the same:
Do not build a gigantic Ecat and then solve the problem of distributing all of its power.
Build standardized Ecat power blocks near the computing loads, condition their output to the emerging 800-VDC standard, and scale the power system horizontally along with the computers.
That could reduce the amount of bulk power-distribution hardware required while simultaneously improving modularity, redundancy, serviceability and incremental expansion.
The interesting point is that much of the required 800-VDC conversion technology is already becoming commercially available. The principal new engineering problem would therefore be the interface between the Ecat generating elements and that conventional 800-VDC power infrastructure.
Axil:
Thank you for your suggestions and for the links,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The article’s discussion of the Ecat non‑SSM converting electrical energy into heat through the Joule effect is a clear illustration of how simple resistive heating can be harnessed for practical applications. By coupling this with an ORC plant, the author shows a viable pathway to generate the electricity needed for higher‑power SSM assemblies, effectively turning heat into usable power.
You can check Pokemon type matchups without pulling up a chart every time.
RandomPokemon:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Could a non-ssm E-cat supply the absorption air conditioner with the necessary heat?
[2:] This heat input may be provided by a gas flame, waste industrial heat, solar energy, or otherwise (add non-ssm Ecat?)
websearch ‘absorption air conditioning’
[1:] https://todayshomeowner.com/hvac/guides/what-is-absorption-air-conditioning/
Absorption air conditioning is an innovative cooling technology gaining traction in commercial and residential settings. Unlike traditional vapor-compression systems, absorption air conditioning harnesses heat energy to cool spaces efficiently.
While traditionally associated with large-scale industrial and commercial applications, absorption air conditioning is also finding its way into residential settings.
The ability to operate without electricity makes absorption cooling an excellent choice for off-grid homes. These systems use solar thermal energy or propane as a heat source to provide reliable cooling where traditional air conditioning isn’t feasible.
[2:] https://www.buildingenclosureonline.com/blogs/14-the-be-blog-building-enclosure/post/90447-the-absorption-refrigeration-cycle
Absorption refrigeration requires a lot of energy input – so make it clean energy
Unlike the vapor-compression cycle, the absorption refrigeration cycle does not require a compressor pump. However, the cycle does require a major source of heat to vaporize the absorber solution in the Generator (see figure). This source of heat is critical from the standpoint of carbon intensity and energy costs. This heat input may be provided by a gas flame, waste industrial heat, solar energy, or otherwise. In the interest of environmental responsibility and minimum carbon intensity, a clean energy source should be utilized.
paul dodgshun:
Thank you for the information and the links.
The Ecat non-SSM turns the electricity into heat by means of the Joule Effect, and the heat can be made use of by anything that needs it; your suggestion is interesting, as well as coupling the Ecat with an ORC plant: due to the COP of the Ecat, the SSM with high power assemblies can also be reached this way starting with a non-SSM assembly, making by the ORC the electricity necessary to power the Ecat assembly.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
Your comment is the # 74000 of this blog
Dear Andrea,
I realized that I may have made an incorrect assumption in my previous questions.
My understanding is that the 3 kW Ecat SSM system will normally be supplied with an inverter so that it can power ordinary household AC loads.
For applications in which the customer provides their own downstream power-conditioning equipment, can the 3 kW Ecat SSM instead be supplied as a DC-output system without the Leonardo-supplied inverter?
In other words, would the regulated DC output of the Ecat be available as the customer interface, with Leonardo specifying its allowable voltage, current and load range?
This question concerns only the available Ecat product configuration and not connection to the grid.
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
I assume yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea and Axil,
Thank you both for your constructive and helpful responses.
Axil, thank you for taking the time to develop the technical aspects of the possible Ecat–smart inverter architecture.
Andrea, thank you for clarifying that such a grid connection should be possible, while the necessary authorizations, certified installation and grid-management requirements must be handled by the customer together with qualified experts.
For my part, I think it is best to wait with any further steps until the January presentation has taken place. The presentation, together with the documentation and specifications that will be made available then, will be the main basis for assessing the practical and commercial possibilities going forward.
Until then, I will be happy to continue following the development and discussion here.
Best regards Svein
Svein:
Thank you for your opinion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
I look forward to purchasing the NGU devices (SSM or not SSM) soon! God speed with the development and manufacturing.
A few questions about the non-SSM device. It might be a good source for providing lightning or heat or both. Can the non-SSM device:
1). Power a nonlinear restive device like an incandescent light bulb?
2). An arc light?
3). A fluorescent light?
4). AN LED light?
I look forward to your answer.
TJKaminski:
The main use of the SSM will be heat poduction by Joule effect, which is the most efficient conversion ( about 99% ); anyway also the other resistive loads can be powered,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I understand and respect your position that Leonardo will not assume liability for direct or indirect connection of the Ecat to the grid.
My concern is that I am not a grid-integration expert, and therefore I do not want to assume that a certified smart inverter eliminates every technical issue when an Ecat is used as its DC source.
The architecture I have in mind is:
Ecat DC output → certified smart/grid inverter → authorized electrical installation → grid
My understanding is that the certified inverter handles the grid-facing requirements, including synchronization, voltage and frequency limits, anti-islanding, export control, fault protection and disconnection.
An off-grid Ecat installation supplying normal household AC loads would also require an inverter and would also have to accommodate changing load demand. Therefore I cannot presently identify what additional Ecat-specific technical risk is introduced by connecting the inverter to the grid.
But this may simply reflect my lack of expertise in grid integration.
Is there a particular technical or safety issue associated with the Ecat that causes your concern about indirect grid connection, even when a certified grid inverter, an authorized installer and grid-provider approval are used?
I am not asking Leonardo to assume liability. I am trying to determine whether there is an Ecat-specific issue that I have overlooked.
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
I am not able to answer,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
An informative video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdu0iZvQs0
A TEC-G cell consists of two electrodes and a patent-pending electrolyte developed by HEIONTEC. Within the closed-cell architecture, this electrolyte enables a reversible electrochemical process in which electrical energy is generated and then regenerated using ambient heat.
https://www.heiontec.com
lenr.wiki:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi and readers, on a non-technical aspect, it seems that the final world presentation of E-Cat technology may come at a very crucial moment, as oil supplies from established sources become increasingly unlikely. America is an incredible country and not always on the wrong side of history. Two decades ago an Amerccan analyst made an astute observation. ‘The stone age did not end because cave men ran out of stones, and the oil age will not end because the world runs out of oil’. My own recently published novel was dedicated ‘to authors and dreamers everywhere’. Dr Rossi was perhaps a dreamer, derided and mocked,described as a fraud. It has always been dreamers and visionaries who ultimately pointed to the future and were the heralds of true human and scientific progress.
David-UK:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein,
**Update to my previous business-plan post**
I looked further into the Norwegian electricity rules, and there is an important point that improves the economic analysis.
Norway’s current Norgespris is **50 øre/kWh including VAT (40 øre/kWh excluding VAT)** through the end of 2026. However, that figure alone does not represent the full economic value of electricity generated and consumed at your own house.
Under RME’s plus-customer rules, electricity produced and consumed behind your own meter does not incur grid charges. Therefore, a locally consumed Ecat kWh can have greater value than simply the quoted electricity price because it can displace both purchased electricity and applicable grid-related costs.
The calculation should therefore separate two uses of the Ecat production:
**Ecat → house:** value is the avoided cost of purchasing that electricity, including applicable avoided grid costs.
**Ecat → grid:** value is the compensation received for exported electricity under the applicable agreement.
For the proposed 6 kW system, continuous operation would theoretically produce:
**6 kW × 8,760 hours = 52,560 kWh/year.**
At the projected Ecat price of **$3–$4/W**, the Ecat itself would cost approximately **$18,000–$24,000**.
To illustrate the sensitivity of the business case:
At an average realized value of **$0.10/kWh**, 52,560 kWh would be worth about **$5,256/year**, giving an Ecat-only simple payback of approximately **3.4–4.6 years**.
At **$0.15/kWh**, annual value becomes about **$7,884**, reducing Ecat-only simple payback to approximately **2.3–3.0 years**.
At **$0.20/kWh**, annual value becomes about **$10,512**, giving approximately **1.7–2.3 years**.
These are illustrations, not a prediction. The real calculation must include the actual Norwegian price area, household consumption profile, export compensation, grid tariff, inverter and installation cost, Ecat availability, conversion losses, financing, taxes and maintenance.
There is also a second point from my previous post worth emphasizing.
If the first installation is organized as a genuine commercial R&D project rather than simply a private home installation, Norwegian business tax treatment may be relevant. An eligible R&D project approved under **SkatteFUNN** can currently receive a **19% tax credit on qualifying R&D project costs**, subject to the program’s requirements.
That possibility should be investigated with a Norwegian accountant and the Research Council **before committing the development expenditures**. It should not be assumed that an Ecat purchase or ordinary home installation automatically qualifies.
The important conclusion is that the economics should not be evaluated using the electricity commodity price alone.
A successful 6 kW demonstration could potentially establish three things simultaneously:
**technical feasibility + Norwegian grid approval + demonstrated economics.**
Those three together are what could turn the first installation into the foundation for the commercial integration business I described in my previous post.
Regards,
Axil
Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
Answer:
Should be possible, but still we will not assume any liability for connections to the grid, directly of indirectly, as I already explained . Such connections must be authorized by the grid provider and made by authorized contractors,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein,
If you successfully demonstrate the proposed 6 kW Ecat/smart-inverter system and obtain the necessary Norwegian grid approval, I think there may be a business opportunity considerably larger than your own installation.
Your first system could be treated as a demonstration and engineering project:
**Ecat SSM DC source → certified smart inverter → house + grid**
You would work with Leonardo to obtain Ecat DC outputs compatible with the inverter inputs, while qualified Norwegian electrical/grid specialists would handle the inverter, protection, installation and grid approval, consistent with Andrea’s latest reply.
If the system works reliably and you establish that other Norwegian grid customers want it, you would then possess something commercially valuable: a tested Norwegian integration package.
You could potentially establish a business offering a standardized 6 kW system to other customers operating under the applicable RME and grid-provider requirements.
That package could include:
**Ecat + certified smart inverter + standardized DC interface + installation/commissioning + grid documentation + continuing maintenance and support.**
With sufficient sales volume, you could also negotiate volume discounts from both Leonardo’s Ecat partner and the smart-inverter manufacturer. A maintenance contract could provide recurring income while giving customers a single point of support for the complete installation.
There may also be a Norwegian tax advantage worth investigating **before beginning the development project**.
If this is merely equipment installed privately at your home, Norwegian tax rules generally do not allow the investment and operating costs of a home power installation to be deducted against income from selling surplus electricity.
However, if you establish a genuine Norwegian business whose purpose includes developing, testing and commercializing this Ecat/grid-integration system, qualifying business expenses may receive normal business tax treatment, with qualifying long-lived equipment generally depreciated according to Norwegian rules.
Even more interesting is Norway’s **SkatteFUNN** R&D incentive. A Norwegian taxable company with an R&D project approved by the Research Council can currently receive a tax credit equal to **19% of qualifying R&D project costs**, subject to the program requirements and limits.
Therefore, before purchasing the demonstration equipment, I would investigate with a Norwegian accountant and the Research Council whether development of the first Ecat/MPPT/grid integration system could qualify as a formal R&D project.
The distinction could be financially important:
**Private experiment → generally no deduction for the home-generation investment.**
**Commercial development project → ordinary qualifying business costs may be deductible/depreciable.**
**Approved SkatteFUNN R&D project → potentially an additional 19% tax credit on qualifying R&D costs.**
Do not assume that purchasing an Ecat or installing equipment automatically qualifies. The business purpose, R&D content, accounting, documentation and project approval all matter.
The economics are nevertheless worth examining.
At the projected Ecat price of approximately **$3–$4 per watt**, a 6 kW Ecat would cost approximately:
**6,000 W × $3–$4/W = $18,000–$24,000.**
At continuous 6 kW operation, theoretical maximum annual generation would be:
**6 kW × 8,760 hours = 52,560 kWh/year.**
Before inverter, installation, maintenance, financing, taxes and losses, the electricity value necessary to recover the Ecat cost in five years would therefore be approximately:
**$18,000 system: 6.9 cents/kWh**
**$24,000 system: 9.1 cents/kWh**
Your real calculation should use Norwegian electricity prices, self-consumption savings, export compensation, grid charges, actual availability, the final RME rules and the complete installed cost.
If the first installation proves both technically successful and economically attractive, the money and effort you invested in solving the engineering and regulatory problems would not necessarily benefit only your own house. It could become the basis of a Norwegian Ecat integration business.
I think the same commercialization model could eventually be used by others on this blog around the world.
Leonardo supplies the independent energy source.
Established inverter manufacturers supply certified grid-interface technology.
Local engineers and installers satisfy their country’s electrical and utility requirements.
Local entrepreneurs package those components into a supported product adapted to their particular grid rules and incentives.
Norway could therefore become one demonstration of a much broader model.
Before investing, I would investigate the RME requirements, obtain professional Norwegian electrical and tax advice, and determine whether the initial development project could qualify for SkatteFUNN.
Regards,
Axil
Dear Andrea,
Following your reply to Svein that there are several ways to send Ecat SSM power to the grid, while the customer and certified experts must assume responsibility for the inverter, authorization and grid connection, I would like to reduce our proposal to one very specific Ecat-side technical question.
As a concrete example, consider the Fronius Primo GEN24 6.0 Plus smart inverter.
It is a 6 kW, single-phase 230 VAC inverter with two independent MPPT inputs. Its rated-power MPPT voltage range is approximately 230–480 VDC, with a nominal DC voltage of 400 V.
Assuming the certified 100 W Ecat module has the 12 VDC output previously discussed, a possible 6 kW Ecat configuration would be:
30 × 100 W Ecat modules in series
= approximately 360 VDC
= 3 kW
= approximately 8.3 A
→ MPPT input 1
and
30 × 100 W Ecat modules in series
= approximately 360 VDC
= 3 kW
= approximately 8.3 A
→ MPPT input 2
Total Ecat power = 60 × 100 W = 6 kW.
The smart inverter and certified installer would then be entirely responsible for the AC/grid side. I am not suggesting that Leonardo assume responsibility for the inverter or grid connection.
My question concerns only the Ecat SSM architecture:
**Could Leonardo configure a 6 kW Ecat SSM system as two electrically independent 3 kW DC strings, each consisting of thirty 100 W modules in series and providing approximately 360 VDC at 8.3 A, so that each string could be presented independently to one MPPT input of such an inverter?**
If the exact 30-module series arrangement is not suitable for the Ecat SSM architecture, could Leonardo instead configure the modules to provide two isolated DC outputs having approximately these electrical characteristics?
This would tell us whether the existing certified smart-inverter industry can potentially provide the downstream grid interface while Leonardo supplies only the appropriately configured Ecat DC source.
Regards,
Axil
Dear Andrea,
Your answer that the Ecat is an independent source of electricity whose generated electricity cannot itself be sent to the grid, and that a grid connection requires an additional solution meeting the grid provider’s requirements, together with Axil’s two recent comments, has clarified the issue considerably.
Axil has now proposed a specific architecture:
Ecat DC output → MPPT inputs of an existing certified smart inverter → house + grid
His point is that the smart inverter would perform the grid-interface functions, including current control, grid synchronisation, export limitation and anti-islanding, while the Ecat would remain an independent DC source.
There is also an interesting development in Norway. RME is proposing a simplified connection procedure for small renewable generation, with 6 kW AC for single-phase connections and 11 kW AC for three-phase connections. Importantly, the relevant installed power is defined on the AC side of the inverter. The proposal is specifically intended to make small distributed generation easier to connect to the low-voltage grid.
This makes me wonder whether Axil’s architecture could provide a practical route for a 6 kW Ecat:
Ecat → DC output → certified smart inverter → 230 V house/grid
The Ecat would not itself be connected directly to the grid. The inverter would be the controlled interface between the Ecat and the grid.
The remaining technical question seems therefore to be quite specific:
A: Can the Ecat provide a DC output with voltage and current characteristics that are compatible with the MPPT input of a commercially available certified smart inverter, allowing the inverter to control the power taken from the Ecat while independently controlling the power delivered to the grid?
If the answer is yes, this could potentially allow a 6 kW Ecat to use existing grid-integration technology rather than requiring the Ecat itself to become a grid-forming/grid-following grid interface.
B: Is this technically compatible with the Ecat architecture you are developing?
Regards Svein
Svein:
Thank you for your and of Axil’s suggestions: we take notice of them.
There are many ways to send the Ecat SSM power to the grid, but , as I explained many times, so far we do not want to take any liability about this application. The Clients who want to go this way will have to go through all the complex authorizative and technological issues with the help of certified experts and of the related grid management.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
Since you will make non-SSM Ecats, even if you have SSM E-cats, what advantages do the non-SSM have over the SSM? Can you elaborate?
Thanks.
Sam Wilson:
It will depend from the specific situations: for high power and only for heating purposes the non SSM can be more convenient,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Would an Ecat non-SSM heater unit power a low voltage DC heat pump/air conditioner?
There seems to be a big market for low voltage DC powered air conditioners.
websearch ’12V DC heat pump’ ’24V DC heat pump’
[1:] https://www.amazon.co.uk/12v-mini-split-air-conditioner/s?k=12v%20mini%20split%20air%20conditioner
RV Rooftop 12V 10000 BTU A. Motorhomes, Campers, Campervans, Trucks
[2:] 12V Rooftop Air Conditioner for Truck Tractor Motorhome RV Camper, White
Heat Pump, Cooling Heating Ventilation Air Purification, 2200W Cooling 1000W Heating, Non-Ducted, DC 12V AC Unit
Price, product page
£509.99
[3:] 12V Mini Split Air Conditioner for RV, Truck, and Trailer Cabins – Quiet DC Cooling System for Parking and Sleeping
Price, product page
£186.99
Paul Dodgshun:
No, the non SSM can power only resistive loads, so far,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein,
I have been thinking about your question, and there may be a practical workaround that avoids requiring Leonardo’s partner to develop a special solar-market product.
My July proposal assumed that Leonardo would configure one Ecat system with several DC strings corresponding to the independent MPPT inputs of a smart inverter. That requires cooperation from the manufacturer, and the solar/grid-connected residential market does not presently appear to be the partner’s main priority.
There may be another approach.
Instead of ordering one Ecat containing several externally accessible strings, each independent MPPT input of the smart inverter could potentially be supplied by a separately ordered Ecat system configured for that DC input.
For a four-MPPT inverter, the arrangement would be:
Ecat #1 → MPPT input 1
Ecat #2 → MPPT input 2
Ecat #3 → MPPT input 3
Ecat #4 → MPPT input 4
The number of Ecat systems would therefore be selected according to the number of independent MPPT channels actually required—one, two, three or up to four in this example.
The important requirement when ordering each Ecat would be to specify a DC output voltage and current range compatible with one MPPT input of the selected inverter. Leonardo could determine internally how its individual 100-W modules should be interconnected to provide that output. The customer would not need access to the internal diode/module connections.
This is an important distinction. We would not be asking Leonardo’s partner to enter the solar-inverter business or design a new grid interface. We would only be asking Leonardo to supply an Ecat DC source having electrical output characteristics compatible with a specified inverter DC input.
The existing certified smart inverter would remain responsible for the grid functions—synchronization, AC current control, export limiting, anti-islanding and the other requirements imposed by the utility.
There is still one technical question that has to be answered before saying this will work: Is the Ecat DC output compatible with the way the selected inverter controls its MPPT input?
That needs confirmation from Leonardo and comparison with the inverter manufacturer’s DC-input specifications.
If the answer is yes, however, this could provide the workaround:
Do not ask the partner to manufacture a special multi-string solar Ecat. Instead, order one appropriately configured Ecat DC source for each independent MPPT input that will be used.
That would preserve the smart-inverter solution I proposed in July while working within the Ecat products Leonardo is prepared to supply.
Regards,
Axil
Dear Svein,
Your question points to an important limitation in the solution I proposed in July.
Technically, I believe the smart-inverter approach remains valid. My proposal was to configure the individual Ecat DC modules into high-voltage series strings, with multiple strings feeding the independent DC/MPPT inputs of an existing smart inverter.
The inverter would then control the current taken from those strings and the current delivered to the AC system and grid. This is essentially using the mature solar-inverter infrastructure rather than asking the Ecat itself to perform all of the grid-interface functions.
However, there is a commercial constraint that presently makes this solution impractical.
The string configuration cannot reasonably be created by the homeowner. It requires cooperation from Leonardo and its manufacturing partner so that the Ecat modules are supplied with the correct series-string arrangement, voltage range, protection, isolation and DC interfaces required by commercial smart inverters.
At present, that does not appear to be their market priority.
As I understand the current product direction, the partner is concentrating on the large commercial market, particularly systems in approximately the 1 MW class for grid/utility applications. The SSM product addresses a different market: customers wanting an independent source of electricity without depending upon the grid.
My proposal addresses a third market:
the existing solar/grid-connected distributed-energy market.
In that architecture:
Ecat DC modules → high-voltage DC strings → smart/hybrid inverter → home + grid
I believe this is technically attractive because the solar industry has already developed much of the expensive infrastructure required for grid interconnection: certified smart inverters, MPPT inputs, anti-islanding, export limiting, metering, protection and utility interconnection procedures.
But unless Leonardo and its partner decide to support this market by providing an appropriate DC string interface, the customer cannot implement the complete solution simply by purchasing an existing Ecat product and an inverter.
Therefore, my answer to your question today is somewhat different from the purely technical answer I gave in July:
Yes, a smart inverter can perform the grid-side power/current control. But no, I do not presently see a practical way for a customer to implement my complete multi-string solution without cooperation from Leonardo and its manufacturing partner.
The missing technology is not principally the inverter. The missing piece is an Ecat product configuration designed to interface with the existing solar-inverter ecosystem.
If that market eventually becomes a priority, I still think the architecture I proposed in July is a practical way to address it.
Regards,
Axil
Good morning, Dr. Rossi. It has been a while since we last spoke, but I continue to follow your forum.
I am following the development of the Ecat SSM with confidence.
You mentioned reaching 3.5 sigma; when do you expect to reach 5?
Will you be giving a presentation once the 5-sigma level is reached?
Or are you still fine-tuning the details of the non-SSM version, meaning the other one can wait?
Keep up the good work.
Gavino Mamia:
Thank you for your kind support.
We should reach Sigma 5 within November 2026,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Axil
Your comments from July are becoming particularly relevant now.
On July 30 you wrote that the current NGU design was not grid compatible, and that the solution was to use existing smart inverters with microprocessor control. You also described a smart hybrid inverter architecture that could provide both household power and a controlled grid connection.
Andrea Rossi has now stated explicitly that the Ecat is an independent source of electricity whose generated electricity cannot itself be sent to the grid. He says that establishing a grid connection requires the agreement of the grid provider and compliance with its technological requirements and authorizations.
This raises the question I would like you to address:
How would your smart-inverter solution allow an Ecat to operate in parallel with the grid without a battery, while ensuring that the grid can never impose a load on the Ecat greater than the power the Ecat is capable of delivering?
In other words, where exactly is the power/current limitation implemented?
If the Ecat can continuously produce, for example, 6 kW, while the grid can accept virtually any amount of power, how does the smart inverter ensure that the Ecat remains a controlled 0–6 kW power source rather than becoming an electrical source exposed to an unrestricted grid need for more power?
You suggested in July that existing smart inverters could solve the grid-compatibility problem.
Can you explain how?
Regards Svein
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Does the non-SSM 12VDC 100W unit require:
1. A battery, internal or external, for proper operation?
2. Or other external device for proper operation?
3. Or external control or intervention for proper operation?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
As I said, the details and the instructions of the Ecat will be published after the presentation of the product,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
Will the Ecat be manufactured also in the USA and in Europe ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Clorinne
Clorinne:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I would like to suggest a systems-engineering approach that might simplify NGU manufacturing and substantially reduce the cost of SSM systems.
You have stated that the standard NGU module is 100 W and that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is considerably more complex than the non-SSM version.
A 1 MW system based on 100 W modules requires approximately 10,000 NGU modules. Therefore, it seems that the greatest manufacturing advantage would come from making those 10,000 generating modules as simple, identical and inexpensive as possible.
Instead of manufacturing two substantially different NGU versions, could Leonardo concentrate high-speed production on one standardized non-SSM 100 W NGU, and move as much of the additional SSM functionality as possible to a centralized system-level conditioning assembly?
For example, a 10 kW system containing approximately 100 NGUs might have this architecture:
Common regulated 12-VDC operating bus → 100 standard non-SSM NGUs → common output collection bus → centralized energy storage/regulation/conditioning → regulated system output
The centralized assembly would therefore perform two functions. It would provide the required 12-VDC operating power to all of the non-SSM NGUs through a common bus, and it would collect and condition their generated output at the system level.
If the raw output requires energy accumulation and voltage stabilization before it can supply general electrical loads, those common functions might be performed once for the complete system rather than separately inside every NGU.
This could have a major manufacturing advantage. The NGU itself is Leonardo’s specialized technology and would be manufactured in very large quantities. The centralized conditioning equipment could potentially use low-cost, mass-produced, off-the-shelf power-electronics components already available from the solar, EV, battery-storage, industrial-power and inverter industries.
The manufacturing strategy could then become:
One simple standardized NGU manufactured 10,000 times + one centralized system-conditioning architecture
rather than maintaining separate manufacturing requirements for both non-SSM and more complicated SSM NGUs.
The same architecture could scale downward. A 10 kW system would use approximately 100 identical NGUs; larger systems would use more. The conditioning equipment itself could be modular and redundant as power increases, while the basic NGU generating module remains unchanged.
I recognize one important limitation: if some of the additional SSM circuitry must physically operate at each individual NGU to maintain the self-sustaining reaction itself, that function obviously cannot be centralized.
Therefore, my question is:
Has Leonardo separated the SSM functions that absolutely must remain local to each NGU from the common functions—such as the 12-VDC supply, energy accumulation, voltage regulation and output conditioning—that could potentially be performed once at the system level?
If that separation is possible, it could permit Leonardo to concentrate its highest-volume manufacturing on a single simple NGU design, while using comparatively inexpensive conventional power electronics to provide the additional functionality required by the complete system.
In systems-engineering terms, the principle is simple:
Do the specialized function 10,000 times, but do each shareable common function only once.
This might significantly reduce manufacturing cost, simplify high-speed production, reduce inventory and testing requirements, and make both small and large NGU systems easier to manufacture and service.
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
Thank you for your suggestions,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I would like to understand the functional difference between a non-SSM 12VDC 100w unit and a (successful) SSM 12VDC 100W unit. I understand that the non-SSM 12VDC 100W is less expensive than the SSM unit. If this is true, then there may be certain applications where the non-SSM is a better choice.
1. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output dropouts?
2. The output of the non-SSM unit has occasional output voltages above the maximum allowed voltage?
3. The non-SSM must be powered off, then on, before proper operation is restored?
4. The non-SSM must be disconnected from the load, then reconnected, before proper operation is restored?
If #1 is true, what the typical duration of the loss of output power (sub-seconds, seconds, minutes)?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1- no
2- no
3- n.a.
4- n.a.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Thank you for your answer, october 3, 2026 at 8;34 AM. I understand that export to the local grid will have to be carried out in agreement with the grid provider and according to its technological requirements and authorizations.
Since the Ecat is intended for possible grid export in Europe, I assume that its grid interface will have to comply with the applicable European grid-connection requirements, including the RfG requirements for generating units.
Would this also mean that the Ecat’s grid interface is designed to control and limit the active power/current delivered to the grid, so that the grid can never impose a load greater than the Ecat’s available generating capacity?
In other words, can the grid-connected Ecat behave as a controlled power source rather than as a voltage source whose output could be determined by the capacity of the connected grid?
I also understand that ENTSO-E is developing RfG 2.0, with evolving requirements for inverter-based generation, including Grid Forming capability.
Has the Ecat grid interface been designed with this future development in mind?
Regards Svein
Svein:
The Ecat is an independent power source whose generated electricity cannot be sent to the grid. To make such connection is necessary what I already answered in my former answer to yout last comment before this.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Sam Wilson
Even a fridge which works with absorption would be a resistiv load. Also a ceramic hob, solid plate hob.
But not a fridge with compression.
Air conditioner or fan would not work with non-ssm, too. Because they are inductive load.
I find the most advantage and energy saving is non-ssm with infrared heaters. No expensive heat pump, no expensive laborer hours, no heating pipes or leaks. All is simple and cheap.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Is it possible to use a
1. electric fan heater with a switch regulator
2. heater with a electronic regulator
3. infrared heater
4. cooking plate with a digital display
5. induction plate
with the non ssm ecat?
Best regards, Richard
Dr Rossi:
I read all the website http://www.drandrearossi.com
Magnificent
Cheers
Tony
Can we connect any off-the-shelf resistive load to the non-SSM E-Cat? Or does it need to be made specifically for the non-SSM E-Cat?
Thanks.
Sam Wilson:
Any resistive load,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Your recent answers concerning the difference between the non-SSM and SSM E-Cat NGU raise an interesting commercial systems-engineering question.
You have explained that the SSM version costs more because its circuitry is much more complex, while the non-SSM version is limited to resistive loads.
For a large installation, however, a systems company might purchase a large number of the less expensive non-SSM units and connect them to a centralized energy-storage, power-conditioning and voltage-regulation system, followed by a commercial inverter.
There could be two important economies of scale.
First, as the number of non-SSM units increases, independent variations in their outputs could partially average together. Any additional stabilization resulting from operating a large number of units together would further reduce the amount of power conditioning required. Instead of duplicating complex conditioning circuitry at every generating unit, this function could be provided at the system level.
Second, such an architecture could potentially have an availability advantage. A large system containing many relatively simple non-SSM generating units could tolerate individual unit failures while continuing to operate at slightly reduced power. The centralized conditioning equipment could also be designed with industrial redundancy and made independently serviceable. By comparison, adding substantially more complex circuitry to every individual SSM unit creates many more complex assemblies whose failures could affect system availability.
I recognize that actual reliability would have to be established from field failure data; I am describing the potential architectural advantage.
If the price difference between the non-SSM and SSM units is substantial, these cost, power-averaging and availability advantages could allow an independent systems company using your non-SSM units to compete commercially with large installations based upon the per-unit SSM architecture.
Would Leonardo Corporation permit a company purchasing non-SSM E-Cat NGUs to develop and commercially sell such a centralized power-conditioning system, even if that systems-level solution competes with Leonardo’s SSM approach for large installations?
I am asking about Leonardo’s commercial policy for independent system integration, not requesting proprietary information concerning the SSM circuitry.
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
0)The non SSM 100W will output 12VDC.
1) Will there be a SSM (“IF”) version to also output 12VDC?
The difference being?
2) non SSM delivers 100W continuous power?
3) SSM delivers any power up to 100W?
2026-10-03 05:46 Steven Nicholes Karels
1. Will NGU non-SSM 100W 12VDC units be available, even if SSM is successful? A.R. Yes
Thank You
Steve D:
0- wrong
1- yes
2- the module , yes
3- both the modules od SSM and non-SSM have the same power limit of 100 W, so far
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Could you specify what the non-SSM E-Cat requires to operate and power a resistive load?
1) Specifically, what type of electrical connection must be set up upstream of the device for startup?
2) What circuit configuration must be maintained during operation?
3) Would the resistive load be powered even in a circuit configuration connected in series with, for example, a 180-volt DC output?
Answers to these questions would enable theoretical assessments regarding the potential use of a string of non-SSM E-Cats to simulate a photovoltaic input for an MPPT charge controller.
Adequate capacitance—provided by electrolytic capacitors—can act as a filter for the ripple introduced by the charge controller’s operation, effectively converting the system into a pseudo-resistive load; this would allow the setup to serve as a foundation for various applications, such as battery charging or feeding energy into the grid via a certified inverter.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards.
Claudio Varotto:
Thank you for your suggestion.
The description and the maintenance and use instructions of the Ecat will be published in the user manual at the presentation of the product,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi, when do you think that will be possible for you to decide if the presentation will be made with the Ecat SSM, or with the non-SSM ?
Cheers
Julia
Julia:
End of November,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi!
1) Can you estimate by what percentage the SSM version would be more expensive compared to the non-ssm version? Just approximately.
2) Could I also connect a kettle, infrared heater and an electric boiler to the non-SSM version? Does it have standard Europlugs?
Best regards
Urs Z.
Urs Z.:
1. No
2. Any resistive load
3. Yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Still possible to hope that the presentation will be made within February 2026 ?
JPR
Jean Paul Renoir:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi:
IF the SSM works it bears the incipit of the end of a world based on the oil: do you understand the consequenses ?
Anonymous:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Has development and testing of the single 500 W E-Cat NGU diode/module now been successfully completed, so that the 500 W unit can be considered a finished design rather than a prototype still under R&D?
If yes, does the 500 W unit require SSM in order to operate properly, or can it also operate as a non-SSM unit?
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
No, the certified module is only the one with a power of 100 W
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
I received a reply from you that the details regarding AI control will be presented in January, but I have a principle question regarding the export of 120/230 volts, 60/50 Hz, to the local grid:
Is this a situation that can be implemented without the limitation in the capacity of any Ecat, creating an overload that causes the unit to immediately shut down?
This is a concern that comes from the fact that I consider the need in the grid, usually, to be almost infinite.
Regards Svein
Svein:
I am not able to answer. The export to the local grid will have to be done in agreement with the grid provider, following his technological requirements and authorizations,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1. Will NGU non-SSM 100W 12VDC units be available, even if SSM is successful?
2. And the non-SSM units would be less expensive compared to the SSM units?
3. And they would physically smaller than the SSM units?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
1. yes
2. the commercial information will be published at the presentation
3. the datasheet will be published at the presentation
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
There is a downside to every engineering decision.
If I order a 10 kW E-Cat NGU system, I understand that approximately 100 × 100 W NGU units would be involved.
Since you have said that the SSM circuitry is much more complex than the non-SSM circuitry, I would expect a 10 kW system composed of non-SSM units to have a potential long-term reliability advantage simply because there are fewer complex circuits that can fail.
Suppose I do not need SSM. I am willing to supply the non-SSM system continuously from the electrical grid.
Would a grid-powered 10 kW non-SSM NGU system provide the same steady, regulated 220 VAC output as the 10 kW SSM version, suitable for supplying the normal electrical loads of an entire house?
In other words, apart from requiring continuous grid input, would I sacrifice any output performance, stability, or load capability by choosing the simpler non-SSM 10 kW system instead of the SSM version?
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
Answers:
1- no, the non SSM can only power resistive loads
2- same as in 1
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Could the Ecat SSM (IF) make also cooling besides heating ?
Giusy
Giuseppe:
Yes, powering an air conditioner,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Will you be making both SSM (IF…) and non-SSM E-Cats available for sale when the product launches?
Thank you very much,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I assume that a non-SSM NGU diode will cost significantly less than an SSM diode because it does not require the additional hardware necessary to support SSM. Please correct me if this assumption is wrong.
Will Leonardo eventually sell an SSM aggregation made from the lower-cost non-SSM NGU diodes, within the 10 kW limit?
If so, what would be the lowest-power SSM aggregation that a customer could purchase to take advantage of the lower cost of the non-SSM diodes, without having to purchase the full 10 kW system?
For example, could a customer purchase a 5 kW, 6 kW, or 7 kW aggregation of non-SSM diodes that collectively operates stably in SSM?
Axil:
The SSM costs more than the non SSM, because the circuits are much more complex; commercial information will be given at the presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Thank you. Your answer that you presently place a 1 MW limit on an aggregation, based on theoretical considerations, is very interesting.
I would like to clarify my original question.
Assume an aggregation is made from NGU diodes that individually cannot maintain stable SSM.
Have you yet observed, or theoretically estimated, the minimum number of such diodes that must operate together before the aggregation begins to maintain stable SSM?
Separately, does your present 1 MW maximum limit result from an effect that emerges when a very large number of NGU diodes operate together, rather than simply from ordinary engineering limitations?
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
1- yes
2- also
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted:
“Presently we do not have mobility prospects, lest we find serious interest from EV manufacturers,”
Would an ensemble of 100W NGU units, mounted vertically in a parked (stationary) car properly function?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
I am not able to answer,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I understand that large aggregations of E-Cat NGU diodes can achieve stable SSM operation more readily than individual units.
Assuming that such a large system can be assembled from NGU diodes that would not individually maintain stable SSM, have you determined approximately how many non-SSM-stable NGU diodes must operate together before stable SSM first emerges in the aggregate?
In other words, is there an observed threshold number of NGU diodes at which the collection transitions from individually non-stable SSM operation to stable collective SSM operation?
Best regards,
Axil
Axil:
Good question; we are still working on it…presently I’d put a limit on 1 MW, based on theoretical considerations…truth spoken, so far I am not able to answer,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Still positive perspective for the SSM ?
W.S.
Wilhelm Shubert:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Another wonderful interview with Frank today. Thank you. Frank asked the questions I would have asked and then some.
https://youtu.be/zxjB9QunBWQ?si=HReMI3odg0dVUaTU
Your comment that if it was up to you, you make the ‘presentation’ today was encouraging. . Hopefully, the Global Licensee understands the urgency to communicate what has been accomplished ASAP.
Your labeling of the elite behind the legacy energy providers as aristocrats was generous. I can think of some other words! Ordinary people have no idea, and assume the risks are just Hollywood storylines.
Greg Smith:
Presently we do not have mobility prospects, lest we find serious interest from EV manufacturers,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea,
Can you comment on mobility prospects of SSM?
Thanks.
Greg
The Global EVO Hypothesis — A Plain-Language Explanation
I think an important mistake in understanding the EVO is to treat every EVO as an isolated object.
My hypothesis is that many EVOs can become members of one coherent collective. I call this the global EVO aggregation.
An individual EVO may be microscopic, but a large number of EVOs acting coherently could behave as parts of a much larger organized system. The analogy is a permanent magnet: the magnetic effect of the whole object comes from the organized behavior of an enormous number of smaller magnetic constituents. The individual constituents do not have to contain the energy represented by the behavior of the complete system.
How the global aggregation forms
An electrical discharge, laser pulse, cavitation event or similar excitation can produce local EVOs.
In my model, an EVO contains a coherent polariton state. As more EVOs appear, their coherent states can interact. Magnetic coupling is proposed as one mechanism by which their phases could become synchronized.
The proposed progression is therefore:
excitation → individual EVOs → increasing EVO population → magnetic synchronization → coherent EVO collective → global EVO aggregation
This distinction is important:
Producing EVOs is not the same thing as producing a fully developed global EVO aggregation.
The collective requires time to organize.
This may be relevant to George Egely’s pulsed experiments. If the system is pumped again every approximately 2 milliseconds while the proposed collective development takes approximately 6 milliseconds, the next spark arrives before the collective has completed its development. The system may therefore remain in a repeatedly driven, partially developed state.
That interpretation is a hypothesis and can be tested simply by changing the interval between excitation pulses.
Where the energy fits
There are three different things here that should not be confused.
First is the photon or electromagnetic quantum field. I propose that this is the ultimate energy reservoir.
Second is the global BEC/EVO aggregation. This is not the same reservoir. In the hypothesis, each EVO acts as an interface through which energy can enter the physical system, while the global coherent aggregation can accumulate, organize and redistribute that energy.
Third is the ordinary magnetic field produced by the organized collective. Its conventional magnetic-field energy is not the same thing as either the quantum-field reservoir or the total energy stored in the coherent aggregation.
In simple terms:
quantum field → EVO interfaces → global BEC energy store → useful output or interaction with matter
The vacuum/quantum-field source part of this chain remains a hypothesis. Demonstrating excess energy would establish that an additional source is required; another experiment would still be needed to identify that source specifically as the quantum field.
What magnetism does
I do not propose that an ordinary magnetic field of a few tesla contains enough magnetic energy to perform nuclear-scale material transformations.
Instead, magnetism has a different role.
The coherent spin states of the polariton/EVO population are proposed to establish a common magnetic order across the collective. That magnetic organization could synchronize the EVOs and control how the collective interacts with matter.
A common magnetic state does not mean that the magnetic-field strength must be identical everywhere. A permanent magnet provides a useful analogy: it has global magnetic order while its local field varies greatly with position.
The proposed global EVO could similarly have a common magnetic organization together with intense local fields and gradients.
So the proposed role of magnetism is primarily:
synchronization, organization, selection and control — not the ultimate source of the energy.
Element and isotope reconfiguration
This leads to what I think may be one of the most important consequences of the global EVO.
Instead of imagining a single microscopic EVO somehow producing all of the energy required to transform matter, consider material located inside the influence of the entire coherent aggregation.
The global collective could provide the common environment within which nuclear material is reorganized.
I presently divide that proposed process into several depths.
At the shallowest nuclear level, isotope ratios may change while the element remains the same.
At a stronger level, one element may be converted into other elements.
At the deepest proposed level, the original nuclei may temporarily cease behaving as independent nuclei and their nuclear matter may be reorganized collectively before new nuclei form.
This last possibility is highly speculative. It is not necessary to assume it in order to test the earlier levels.
This distinction also means that transmutation does not automatically identify the source of the energy. Nuclear transformation and energy production are separate questions. Nuclear changes could be a consequence of energy supplied to the reaction rather than the primary source supplying the system.
Why nuclear spin may matter
If the collective is magnetically organized, nuclear magnetic properties become particularly interesting.
I have proposed that nuclei with zero nuclear spin may respond differently from nuclei having substantial nuclear spin or magnetic moment. The reported preferential change of U-238 relative to U-235 in the Urutskoev experiments is one candidate observation worth testing in this context.
That does not prove the hypothesis. Many other nuclear properties differ between U-238 and U-235.
The useful experiment is therefore not simply to observe uranium changing. It is to compare isotope pairs under controlled conditions and determine whether reaction susceptibility systematically correlates with nuclear spin and magnetic moment after the other variables are considered.
That turns the idea into a falsifiable prediction.
The domain surrounding the collective
I further propose that a sufficiently developed coherent aggregation creates a common domain encompassing many EVOs.
The domain wall should not be pictured as an impenetrable physical shell. It would be a boundary between the collective coherent state and its surroundings.
Different particles and excitations might interact differently with this boundary. Low-energy light could leave the system while matter and some higher-energy excitations remain within the reaction region long enough to undergo further interaction.
This part of the model is not yet derived from a microscopic theory. Any proposed confinement must eventually specify exactly what field forms the boundary and calculate how particular particles interact with it. It cannot simply assume that inconvenient radiation is trapped.
Why this could explain common transmutation products
This model offers a possible explanation for another observation that interests me: separated reaction sites can reportedly produce similar terminal products.
If each EVO were completely independent, one might expect its final material state to be controlled predominantly by its immediate local environment.
But if many EVOs belong to one coherent aggregation, a common endpoint becomes conceivable:
many local EVOs → one global state → common termination → related final material states.
The strong test is isotope analysis.
Finding the same element by EDS at several sites is interesting but weak evidence because contamination and material transport can produce that result. Finding the same unusual isotope distribution at spatially separated sites, correlated with the same collective episode, would be considerably harder to explain that way.
What happens when the collective terminates
The proposed global state should not necessarily last indefinitely.
When coherence falls below the level needed to maintain the collective, the aggregation would collapse. The common magnetic organization and proposed domain boundary would disappear, and whatever matter-reconfiguration process was occurring would freeze out into its final products.
This gives the model another important distinction:
formation of an EVO, growth of the global aggregation, operation of the collective, and termination of the collective are different stages of the process.
Some apparently contradictory LENR observations may simply come from observing different stages.
The central idea
The entire hypothesis can be reduced to this:
The EVO is proposed to be not merely an isolated microscopic object but a potential member of a much larger coherent system. Many EVOs may synchronize through a common magnetic order and form a global BEC-like aggregation. Individual EVOs are proposed to provide interfaces to an external quantum-field energy reservoir, while the global aggregation stores and organizes the acquired energy. Magnetic coherence organizes and controls the collective rather than supplying its nuclear-scale energy. Matter exposed to this collective may undergo progressively deeper isotope or elemental reconfiguration, with collective termination determining the final products.
There are several unproved arrows in that statement. In particular, quantum-field energy extraction, the formation of the global EVO aggregation, its proposed domain boundary, and its ability to control nuclear reconfiguration remain hypotheses.
That is deliberate. The value of the global EVO hypothesis is not that it labels unexplained observations. Its value will depend on whether these proposed connections produce experiments that distinguish it from ordinary plasma physics, contamination, conventional nuclear reactions, electromagnetic interference and other alternatives.
The most useful tests therefore are not simply “does something anomalous happen?” They are whether changing EVO number, coherence, magnetic organization and the time allowed for global aggregation produces the specific correlated changes in energy output, isotope distributions and material reconfiguration predicted by the model.
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
I remind you of my two closely related and so far unanswered questions raised: September 29, 2026 at 6:44 AM.
Regards Svein
Svein:
The functions of the AI will be disclosed at the presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You have mentioned that the Ecat has an internal AI engineered by your team.
How autonomously can this AI operate to protect and at the same time fully utilize the Ecat’s available capacity, while responding to the user’s needs, electricity export to the grid, and the grid’s own limitations?
In other words, can the internal AI autonomously optimize the Ecat’s operation between these different requirements?
Warm Regards Svein
Svein:
Sorry, forgot to answer…I go to answer right now,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello Dr. Rossi,
A few years ago, I placed a small order for an E-Cat 10W while it was on pre-order.
When my turn comes, will I be contacted with an offer for an E-Cat 100W (or even a larger model), or do I need to place a new pre-order?
How can I ensure I don’t lose my spot on the pre-order list?
Best wishes,
Kind regards
Raffaele
Raffaele Bongo:
You will be contacted and offered a 100 W module,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Thank you for publishing the paper of Bhagirath Joshi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics; I just want the readers of the JoNP to know that the principles introduced by the paper have now been completed in this book, just published by Barnes and Noble: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-deterministic-universe-bhagirath-joshi/
Prof
Prof:
Thank you for the information: I noticed that to find the book with that link is necessary, once in the website of Barnes and Noble, to write name of the author and title of the book in the top line of the home-page of Barnes and Noble,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
DR. ROSSI:
Advice required on where to place a pre-order?
What is going to be available?
GEORGE PRAZAK
GEORGE PRAZAK:
Please fill the form in http://www.ecatorders.com
Warm Regards,
A.R.
”Good morning Dr. Rossi, is the E-Cat’s energy production influenced in any way by the ambient temperature where it is located?”
Franco:
No,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Are you still planning to provide for sale to the general public (assuming SSM works) also a 100W module with 12VDC output, beside the normal version with output 110/230 VAC?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Why a Collective of EVOs Needs a Theory of Shared Magnetic Coherence
Why Shared Magnetic Coherence May Be Required in an EVO Collective
One of the fundamental problems that motivates my EVO model is one of scale.
Experiments associated with EVO phenomena have been reported to produce effects interpreted as substantial transmutation and changes involving unstable isotopes. If these observations are confirmed and EVOs are established as their cause, we have to explain how a microscopic EVO could produce effects requiring such a large amount of energy.
My hypothesis is that a single EVO does not have to supply all of that power by itself.
Instead:
Many EVOs → cooperation between EVOs → coherent EVO collective → access to a much larger collective power resource → large local effects such as transmutation or isotope stabilization.
But this immediately creates another question:
How do physically separated EVOs become a cooperating collective in the first place?
It isn’t sufficient simply to say that they are coherent. There must be a physical mechanism capable of coordinating their states.
This is the motivation for the Theory of Shared Magnetic Coherence.
The first mechanism to investigate does not require any new physics.
If each EVO possesses a real magnetic structure, then it produces electromagnetic fields. Those fields can interact with neighboring EVOs. Ordinary electromagnetic coupling between oscillating systems can produce phase locking and synchronization.
Therefore:
Individual EVO magnetic structures → electromagnetic interaction → phase synchronization → shared magnetic coherence → coherent EVO collective.
The important point is that every step in that synchronization process can be described using established physics: Maxwell electromagnetism, magnetic interactions, nonlinear oscillators, phase locking, and standard phase-response theory.
No new physics is required to explain how the EVO collective could become magnetically coherent.
The latest mathematical review of this model concluded that the electromagnetic synchronization theory is conditionally closed once the required physical response parameters are experimentally determined. The previously unresolved mathematical step between electromagnetic interaction and oscillator phase synchronization has now been explicitly supplied using standard phase-reduction theory.
There is, however, a second and much more important question.
Does shared magnetic coherence permit shared power?
Those two ideas must not be confused.
Magnetic coherence → establishes a physically coupled EVO collective.
Magnetic coherence → does not, by itself, prove collective power sharing.
The hypothesis I want to investigate is that once many EVOs become members of the same coherent collective, the collective may be able to accumulate or access a much larger energy resource than an isolated EVO could access.
The proposed sequence is therefore:
Individual EVOs → magnetic coupling → phase locking → shared magnetic coherence → coherent EVO collective → possible collective power accumulation/access → power available through an individual EVO → large local material effect.
This gives us a physical reason for developing a theory of shared power rather than simply assuming it.
It also establishes an important scientific boundary.
First we determine whether ordinary electromagnetic physics can explain the formation of the coherent EVO collective.
Then we measure how much electromagnetic energy is actually being transferred between its members.
Only after that do we ask whether an individual EVO can produce an effect requiring substantially more energy than can be accounted for by its local input, stored energy, and measured electromagnetic energy transfer.
In plain words:
Local power + measured electromagnetic power + stored energy → predicted available power.
If the observed effect requires no more than that amount, ordinary physics remains sufficient.
If a reproducible energy requirement remains after those contributions and measurement uncertainties have been accounted for, then we have identified the problem that a theory of shared collective power must explain.
This separation is important. We do not need to introduce new physics merely to make the EVOs cooperate.
Established electromagnetic physics may provide the mechanism that organizes the collective.
The deeper question is whether that organized collective can then make its combined power available locally.
That is the reason I believe Shared Magnetic Coherence is important. It provides the conventional physical bridge between a population of microscopic EVOs and the hypothesis of a cooperating collective capable of producing effects far beyond those reasonably attributable to a single isolated EVO.
The experimental chain should therefore be:
Demonstrate an EVO magnetic structure → demonstrate coupling between EVOs → demonstrate phase synchronization → demonstrate shared magnetic coherence → establish the coherent collective → measure ordinary electromagnetic energy transfer → test whether the magnitude of the material effect depends on the coherently participating EVO population → determine whether a collective power mechanism is actually required.
That last step is the critical one.
Shared Magnetic Coherence does not prove shared power. It provides a physically testable mechanism by which separate EVOs could first become the collective that a shared-power theory requires.
One question that has bothered me about EVOs is how a collection of separate EVOs could behave as a single organized system.
If EVOs participate in a collective, it is not enough simply to say that they are “coherent.” Coherence has to be carried by a physical interaction. There must be some mechanism by which one EVO can influence the phase and state of another EVO.
The first mechanism that should be considered is also the most conventional one: electromagnetism.
This does not require new physics.
If an EVO has a real oscillating magnetic structure, its electric and magnetic fields extend beyond the EVO itself. A neighboring EVO with its own magnetic structure will interact with those fields. This is ordinary Maxwell electrodynamics. Coupled oscillators can synchronize through such interactions, just as synchronization occurs in many other physical systems.
This leads to what I call Global Magnetic Coherence.
The idea is that individual EVOs do not have to be identical. They can differ in size, population and field strength. But if their magnetic modes, frequencies, phases and chiral states are sufficiently compatible, electromagnetic coupling can cause them to phase-lock into a collective coherent state.
Mathematically, this can be treated using standard physics. Start with the electromagnetic interaction between the magnetic structures. Then use the standard phase-response theory of weakly coupled nonlinear oscillators. The result is a synchronization model of the same general class used for many coupled oscillating systems.
No new force is required. No instantaneous action at a distance is required. No violation of conservation laws is required.
That is important because it gives us a conventional physical foundation on which to ask the more difficult question.
Could a magnetically coherent EVO collective also share power?
These are not the same proposition.
Magnetic coherence can synchronize the members of a collective without necessarily transporting all of the power subsequently observed at an individual member. In fact, the electromagnetic energy exchanged in producing synchronization must first be counted normally through Maxwell field energy and Poynting flux.
So the logical sequence should be:
individual EVO → real magnetic structure → electromagnetic coupling → phase locking → Global Magnetic Coherence → test for collective power sharing
Only the first part is addressed by the Global Magnetic Coherence Theory.
This distinction is useful because it prevents us from invoking an unknown energy-transfer mechanism merely to explain synchronization. We first exhaust ordinary electromagnetic physics.
It also gives us a reason to develop a separate theory of shared magnetic power within an EVO collective.
If experiments eventually show that EVOs are electromagnetically synchronized, and then show that an individual EVO can draw substantially more power than can be supplied by its measured local input and measured electromagnetic energy arriving from the other members, we would have identified a new experimental problem. We would then need to determine where that additional power comes from and how membership in the coherent collective provides access to it.
But that conclusion cannot be assumed in advance.
The useful point is that the synchronization part of the problem does not presently require new physics. The mathematical treatment we have developed uses Maxwell electromagnetic interaction and standard phase-reduction theory for coupled nonlinear oscillators. In an independent review of the latest formulation, Claude classified that synchronization framework as “conditionally closed given experimentally determined constitutive/response parameters” and specifically found that the previously missing electromagnetic-interaction-to-phase-synchronization mathematical step had been closed.
There remains a major experimental condition: we must demonstrate that the proposed EVO state actually produces the real Maxwell magnetic structure required by the model. That relationship is presently phenomenologically parameterized, not microscopically established.
That is exactly where an experimentally useful theory should leave us.
We now have two questions that can be tested separately:
Can ordinary electromagnetic coupling create shared magnetic coherence among EVOs?
and, only after that,
Does the resulting coherent collective exhibit power sharing that cannot be accounted for by ordinary electromagnetic energy transfer?
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
I thank you for your sufficient answers to my questions about Sigma 5 in connection with Ecat.
I understand very well the importance of having a plan B, IF NOT…..
Regards Svein
Svein:
Correct !
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted:
“The Ecat SSM ( IF… ) is a generator of electricity 110/220 V 60/50 Hz and you can plug to it whatever you want, provided the load does not overcome the Ecat’s power,”
If SSM is realized, will the NGU device be:
1. Grid-Tie compatible?
2. Off Grid compatible?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
The Ecat is independent from the grid. To interconnect with the grid the Ecat is necessary the authorization of the grid provider and the connections must be done by expert and specifically certified contractors approved by the grid provider, because errors in this job could be lethally dangerous, and must be done with all the authorizations necessary in the specific situations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
Has either ecat, SSM or non-SSM, progressed, in terms of output and reliability, to the point that it can meet some or all of Leonardo Corp’s own power requirements? Thanks.
Richard
Richard:
The non-SSM yes; the SSM IF…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea!
What COP, approximately, is it for the simpler E-cat to resistive resistance, such as house heating and hot water?
Best regards
Nils Fryklund
Nils Fryklund:
This information will be disclosed at the presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr Rossi.
1)Are you currently building ECATs for your partner’s internal use?
2) If yes, is this essentially continuous production on an early production line, or 2)B smaller lots, not continuous production?
3) If yes, are they non-SSM, SSM, or both?
Thanks, DrLG
DrLG:
I am not authorized to give information related to our Partner,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Do you think that politics could be important for the success of the Ecat ?
Arnoldo
Arnoldo:
I do not think so; by the way, we do not have politic connections,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Now that you have stated that the SSM has reached a Sigma level between 3.5 and 4, I have one question:
To reach Sigma 5, does the present Ecat core mainly require further measurements and accumulated operating time, or do you expect that changes to the core design will be necessary?
I am asking because these two paths could obviously have very different implications for the time required to reach Sigma 5.
Warm Regards Svein
Svein:
The algorythm is too complex to answer; we count on achieving Sigma 5 within this year,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Has your SSM unit obtained the necessary certification ?
Thank you if you can answer,
Arnab Saha
Arnab Saha:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
During the development and testing of the E-Cat NGU, have you experienced any significant electrical or electromagnetic interference (EMI) affecting nearby electronic equipment, instrumentation, communications, or control circuits?
Also, has the current NGU product completed certification or safety testing by UL (Underwriters Laboratories), or another recognized independent certification laboratory? If so, can you say which certification or standard applies?
Thank you for considering these questions.
Best regards,
Axil
Axil:
1- no
2- yes
3- this information will be given at the presentation of the product
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Your answer to my previous question is suggestive of the Ecat non SSM providing different voltage outputs. Is it possible that the Ecat can easily substitute the mains drive to an existing resistive heating element of a boiler/ heater taking into consideration the 120V and 240V types in use? The question is principally about existing heating element compatibility. Not to be overlooked is the integration of power source, thermostat regulation and fan where applicable.
Thank You
Steve D:
The Ecat SSM ( IF… ) is a generator of electricity 110/220 V 60/50 Hz and you can plug to it whatever you want, provided the load does not overcome the Ecat’s power,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
can you tell us which sigma level did you reach right now:
a) less than 3
b) between 3 and 3.5
c) between 3.5 and 4
d) between 4 and 4.5
e) more than 4.5
Thanks a lot
Riccardo
Rick 57:
c
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi!
My proposal for intermediate conversion of the ECat cell’s primary electricity into hydrogen was based on the following considerations.
To obtain a high electrical output, it is necessary to combine the power of a large number of elementary ECat sources.
If the power of a basic ECat cell is 100 W, then, for example, to obtain an electrical output of 10 kW or 100 kW, 100 and 1000 cells, respectively, would be required. This significantly complicates and increases the cost of the DC-DC or DC-AC converter system and its control.
This does not solve the problem of storing electrical energy, for example, in electric vehicles and in many real-world systems. Furthermore, an energy storage system will inevitably be needed for the initial start-up of the ECat, as well as for repeated start-ups and shutdowns during domestic use. Obviously, an energy storage system is also needed for SSM operation.
Adding an electrical energy storage system in the form of lithium batteries to a system, such as a car or a high-power consumer, would add tens or hundreds of kilograms and complex electronics.
However, it is possible to combine the generation and storage of ECat’s output electrical energy by intermediately converting the primary electricity from the ECat cell into hydrogen. This would eliminate the need for a complex electrical power summing system with inverters, a complex battery system, and so on.
It is also important to note that electrolysis places virtually no special requirements on the quality of ECat’s electricity.
Since the hydrogen fuel cell produces pure H2O as its output, ECat will clearly be a desirable energy source for many countries where the need for clean water is urgent.
Sincerely,
Yury
Yury E.:
Thank you for the suggestion and the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Will the Ecat be usable also to heat apartments ?
Alex:
Yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
The home page of http://www.drandrearossi.com is very important, the rest of it is very interesting,
Casey
Casey:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
To the readers of JoNP,
Several of us have expressed a wish to see the Ecat used in mobile applications.
The Ecat is apparently still a somewhat delicate instrument which, for the time being, may be best suited to remain stationary — for example in a home.
But this is hardly a limitation when we consider the size of the potential stationary market.
There must be more than one billion homes in the world. At a price of approximately $4,000 for a 1 kW Ecat, this represents a potential market of at least $4 to $10 trillion.
After that comes industry, which may be better served when larger Ecat units than the 100 W module are available.
Homes connected to an electricity network already have an ideal energy storage and security infrastructure available to them, provided the Ecat and the grid are integrated intelligently.
This is why I tend to agree with Andrea Rossi that, at the present stage, mobile Ecat applications should be developed together with the industries that will use them.
Rossi already has enough to deal with in developing the primary market — a potential more than $4 trillion residential market.
The Ecat does not appear to lack potential customers. The immediate challenge is to establish the production capacity required to serve them.
And I believe that close cooperation with electricity network companies will be essential.
As for hydrogen, the infrastructure is not something that would have to be invented from scratch. ISO 19880-1 already provides requirements and guidance for hydrogen fuelling stations, including on-site hydrogen production by water electrolysis, hydrogen storage, compression and dispensing.
This makes the possibility of using a stationary non-SSM Ecat as a continuous hydrogen producer worth considering.
Warm Regards Svein
Dear Andrea Rossi,
If SSM issues are resolved, is there still a tilt limitation with NGU reactors?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Yes, the Ecat must stay in upside and stable position, inside a room,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi
Is there a variation in Ecat non SSM electrical output specifications offered to heavy industry to that offered to the domestic market? Or there is no difference?
Thank You
Steve D:
Depends on the specific situations,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I have been trying to understand some of the responses provided lately:
1. You mentioned “IF we will confirm the SSM”, it would be possible to power electric
motors like those powering electric trains.
2. Then you said it would be theoretically possible to power land vehicles only in collaboration
with the manufacturer of the vehicles.
It was previously revealed: “The Ecat will have to be put indoor, seat with the top and the bottom in correct position, upon a flat and horizontal basement, with no tilts and/or vibrations”.
Have the tilt and vibration limitations been overcome, or will that have to be resolved by the vehicle manufacturers? If resolved that is an amazing advancement since the Latina test.
With much respect,
Brokeeper
Brokeeper:
The problem of vibrations in an EV is not difficult to be resolved; in the test of Latina there was a perfectly flat racetrack and the vibrations were not an issue; the problems are much more complex and must be resolved in collaboration with the manufacterers interested to the Ecat,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=568-39aOZkw
Birefringence as a Possible Test of EVO Magnetism
Birefringence may provide a useful way to investigate whether an EVO produces a real magnetic field.
Birefringence occurs when light passing through a region behaves differently depending on its polarization. There are many ordinary causes of this effect, including stress in materials, plasma, electric fields, magnetic effects, surface structure and optical anisotropy. Therefore, observing birefringence by itself does not prove anything unusual about an EVO or the vacuum.
The interesting possibility arises when birefringence is combined with independent magnetic and optical measurements.
In the Vacuum Reaction model, an EVO is proposed to contain an exciton-polariton condensate. Polariton condensates can possess an organized collective spin state. My hypothesis is that when many polaritons—and potentially multiple EVOs—act coherently, their collective spin organization may be connected with the production of a real magnetic field.
That last connection is important because it has not yet been demonstrated. The effective magnetic fields used in polariton physics are not automatically the same thing as an ordinary magnetic field that can be measured outside the condensate.
This gives us a straightforward experiment.
Measure the magnetic field around an EVO while simultaneously measuring its optical emission and polarization. At the same time, pass a separate polarized probe beam through or close to the region surrounding the EVO and look for changes in the polarization of that light.
The electrical current producing the spark must also be measured at exactly the same time.
This is important because every spark produces an ordinary magnetic field. We are not interested merely in detecting the magnetic field of the spark.
The interesting result would be a magnetic effect that behaves differently from the spark current—for example, the spark ends but the magnetic signal continues for some measurable period.
If a birefringence signal also continues during that period and rises and falls with the independently measured magnetic field, the observation becomes considerably more interesting.
This also provides an important warning about interpreting birefringence.
Conventional physics predicts that an extremely strong magnetic field can alter the optical properties of the vacuum itself. However, this effect is extraordinarily small at ordinary laboratory magnetic-field strengths. Therefore, easily visible birefringence around an EVO should not immediately be identified as vacuum birefringence.
Material stress, plasma, electric fields, deposited material, surface changes and ordinary magneto-optical effects would first have to be eliminated.
This consideration also applies to the polarization-sensitive tracks reported in some EVO and strange-radiation experiments. A permanent track that becomes visible through a polarizer demonstrates that the material has acquired polarization-sensitive optical properties. It does not by itself demonstrate that the EVO produced vacuum birefringence while making the track.
The stronger experiment is therefore to make several measurements at the same time:
spark current, magnetic field, EVO light, EVO polarization, and birefringence of an independent probe beam.
Then watch the timing.
Does the magnetic field disappear when the spark ends?
Does it continue while the EVO remains active?
Does the birefringence appear and disappear with the magnetic field?
Does the polarization of the EVO change with the magnetic response?
And when the EVO apparently becomes dormant, do these effects disappear and then return when another spark reactivates it?
If these independent measurements repeatedly move together, while ordinary electrical, plasma and material explanations are controlled, we would have substantially stronger evidence that the EVO is associated with a real magnetic phenomenon.
This is why I think birefringence should be treated as a diagnostic rather than proof. Combined with direct magnetic measurements, it could help determine whether the proposed collective spin state of an EVO has a measurable magnetic effect on the surrounding region.
Axil:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
LENR comment
https://x.com/drxwilhelm/status/2101076413210107989/video/1?s=46
I’m pretty sure he’s talking about old friend Dennis Bushnell at Langley who was a big believer in Andrea Rossi’s work – NASA Langley scientists verified it.
I’m not aware of a way to blow up a city with cold fusion, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Humanity IS ready for E-Cat!!
I’ve always felt the opposition to your work was primarily based on its disruptive potential – especially as it relates to the petro dollar.
Greg:
Thank you for your kins support and for the link, although the Rcat does no more belong to the LENR family, albeit I conserve much respect for them,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
The tam-tam against you is trying to disparage the work you are doing with the Ecat: aren’t you worried ?
Anonymous:
B.S.: a bunch of rats trying to flat down the Mount Everest with their bytes ( or bits ? )
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I am not quite finished with my questions regarding Sigma 5.
I fully understand that you do not want to disclose the algorithm you have developed.
However, since you have now stated that the non-SSM is ready for the Global Presentation, I would like to ask two questions:
1. Sigma 5
Does this mean that the simpler version of the ZIAE core used in the non-SSM has already reached Sigma 5?
I would appreciate confirmation of this, if you can provide it.
2. Price difference between non-SSM and SSM
Since simpler solutions are normally less complex and less costly than more complex ones, are there plans to offer the non-SSM at a lower price than the SSM?
This would seem to be a natural consequence of the lower complexity, if the production cost is correspondingly lower.
Warm Regards Svein
Svein:
1. yes
2. information about the prices will be disclosed at the presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@ 2026-09-23 10:28 Yury E.
A byproduct of producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water is oxygen: 2H2O => 2H2 + O2
so two volumes of hydrogen for one volume of oxygen at matching pressure and temperature.
If you allow electrolysis at high pressure, then you would need to keep an exact matching pressure of oxygen and carefully prevent excursions into the explosive regime caused by gas leakage across the electrolysis chamber[1:]. It is a very dangerous thing to do. I witnessed the after effects of high pressure air and a compressor lubricating oil explosion. Two sailors died and a panel on the ship’s hull plating was blown out.
[1:] https://pubs.rsc.org/cp/article-abstract/20/23/15746/597858/Explosion-limits-of-hydrogen-oxygen-mixtures-from?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Paul Dodgshun:
Thank you for the information
Warm Regards,
A.R.
A ZAEI statement that will be added to the Vacuum Reaction paper revision based on the AI CLAUDE’S recommendation as follows:
Zitterbewegung-Like Dynamics as a Possible Driver of Dynamical Casimir Effects in an EVO
A useful addition to the Vacuum Reaction model concerns Zitterbewegung-like (ZB-like) dynamics in a proposed polariton condensate.
Zitterbewegung-like behavior is known in engineered BEC and polariton systems and results from coherent coupled-state dynamics. Therefore, if an EVO contains a coherent polariton condensate, ZB-like oscillation could provide an experimentally testable dynamical feature of that state.
Importantly, vibration by itself would not prove Zitterbewegung, a BEC, or an EVO. Identification would require the observed frequency, polarization/spin behavior, dispersion, and phase relationships to agree with an appropriate ZB model.
Possible connection to the Dynamical Casimir Effect (DCE)
If a polariton condensate undergoes coherent oscillation, that motion could periodically change its optical properties, such as effective refractive index, dielectric response, polarization, or light-matter coupling.
In plain-text mathematical notation:
q(t) = q0 + delta-q * cos(Omega_ZB * t)
where q could represent:
q = n_eff, epsilon_eff, coupling g, polarization P, etc.
If these changes are sufficiently rapid, the electromagnetic modes associated with the condensate become time dependent. Established dynamical-Casimir/parametric physics then provides a possible conventional mechanism for producing real photons through Bogoliubov mode mixing.
The proposed sequence is:
Polariton BEC*
-> ZB-like coherent oscillation*
-> periodic change of optical/EM properties
-> time-dependent electromagnetic mode structure
-> Bogoliubov/parametric mode mixing
-> possible real photon production
The asterisks indicate steps that remain proposed for the EVO rather than experimentally established properties of an EVO.
A particularly interesting condition would occur near parametric resonance:
Omega_ZB ~ 2 * omega_C
where Omega_ZB is the condensate’s oscillation frequency and omega_C is a relevant electromagnetic-mode frequency.
For parametric photon-pair production, a more general relationship would be:
omega_1 + omega_2 ~ Omega_ZB
Thus the radiation provides a direct experimental test. Instead of merely asking whether an EVO emits unusual radiation, one could measure the EVO oscillation frequency and simultaneously measure the radiation spectrum.
If the process is genuinely parametric/DCE-like, one should search for photon pairs satisfying:
omega_1 + omega_2 ~ Omega_ZB
together with the photon-pair correlations or squeezing characteristic of parametric production.
Proposed experimental gate: G_ZB-DCE
Measure the candidate EVO oscillation frequency, Omega_ZB.
Determine whether the oscillation is associated with polarization, refractive-index, dielectric, or coupling modulation.
Measure the emitted radiation spectrum simultaneously.
Test whether omega_1 + omega_2 ~ Omega_ZB.
Search for correlated/squeezed photon pairs.
Compare the observations against ordinary dipole/multipole radiation from an oscillating charge or polarization distribution.
Important evidence firewall
Observed vibration -> DOES NOT by itself establish Zitterbewegung.
Zitterbewegung -> DOES NOT by itself establish a polariton BEC.
Zitterbewegung or DCE-like photon production -> DOES NOT establish extraction of energy from the vacuum.
Under conventional dynamical-Casimir/parametric physics, the energy of the generated photons is supplied by the physical process producing the modulation. Therefore the conventional energy ledger remains:
energy lost by pump/condensate = emitted radiation energy + other transferred energy + losses
A Vacuum Reaction energy contribution would require a reproducible residual after the pump, condensate, stored electromagnetic energy, and other conventional energy sources had been quantitatively accounted for.
Relation to Unruh radiation
Unruh radiation should not be required for this mechanism. Applying the ordinary Unruh-temperature equation directly to the acceleration of an oscillating condensate would require a properly defined accelerated detector and quantum field. That correspondence has not been demonstrated for an EVO.
The Dynamical Casimir route is therefore the stronger connection:
coherent polariton condensate*
-> ZB-like dynamics*
-> time-dependent dispersion/optical properties
-> parametric/Bogoliubov mode mixing
-> correlated photon production?
Implication for the Vacuum Reaction
Zitterbewegung does not establish that the vacuum has been modified. Its significance is more specific: it provides a possible physical mechanism by which a coherent polariton condensate could dynamically modulate its electromagnetic mode environment.
This supplies a testable intermediate mechanism between the proposed condensate and the DVI/DCE portion of the Vacuum Reaction framework without requiring new physics at that intermediate step.
The remaining Vacuum Reaction question is separate:
Does this dynamically modified electromagnetic state merely redistribute pump/condensate energy according to established parametric physics, or is there experimentally reproducible evidence for an additional energy contribution after the conventional energy ledger has been closed?
Axil:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi!
There is another way to operate an ECat in SSM mode. This involves producing hydrogen using an electrolyzer powered by the ECat’s electricity.
In this case, the quality requirements for the electricity generated by the ECat can be minimal (output voltage instability, surges, fluctuations, etc.). An unstable voltage of 1.5 – 5 V is sufficient.
The hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer is stored in a high-pressure cylinder. This method does not require a compressor, as the hydrogen pressure can reach high values during electrolysis.
Next, the hydrogen is converted into electricity of virtually any power using a fuel cell. This technology is standard and well-developed.
The efficiency of this conversion is 60-80%. Since the hydrogen fuel cell and electrolyzer are mutually reversible devices, a single combined fuel cell is sufficient.
Sincerely,
Yury
Yury E.:
Thank you for the suggestion, but I don’t see the sense of this application: the SSM (IF…), makes already electricity ready to be sent to a load, with a COP = x/0 with x>0; why couple it with a device that has <
Dear Andrea,
I realized that it was not appropriate to compare the Ecat with batteries, which are essentially energy storage devices.
I have therefore asked AI to compare the Ecat with the same amount of electricity produced by coal power, one of the most widely used non-weather-dependent forms of conventional power generation.
I have also included the environmental disadvantage of the coal alternative by adding an illustrative cost for capturing and permanently storing the corresponding CO₂ through CCS, a technology that is now being implemented in real industrial projects.
My calculations are based on the Ecat SSM, which I hope will reach the market within the coming months, and on the currently assumed performance and capacity figures for the SSM. These figures are, of course, subject to independent verification.
Here is the result:
3 kW Ecat — 100,000 operating hours
Continuous output: 3 kW
Operating period: 100,000 hours = 11.4 years
Total electricity produced: 300,000 kWh
Assumed Ecat cost: $4,000/kW
Ecat purchase cost: $12,000
Assigned energy-security/resilience value: $1,000/kW
Security value: −$3,000
Net Ecat cost after security value: $9,000
For my own household, which currently consumes approximately 30,000 kWh per year, the 11.4-year period corresponds to approximately 342,000 kWh of household electricity consumption — before adding any electricity consumption for an electric car.
My house is currently heated primarily by an air-to-water heat pump. When outdoor temperatures fall below approximately −5°C, I supplement the heating with wood burning in the fireplace, as the heat pump’s efficiency and heating capacity decrease at low outdoor temperatures, while the electricity demand of my house is increasing.
Thus, 300,000 kWh from a 3 kW Ecat would cover most of my present household electricity consumption over the full 11.4-year operating period.
Alternative — same 300,000 kWh from coal power
Electricity required: 300,000 kWh
Assumed electricity cost: $0.30/kWh
Electricity cost: $90,000
Estimated coal requirement: ~110–120 tonnes
Estimated emissions: ~250 tonnes CO₂e
Illustrative CCS cost: ~$30,000
Total alternative cost: ~$120,000
Net economic benefit
$120,000 − $9,000 = ~$111,000 Spread over 11.4 years: ~$9,700 per year or approximately: ~$810 per month:
Potential additional grid benefit
I have not assigned a dollar value to the possible grid benefits.
A distributed Ecat operating where electricity is consumed could potentially reduce:
electricity transported through the grid
transmission and distribution losses
loading of transformers and cables
local bottlenecks
the need for some future grid reinforcement.
These potential benefits would therefore come in addition to the $111,000 calculated above.
The calculation has been performed using established reference data from published energy and CCS sources, together with the explicit Ecat assumptions stated above. The Ecat-specific assumptions remain subject to independent verification.
There is also a broader perspective that I find particularly interesting.
By becoming a user who is also a producer of energy, I would not only be looking after my own household economy and energy security. I would also become a small part of a potentially much larger solution — contributing to the reduction of dependence on centralized generation, reducing the amount of electricity that needs to pass through the grid, and potentially reducing some of the environmental and infrastructure challenges associated with conventional power generation.
In other words:
The energy user becomes the producer.
And the producer can become part of the solution to some of today’s major energy and infrastructure challenges.
The purpose of the calculation is simply to compare the economic and environmental implications of producing the same 300,000 kWh by two fundamentally different methods.
Warm Regards Svein
Svein:
Thank youfor your AI reference,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
You have explained that Sigma 5 is a rigorous probabilistic calculation of the possibility of error.
Could you explain, in general terms, how you statistically determine that the SSM core has reached Sigma 5?
For example, is the Sigma 5 result calculated from the number of tested cores, the accumulated operating time, the number of observed errors, or a combination of these factors?
I am not asking for any restricted information about the testing procedure, only how the statistical basis for reaching the Sigma 5 level is established.
Warm Regards Svein
Svein:
It is a combination of the factors you cited along an algorythm we made,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
When we can get to know that SSM is coming or not ?
In which month ?
Arnab Saha
Arnab Saha:
As soon as we reach the Sigma 5 level, which we still didn’t, therefore I am not able so far to give you a date,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
If the SSM version may not yet be ready for the Global Presentation, I assume that you will continue your efforts to achieve SSM and present it later?
Warm Regards Svein
Svein:
Of course yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi
Thanks for the confirmation that a non-SSM ECAT can operate using a portable gas generator to supply the power to the ECAT.
Follow up question, can a non-SSM ECAT use power from a non-SSM ECAT that gets its power from a portable gas generator?
Regards, DrLG
DrLG:
No,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Is it correct
1. the non SSM version needs a stable power source like
a. Grid?
b. Battery + Solar?
c. Generator?
2. In case the power source is ok then NGU can charge
a. Batteries?
b. Run any application?
Please clarify. Thank You.
Best regards, Richard
Richard:
1- a: yes; b: optional; c: yes
2- a: no; b: yes, but only with assemblies above 1 MW with the application of the ORC ( Organic Rankine cycle ) or with Carnot Cycle, depending on the power and the situation
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Dr. Rossi
1)Can the non-SSM ECAT operate using A/C power supplied by a portable gas generator?
2) if not, is this because it needs a better earth ground than a portable gas generator?
3)if not, if you supply an earth ground to the gas generator, such as a rod in the ground, will it work then?
4) if it can us such a generator, then maybe mobile use is possible for non-SSM version if the unit (say a train) has an auxiliary source of power to run the ECAT? Or, for the train, the rails might provide any needed ground.
Regards, DrLG
DrLG:
1- yes
4- depends on the situation
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Your responded with
“Thank you for your support: IF we will confirm the SSM, that will be possible,”
to a question of applying NGY SSM technology to electric trains.
1. Does your response mean that, if SSM issues are resolved, then NGU technology may be used for transportation applications?
2. Trains
3. Buses
4. Commercial trucks
5. Automobiles?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Theoretically yes, but only in collaboration with the manufacturer of the vehicles,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I wonder if there is a future in which trains could run on electric motors powered by the E-Cat system—electric trains that do NOT REQUIRE overhead power lines.
Lucio Martini:
Thank you for your support: IF we will confirm the SSM, that will be possible,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Since you have explained that the SSM and non-SSM Ecat are based on the same fundamental ZIAE principle, this is my observation.
If the SSM may not be ready to be presented at the Global Presentation, but the non-SSM Ecat is presented with the necessary independent third-party verification, I would still consider this to represent the achievement of the great majority of your fundamental objectives.
An Ecat operating at this level could already have enormous significance for its users.
It would be somewhat like the Fiat 500: perhaps not the most advanced version of the technology, but a simple and practical product capable of changing nearly everybodys everyday life.
We all know that more advanced and exclusive versions normally come after the fundamental principle has been successfully established.
For this reason, I see the non-SSM Ecat not as a failure to achieve the ultimate goal, but as a potentially very important first generation of the technology.
I think this mat be a very positive outcom of the Global Presentation.
Warm regards Svein
Svein:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Interesting; and which are the differences between the SSM Ecat and the non-SSM Ecat that allow the SSM to power itself and a load at the same time ?
Augustin
Augustin:
So far, this information is restricted,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Since you have now defined the Ecat process as ZIAE (Zitterbewegung Induced Anomalous Energy), I have a question concerning the relationship between the SSM and the non-SSM Ecat.
Is the underlying ZIAE energy-production principle essentially the same in the SSM and non-SSM versions, with the difference mainly being in how the process is sustained or controlled?
Or is the ZIAE process itself fundamentally different between the two versions?
Regards Svein
Svein:
ZIAE is a theoretical cathegory that includes all the Ecats; SSM differs from the not-SSM substantially, but both belong to the cathegory of energy generators exploiting the ZIAE, like, for example, the engine of a Formula 1 racing car and the engine of a Fiat 500 are completely different things, but both belong to the cathegory of internal combustion engines,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
do you still find the time to play tennis ?
Arina
Arina:
Yes, thanks to God, I can regularly practice tennis, swim, skiing, jogging, quintessential for my brain and body necessary for my job,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Thank you for clarifying. I had assumed that the mechanisms discussed in your published theory paper were open for scientific discussion, and I did not realize that my question touched on information you regard as restricted.
Axil:
No problem,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Since you have stated that the Ecat has an internal AI developed by your team, and that regular production is targeted for January/February 2027, I have been thinking about one aspect that may be important at this stage of the design.
The Ecat should not merely be designed to connect to the grid. It should be designed to cooperate with the grid.
If the Ecat is to become a widely distributed energy source, its internal control system could make this a major advantage. The AI could potentially regulate production according to local consumption and grid conditions, reduce output when local voltage or network capacity requires it, and manage surplus production intelligently.
For a modular Ecat, for example 6 kW consisting of 60 × 100 W modules, fine-grained control could potentially provide very precise regulation.
I also think the control architecture should consider the complete sequence of grid-connected operation, safe separation during a grid failure, GFM operation during islanding where supported, synchronization when the grid returns, and then a return to GFL operation.
The basic safety functions should remain local, without depending on continuous communication with an external system. An app could give the prouser a clear view of production, consumption, grid exchange and the reason for any production limitation, while the AI handles the technical control automatically.
Electricity price could be an additional optimization signal, but always below safety, grid stability and local energy balance.
This would give the Ecat a very different role from an uncontrolled generator:
Distributed energy production could become distributed grid regulation.
For me, the key message to network companies would therefore be:
Don’t ask the grid to adapt to Ecat. Design Ecat to cooperate with the grid.
I believe this would be very valuable to demonstrate at the Global Presentation.
Regards Svein
Svein:
Thank you for your suggestion,
Warm Regards.
A.R.
Dear Dr. Rossi,
Do you have, at this time, a target date, or target date range, for the beginning of regular production of Ecat units for distribution to those of us who have placed pre-orders and, if so, can you tell us what that date is? Thanks.
Richard
Richard:
In January/February 2027 the deliveries will be started,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
To add to my previous question as follows:
Your theory identifies the coherent electron cluster as a highly ordered, very-low-entropy state formed under nonequilibrium conditions, and you have also discussed Casimir effects and localized vacuum polarization. Thermodynamically, however, sustained energy transfer requires that the relevant difference between states be continuously maintained. Does the low-entropy coherent electron state in your model create a Casimir-like difference between the local electromagnetic vacuum state and the surrounding vacuum? If so, what mechanism continuously regenerates that difference as energy is transferred, preventing the system from simply reaching equilibrium?
Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
Answers:
1- this information is restricted
2- I cannot answer in positive or in negative
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
I have a thermodynamic question concerning the source of the energy produced by the E-Cat.
Sustained energy transfer requires a difference between two physical states. When the relevant states reach equilibrium, there can be no continuing net flow of energy between them.
The Casimir effect provides an established example involving the electromagnetic vacuum. By changing the electromagnetic boundary conditions, a Casimir structure creates a local field state whose energy differs from that of the surrounding reference state. However, the conventional Casimir effect does not provide continuous power, because once the system reaches its lower-energy configuration the process stops, and restoring the original configuration requires energy.
Therefore, if the E-Cat obtains sustained energy from the vacuum, there would appear to be an additional thermodynamic requirement: some physical process must continuously create or maintain a difference between the local vacuum state associated with the coherent electron system and the surrounding vacuum state.
What physical mechanism in your theory creates and continuously maintains this nonequilibrium condition while power is being produced?
Is a Casimir-like or dynamical-Casimir-like modification of the electromagnetic vacuum involved, and if so, what continually maintains or regenerates that difference so that energy flow can continue?
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
Answers:
1- no
2- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
SSM: still in good standing ?
Giacomo:
Yes, so far,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi:
Now you have described the Ecat reaction as ZIAE (Zitterbewegung Induced Anomalous Energy), do you no longer think it is ZPE (Zero-Point Energy)?
Regards, Ecat Enthusiast
Ecat Enthusiast:
You must make a distinction: the ZPE ( Zero Point Energy) is an energy that is exploited by the ZIAE (Zitterbewegung Induced Anomalous Energy), that is the process to exploit it,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
“A Ragone plot (/rəˈɡoʊniː/ rə-GOH-nee)[1] is a plot used for comparing the energy density of various energy-storing devices. On such a chart the values of specific energy (in W·h/kg) are plotted versus specific power (in W/kg). Both axes are logarithmic, which allows comparing performance of very different devices. Ragone plots can reveal information about gravimetric energy density, but do not convey details about volumetric energy density.
The Ragone plot was first used to compare performance of batteries.[2] However, it is suitable for comparing any energy-storage devices,[3] as well as energy devices such as engines, gas turbines, and fuel cells.[4] The plot is named after David V. Ragone.[3]
Conceptually, the vertical axis describes how much energy is available per unit mass, while the horizontal axis shows how quickly that energy can be delivered, otherwise known as power per unit mass. A point in a Ragone plot represents a particular energy device or technology.
The amount of time (in hours) that a device can operate at its rated power is given by the ratio of its specific energy (Y-axis) to its specific power (X-axis). This relationship holds regardless of the device’s overall size, as a larger device would have proportional increases in both energy and power. Consequently, the iso curves (constant operating time) in a Ragone plot are straight lines.”
Steven Nicholes Karels,
Thank you for the insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Here is the conceptual design and hardware cost for a plug-in eCat NGU 1200W system.
eCat NGU 100W units, 12 units required. Assume to cost a total of $4,800USD.
1 Namunanee ABS enclosure, 19.7″ x 15.7″ x 7.9″, available on Amazon, $146USD
1 Hoymiles HMS-1800-4T-NA microinverter, from CSA Solar USA, $352USD
The Hoymiles is 96% efficient so the power output is 1,152W of continuous Grid power.
4 each 4-foot 10AWG MC4 extension cable, cut in half to connect 3 100W NGU units (series) to one input of the Hoymiles microinverter.
1 Hoymiles AC extension cable, $26USD
1 NEMA 14-50 Plug, $16USD
Total hardware cost is about $5,500USD, break-even period is about 30 months.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels,
The price of the Ecat modules will be communicated at the presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
An experimental test has been proposed to Sveinn Ólafsson that may be relevant to an idea you raised in your 2019 paper concerning coherent, low-entropy electron clusters and the possible formation of a BEC-like coherent state.
Sveinn’s recent experiments have detected X-ray emission from activated hydrogen/Rydberg-matter systems. I have proposed testing whether these X-rays originate directly at the activation region or whether a propagating intermediate state travels away from the source and subsequently produces energetic electrons and bremsstrahlung X-rays.
The proposed test would use synchronized X-ray detectors at different distances. A second version would place an absorber between detectors to determine whether the measured downstream signal is ordinary transmitted radiation or whether an intermediate state can traverse matter and subsequently generate new X-rays.
In my model, that intermediate state is an EVO and coherence is central to its formation. Importantly, the experiment does not require accepting that interpretation: both a positive and a null result would discriminate between mechanisms.
It occurred to me that this experiment may provide an independent way of investigating the coherence/BEC direction that you first discussed in your 2019 theoretical work.
If Sveinn decides to perform the experiment, I will let you know the result, whether positive or negative.
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
@Richard
To avoid the anomalous comparison A.R. points out, I will not continue with calculations comparing an energy-producing system with an energy-storage system.
I will simply point to what I see as the fundamental issue:
The world today has an energy shortage — not a battery shortage.
My conclusion is therefore:
Larger battery: ties up more capital in storage and does not produce any additional energy.
Larger Ecat: increases your continuous energy production, providing coverage of your own consumption and the possibility of earning revenue from surplus electricity exported to the grid.
Small batteries still have important functions for short-term storage, peak loads, UPS, motor starting and island operation.
But when the primary system produces energy continuously, I see little reason to make investments in battery banks.
Increase continuous energy production — avoid unnecessary battery use.
I would like to see this in EVs too!
With energetic regards Svein
Dr Rossi,
Still up with the SSM energy revolution ?
Jan
Jan:
So far, yes,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hello DR Rossi
Interesting Article.
https://share.google/Jv7nnOib261ZUTNIX
Regards
Sam
Sam:
Thank you for the link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
Thank you for your prompt answer: Zitterbewegung Induced Anomalous Energy: I like it !
Genevieve
Genevieve:
Thank you for your support,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr Rossi,
two questions:
1- do you still include the Ecat technology in the cathegory of LENR ?
2- if not, how would you define it ?
Best
Genevieve
Genevieve:
1- no
2- Zitterbewegung Induced Anomalous Energy: ZIAE
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Svein and Richard:
Anyway, it is “anomalous” to make a comparision of energy density between a generator that makes energy with overunit COP (or, in case of SSM, COP infinite) with a generator that makes energy with COP underunit,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Richard,
I think the comparison becomes particularly interesting when we include operating time.
Rossi has previously indicated a volumetric power density of approximately 0.27 kW/litre for a 1 kW Ecat assembly. This means that 1 kW would occupy approximately:
1 / 0.27 ≈ 3.7 litres. If that 1 kW Ecat operates for 100,000 hours, it produces: 100,000 h × 1 kW = 100,000 kWh
over its operating life.
A modern lithium-ion battery may have a volumetric energy density of approximately 0.5 kWh/litre at cell level.
A battery occupying the same 3.7 litres would therefore store approximately: 3.7 litres × 0.5 kWh/litre = 1.85 kWh
per full charge.
Now the difference becomes quite striking:
100,000 kWh / 1.85 kWh ≈ 54,000
So, using these figures, the same volume of Ecat would produce approximately 54,000 times as much energy over 100,000 operating hours as the battery could store in a single full charge.
Of course, the battery can be recharged many times, so this is not a comparison of total lifetime energy throughput of the two technologies.
It is a comparison between the Ecat’s lifetime energy production and the battery’s energy storage capacity per charge.
And that is precisely why I think an Ecat should not primarily be compared with a battery as though they were competing forms of energy storage.
The battery stores energy. The Ecat produces energy.
The final comparison will of course depend on the actual Ecat dimensions and specifications that Rossi has said will be provided in the datasheet at the presentation.
Regards Svein
Dr Rossi,
On July 18, 2026 you responded to my inquiry about the power output of an ecat, as compared to that of a lithium battery, by stating that, “A battery has a much higher weight per W than the Ecat.” How does the power output of an ecat compare to that of a lithium battery in terms of its physical volume? Thanks for addressing this question.
Richard
Richard:
The datasheet with weight and dimensions of the Ecat will be disclosed at the presentation,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dr. Rossi,
I have been studying the evolution of your paper E-Cat SK and Long Range Particle Interactions, including the 2019 version and your later theoretical development.
Your recent explanation that the theory originated from phenomenological experimentation and was subsequently corroborated through discussions with theoretical physicists, principally Prof. Giorgio Vassallo, helped me understand that evolution better.
There is one aspect of your earlier theory that particularly interests me.
In the 2019 paper you proposed that, under special conditions, electron clusters could form a Bose-Einstein condensate, producing a highly ordered coherent state. Your later work gives greater theoretical development to Zitterbewegung, electromagnetic potentials and coherent charge structures.
I am investigating the earlier coherence/BEC direction in my own theoretical work. My starting point is established physics of coherent dispersive systems, particularly exciton-polariton condensates, including phase coherence, Bogoliubov excitations, anomalous dispersion and experimentally observed negative-effective-mass regimes. I explicitly separate these established phenomena from the speculative extension of my model.
The possibility I am examining is that coherence may do more than organize the system. The condensate itself may provide an important motive mechanism:
coherent condensate → anomalous dispersion / negative-effective-mass dynamics → proposed modification of the local quantum electromagnetic field → proposed disequilibrium → energy transfer.
The latter connections are hypotheses requiring experimental verification. What interests me is that the starting point appears compatible with the BEC/coherence possibility you identified in your 2019 paper.
Therefore, rather than asking whether one theoretical approach is correct and another is not, I would be very interested in understanding the causal hierarchy in your present theory:
Do you presently regard BEC/phase coherence as a necessary cause of the E-Cat reaction, as a consequence of the Zitterbewegung/electromagnetic mechanism, or as one component of a mechanism in which both are necessary?
Any clarification of how you presently understand the relationship among BEC, coherence, Zitterbewegung and energy production would be very useful to my research.
Warm Regards,
Axil
Axil:
Thank you for your insight.
The order of magnitute of the Entropy ratio between the non-coherent and the coherent configurations of the electrons is approximately equal to the number N of the interacting particles, and the coherent clusters status perhaps might be described like a single wave function analogous to the BEC condensate, which does not mean that there is a relationship between the Ecat process and the BEC status,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I recall that in the past, your licensee was said to be working on large E-cat NGU plants — as large as 1 Megawatt. Will a large plant be reported on at the upcoming January 2027 announcement?
TJKaminski:
Not yet,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
1: Will the Ecat built in inverter provide some or all of these capabilities listed below or will it be a basic GFL(grid following inverter) inverter?
2: Will the Ecat inverter, if GFM, be a GFM Type 1 or 2 or 3 or or 4 as defined below?
3: Will the Ecat built-in inverter be easily upgradeable as grid demanded capabilities inevitably change in the future?
4: If the Ecat built-in inverter experiences a fault, will the whole Ecat have to be returned to an Ecat factory or will a plug-in replacement for just the inverter be possible?
5: If a plug-in replacement inverter is possible, will the Ecat’s DC power be available from the same socket?
UNIFI Specifications for Grid-forming Inverter-based Resources Version 3
https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy26osti/98381.pdf
Table 1. GFM Performance Tiers
1 Voltage magnitude support
2 Voltage angle/frequency support & minimum islanding capability
3 Voltage angle/frequency support & extended islanding capability GFM BESS
4 Black start GFM BESS with black star
2 Performance Requirements for GFM IBRs …7
2.1 Performance Requirements for Operation Within Normal Grid Operating Conditions . 9
2.1.1 Autonomously Support the Grid …… 9
2.1.2 Dispatchability of Power Output …… 9
2.1.3 Provide Positive Damping of Voltage and Frequency Oscillations … 10
2.1.4 Active and Reactive Power Sharing Across Generation Resources … 11
2.1.5 Operation in Grids With Low System Strength ….. 11
2.1.6 Operation Under System Unbalance …… 12
2.2 Performance Requirements for Operation Outside Normal Conditions … 13
2.2.1 Voltage Ride-Through Capability …… 13
2.2.2 Performance During Symmetrical Faults … 14
2.2.3 Performance During Asymmetrical Faults ….. 14
2.2.4 Abnormal Frequency Ride-Through Capability….. 14
2.2.5 Performance in Response to Frequency Deviations …… 15
2.2.6 Performance During Phase Jumps and Voltage Steps…. 15
3 Additional GFM Capabilities ……. 16
3.1 Intentional Islanding ….. 16
3.1.1 General ……. 16
3.1.2 Requirements…… 16
3.1.3 Comments …… 16
3.2 Black Start and System Restoration …… 16
3.2.1 General ……. 16
3.2.2 Requirements…… 17
3.2.3 Comments …… 17
3.3 Regulating Voltage Harmonics …… 18
3.3.1 Requirements…… 18
3.4 Communications Between System Operator and IBR Plant ….. 18
3.4.1 Requirements…… 18
3.5 Secondary Voltage and Frequency Signal Response …. 18
3.5.1 Requirements…… 18
Paul Dodgshun:
All the information necessary to our clients for their connections will be given at the delivery.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven
Yes. Your calculation illustrates the point very well. But my Cuba PS was intended to raise a somewhat different question.
Before the present fuel crisis, Cuba was producing roughly 20.7 TWh of electricity per year, corresponding to an average electrical output of about 2.36 GW. Around 84% of its electricity generation was oil-based.
Today, according to your figure, the average electrical output is only about 1.78 GW — and Cuba is suffering from severe fuel shortages and widespread blackouts.
Now imagine that, instead of depending almost entirely on fuel being delivered to centralized power plants, Cuba had gradually installed one 1.2 kW Ecat in each of its 3.8 million homes.
That would represent: 3.8 million × 1.2 kW = 4.56 GW
In other words, the theoretical Ecat capacity in the homes would be almost twice the average electricity production Cuba had before the present crisis, and more than 2.5 times the average output you mention today.
That is what I was thinking about with the Cuba example.
The important question is not simply how many gigawatts the Ecats could produce.
It is what happens to the vulnerability of a country when the fuel does not have to be imported to a central power station because the energy is produced where it is consumed.
Cuba might then have had a very different situation today.
And that, I think, is one of the most interesting consequences of the idea: The user becomes the producer.
Regards Svein
Svein,
Cuba:
Number of residential dwellings: 3.8 Million
Average total electrical power is 1,780 MW.
3.8 Million time 1,200W = 4.56 MW.
Steven Nicholes karels:
Thank you for the information,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
The lodestar of my Vacuum Reaction paper is a simple one:
**The proposed reaction should be explainable, as far as possible, by physics that already exists.**
The objective is not to invent new particles, new forces, or new physical processes whenever an unfamiliar observation appears. It is to determine whether established physics—sometimes drawn from areas that are not commonly considered together—can account for the individual stages of the proposed process.
A major revision of the paper is now underway for precisely this reason. Some concepts used in earlier versions are being replaced by more rigorous descriptions based on existing physics.
One example is what I previously called the **“reverse photon.”** I no longer regard that terminology as sufficiently precise. Physics already contains the relevant mathematical structures: anomalous dispersion, Bogoliubov mode mixing, negative-frequency and negative-norm partner modes, and related effects in coherent quantum systems. These phenomena are established. What is *not* established is my proposed connection between such behavior in the coherent system and a modification of the local quantum electromagnetic vacuum state. That connection must therefore remain an explicit hypothesis to be tested, rather than being disguised by introducing a new kind of photon.
A second important correction concerns energy.
Earlier descriptions could be read as proposing that the vacuum itself is an unlimited reservoir from which energy is simply extracted. That is not the formulation I now use.
**Energy conservation must remain intact.**
If excess energy enters the observable system, there must be a corresponding energy source. The revised Vacuum Reaction framework therefore distinguishes three things:
**Energy reservoir -> coupling/transfer mechanism -> observable system**
The identity of any additional reservoir is presently unresolved. The vacuum should not simply be declared to be that reservoir.
Instead, the hypothesis being investigated is whether a coherent quantum state can provide an interface through which energy is transferred from an underlying reservoir into the local electromagnetic system. In the present revision I call the proposed interface the **Dispersion-Vacuum Interface (DVI)**.
The energy accounting can be stated simply:
**Change in source energy + change in coherent-state energy + change in field energy + output energy + losses = 0.**
If experiment cannot identify the source term, that is an unresolved scientific problem. It is not permission to violate conservation of energy.
This principle now governs the entire revision.
For every stage of the Vacuum Reaction I am asking four questions:
**What was observed?**
**What existing physics can explain it?**
**Where does an unproven connection remain?**
**What experiment can determine whether that connection is real?**
As an additional check on this methodology, I have been submitting sections of the revised framework to Claude for adversarial scientific review. In its latest foundation review, Claude found no physics errors in the first three phases and rated the foundation **“B — FOUNDATION ACCEPTED FOR CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SPECIFIC CORRECTIONS.”** The corrections were incorporated into the development architecture.
One principle from that review is particularly important: established physics on either side of an unresolved connection does not establish the connection itself. The unknown connection must remain identified as unknown until experiment resolves it.
The result may ultimately show that some proposed connections are wrong. That is acceptable. A useful theory must make it possible to eliminate its own incorrect components.
The goal of the Vacuum Reaction framework is therefore not to construct exotic physics around unexplained observations.
It is almost the opposite:
**Use established physics wherever established physics is sufficient, isolate the smallest remaining unknowns, and design experiments capable of deciding whether those unknown connections actually exist.**
Axil:
Thank you for your insight,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven,
You always encourage us to think. So I thought I would continue a little along your line of thinking and asked AI for some figures for Europe, using your US model.
Here are the figures that came out:
The EU has approximately 200 million private households.
If each household had one 1.2 kW Plug-in Ecat NGU:
200 million × 1.2 kW = 240 GW
With continuous production, this corresponds to approximately:
2,100 TWh of electricity per year.
The EU’s total annual electricity consumption is approximately 2,460 TWh.
That means that 200 million small 1.2 kW units would, in theory, represent about 86% of the EU’s present total electricity consumption.
I find that gives a rather different perspective from the US example.
In your US model, the result is roughly one third of total electricity generation. In Europe, the corresponding calculation is even more striking, because Europe’s approximately 200 million households represent an enormous number of potential small production points compared with the total European power system.
And then I started thinking about something else:
Europe has just experienced how vulnerable an energy system can become when a large part of its gas supply suddenly disappears or becomes uncertain. What would be the significance if millions of European households could simultaneously produce their own continuous baseload power?
Then we are no longer talking only about a new energy source.
We are beginning to talk about a completely different structure for the energy system.
And perhaps this is exactly what lies behind your question:
Thoughts?
PS. And then another thought occurred to me:
Imagine if every home in Cuba today had its own 1.2 kW Ecat?
Regards Svein
Dear Andrea Rossi
Is the E-Cat also AI controlled?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/09/260903064215.htm
JJ:
The link you sent refers to the hot fusion plants and has nothing to do with the Ecat. The control system of the Ecat has its internal A.I. that has been engineered by us.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea
Another possible participant for the Global Presentation could be ENTSO-E — the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity.
ENTSO-E represents Europe’s transmission system operators and works with the development, security and long-term planning of the European power system. A verified Ecat technology producing electricity locally could have significant implications for future generation, transmission, distribution and grid investment.
A possible contact is:
Alba Glass
Communications Manager
Policy, Communication and Stakeholder Management
ENTSO-E
Email: alba.glass@entsoe.eu
Tel.: +32 471 29 79 13
General ENTSO-E contact: info@entsoe.eu
I think ENTSO-E could provide an interesting European power-system perspective at the Global Presentation.
Regards Svein
Svein:
Thank you for the suggestion,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The average total electrical consumption is the USA is 480,000 MW (Google)
The are about 150 million residential units and offices in the USA.
If each one had one 1,200W Plug-in eCat NGU unit, the total power generation would be 180,000 MW or roughly a third of the total generated power. This could all be added without charges to the USA Grid infrastructure.
Thoughts?
Steven Nicholes Karels:
Depends on the specific situations,
Warm Regards,
A.R.